2 presidential terms, 41 states: the ratification of the 22nd Amendment

California’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• On April 15, 1947, California’s legislature voted to ratify 22nd Amendment, becoming the 10th state to do so. 
• Both chambers of the California legislature overwhelmingly voted in favor of the amendment, but not without procedural hurdles.
• Before the final Senate vote, Senator Thomas F. Keating, who changed his party affiliation to the Republican party in 1941, after previously serving as a Democrat, moved to have the Joint Resolution ratifying the 22nd Amendment re-referred back to the Committee on Rules. The Senate rejected the move by a 25 to 11 vote.
• The Joint Resolution ultimately passed 45 to 30 in the House and, with bipartisan support, 27 to 10 in the Senate.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in California:

• The body of case law from California referencing the 22nd Amendment confirms the limitation on a president being elected to a third term.
• In the 2025 case, Doe v. Trump, plaintiff filed litigation seeking that President Trump be removed from office, alleging that Trump is ineligible to be President under the 22nd Amendment because he has been elected three times (2016, 2020, and 2024) based on President Trump’s repeated, but debunked claims that he won the 2020 election. The court found that the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order in the case was procedurally deficient, but also noted that plaintiff “fail[ed] to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claims” because President Trump had been elected only twice, rather than three times, and was thus, not in violation of the 22nd Amendment. No.2:25-CV-2086-TLN-JDP (July 29, 2025) 
  • The Court explained: “The Twenty-Second Amendment states that ‘[n]o person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.’ U.S. Const. amend. XXII. Trump was elected President in 2016 and 2024. In 2020, Joe Biden was elected President. While plaintiff alleges that Trump was elected President in 2020, that allegation is patently false and plaintiff’s claim that Trump is violating the Twenty-Second Amendment is unlikely to succeed on the merits.”
• In Grinols v. Electoral College, the Ninth Circuit specifically recognized that President Obama was, under the 22nd Amendment, “constitutionally precluded from serving as President again” following his second term based on having twice won election. 622 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2015)
  • The Grinols decision arose from an appeal of one of several “birther” cases challenging President Obama’s candidacy in 2008 and 2012 based on the erroneous claim that he was born in Kenya. Courts, including in Grinols,  “uniformly … rejected” these complaints in pre-election and post-election suits.
  • The Court went so far as to “moot” the substantive issues of the case on 22nd Amendment grounds alone. 
• In Legislature v. Eu, the California Supreme Court upheld specific term limitations for state legislators and various state constitutional officers. 54 Cal. 3d 492, 520 (1991)
  • In making its findings, the Court cited the “[c]onstitutional restrictions circumscribing the ability of incumbents to succeed themselves,” including those that “exist in the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States with regard to the Presidency.” 
  • The Court continued, stating that “[t]he universal authority is that restriction upon the succession of incumbents serves a rational public policy and that, while restrictions may deny qualified men an opportunity to serve, as a general rule the over-all health of the body politic is enhanced by limitations on continuous tenure.”

• In Bates v. Jones, the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s Proposition 140, which amended the California constitution to set term limits for state legislators and certain state officers. 131 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1997)
  • The plaintiff, Tom Bates, was a former California assemblyman who argued that lifetime term limits violate the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, as voters are barred from electing certain candidates. 
  • The Ninth Circuit held that term limits are not a Constitutional violation, and instead, “promote democracy by opening up the political process and restoring competitive elections.”
• In San Bernardino Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Monell, a ballot measure, Measure K, sought to place a one-term limit on members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. 91 Cal. App. 5th 1248, 1266, 1268 (2023)
  • Ruling in line with state and Circuit precedent, the Court upheld Measure K’s term limit. In justifying its decision, the Court cited the 22nd Amendment and the “substantial reasons for limiting the right of incumbents to succeed themselves … includ[ing] [t]he power of incumbent officeholders to develop networks of patronage and attendant capacities to deliver favorably disposed voters to the polls, fears of an entrenched political machine which could effectively foreclose access to the political process, and the belief that regularly disrupting those ‘machines’ would stimulate criticism within political parties’ and insure a meaningful, adversary, and competitive election.” (internal quotations omitted)
  • In this case, among others, the California court applied the Supreme Court’s Anderson-Burdick balancing test to validate term limits that are “generally applicable, even-handed, politically neutral, and … protect the reliability and integrity of the election process.” See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) 

Read the PDF here.

Colorado’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• On April 12, 1947, Colorado became the ninth of 41 state legislatures to vote to ratify the 22nd Amendment.
• The joint resolution was passed in the House by a vote of 42 to 18 (with 2 absent/excused/abstained).
• Five Republican members of the House spearheaded ratification efforts. Namely, Representatives Herring, Miller, Steele, and Blake introduced the resolution under House Speaker William Albion Carlson’s leadership who approved the resolution to send the amendment to the Governor. 
• In the Senate the joint resolution was approved by a vote of 24 to 7 (with 4 absent/excused/abstained).
• At the time of the ratification, the Colorado House was composed of 44 Republicans and 18 Democrats and the Colorado Senate was composed of 27 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Colorado:

• Colorado case law confirms that the 22nd Amendment prevents a president from a third election and is the type of constitutional qualification that could be challenged under Colorado’s ballot challenge procedures outlined in Section 1-1-113.
• In 2023’s Anderson v. Griswold, the Colorado Supreme Court held in a 4-3 decision that Donald Trump’s incitement of the January 6th insurrection constitutionally disqualified him to serve as president and barred him from the Republican primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In so doing, the Court also rejected the Colorado Republican State Coordinating Committee’s (CRSCC) argument that Colorado policing constitutional eligibility requirements for presidential primary candidates, including the 22nd Amendment’s prohibition on an individual being elected president more than twice, violated the party’s First Amendment rights. 543 P.3d 283 (Colo. 2023)
• The Court’s majority explained: “Taken to its logical end, CRSCC’s position is that it has a First Amendment right to deem any person to be a ‘bona fide candidate’ pursuant to their party rules, § 1-4-1204(1)(b), and subsequently mandate that individual’s placement on the presidential ballot, without regard to that candidate’s age, residency, citizenship, see U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, or even whether the candidate has already served two terms as President, see id. at amend. XXII (‘No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. …’). We disagree with this position.”
  • Even the dissenters conceded that Colorado’s statutes allow for a 22nd Amendment challenge. In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Boatright explained that “a qualification challenge under … the Twenty-Second Amendment lends itself to section 1-1-113’s procedures” as term limit qualifications are “characteristically objective, discernible facts” just as age and birthplace. 
  • In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Samour similarly included the 22nd Amendment in his discussion of other, straightforward qualification clauses that are distinct from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. 
  • Justice Samour writes: “This list can fairly be expanded to include Article II, Section One, Clause Five, and perhaps also Section One of the Twenty-Second  Amendment. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5 (laying out three presidential eligibility requirements related to birth (‘natural born Citizen’), age (‘thirty five  Years’), and residency (‘fourteen Years a Resident’), which are similar to those specified in Art. I, § 2, cl. 2); U.S. Const. Amend. XXII, § 1 (using the same “No person shall” language found in Art. I, § 2, cl. 2 and specifying a two-term limit for the presidency).
  • On appeal, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Colorado Supreme Court, holding that Congress, not states, may disqualify persons from holding federal office or from being federal candidates under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The per curiam decision did not address or refute the Colorado Supreme Court’s stance on the 22nd Amendment. See Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100, 110 (2024)

Read the PDF here.

Illinois’ consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Illinois legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 3, 1947, becoming the 7th state to do so.
• The Illinois Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 25 “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the President” on April 2, 1947, by a vote of 35 to 10.
• The Illinois House passed the Senate’s resolution to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 3, 1947, by a bipartisan vote of 82 to 50.
• At the time of the amendment’s ratification, both chambers of the Illinois legislature were controlled by Republicans: in the Senate there were 38 Republicans and 13 Democrats and in the House there were 88 Republicans and 65 Democrats.
• Representative Clinton Searle, a Republican, said in support of the amendment, “The late Franklin D. Roosevelt overrode the unwritten law of our land. We want to reestablish that law so that some future demagog [sic] can’t use burocratic [sic] controls to establish a dictatorship and political dynasty.”
• Illinois legislators opposed to the 22nd Amendment defended President Roosevelt and “argued that the voters should have unlimited latitude in voting for a chief executive.” Senator Roland Libonati, a Democrat, “argued that future emergencies could arise and that the individual voter shouldn’t be restricted in his choice of a President.” These arguments were ultimately rejected by the Illinois legislature, as both chambers approved the Amendment by significant margins.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Illinois:

• There is scant case law in Illinois interpreting the 22nd Amendment, but it was recognized as among the body of the Constitution’s amendments related to “electoral procedures” for public office.
• In Anderson v. Schneider, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that due process was violated when the Niles Township Officers Electoral Board disqualified an entire slate of candidates because one of such candidates was ineligible to run for office. In establishing the fundamental right to vote, the court explained: “The importance of the electoral process in American life is demonstrated by the fact that since 1791 no less than eight amendments to the Federal Constitution (amends. XII, XV, XVII, XIX, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI) are concerned with voting rights and electoral procedures.” 365 N.E.2d 900, 902 (1977).

Read the pdf here.

Maine’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Maine’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on March 31, 1947, becoming the first state to do so. 
• The joint resolution to ratify the proposed 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted by the Maine Senate and then passed by the Maine House by a vote of 82 to 7.
• At the time of ratification, a Republican supermajority existed in both chambers of Maine’s legislatures. The Maine House was composed of 126 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 3 representatives with no listed party affiliation. The Maine Senate was composed of 30 Republicans and 3 Democrats.
• During the ratification process, Republican Representative J. Horace McClure said of the process, “I do not think this is hasty legislation. I think we are too late: it should have happened long ago. I do not believe there are many members in this House but have read this and thought it over and know that we should have proposed this long ago.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Maine:

• A December 2023 decision by the Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows found that Donald Trump’s primary petition was invalid based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment barring oath-breaking insurrectionists from holding public office. Another challenger contested Trump’s candidacy under the 22nd Amendment due to Trump’s claims that he won the 2020 election, citing his ineligibility to be elected for a third term. The Secretary found that “as a general matter the Secretary of State has authority to keep unqualified candidates off the primary election ballot” including based on the 22nd Amendment but rejected the challenger’s argument as the claim must be linked to actual election to the presidency, rather than the candidate’s subjective belief.
• Maine’s election laws grant the Secretary of State the authority to “review the accuracy of a candidate’s declaration that they meet the qualifications of the office they seek.” The Secretary is authorized to limit primary ballot access to qualified candidates only. See e.g., Christie v. Bellows, No. AP-23-42, 2023 Me. Super. LEXIS 17, at *30-31 (Dec. 21, 2023) (rejecting a candidate from the primary ballot for the U.S. presidency because he failed to meet the required signature threshold); Carey v. Sec’y of State, No. CV-2022-09, 2022 Me. Super. LEXIS 11, at *2-3 (May 10, 2022) (rejecting a candidate from the primary ballot of a District Attorney election because he failed to certify that his law license was active and that he was a member of a political party)
• While the 22nd Amendment is not explicitly named as one of the qualifications the Secretary must review conformity with, Secretary Bellows’ decision acknowledged that the amendment “plainly still applies.” The decision explained how “[t]he Twenty-Second Amendment provides that ‘[n]o person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” U.S. Const. Amend. XXII, § 1. Secretary Bellows rejected the Petitioner’s challenge, clarifying that “[a]pplication of the term limit turns on whether an individual has actually been elected President twice, not on beliefs or assertions about that fact. Cf. Nader v. Butz, 398 F. Supp. 390, 397 (D.D.C. 1975) (‘Having been elected to [the presidency] twice, [Richard Nixon] is precluded from serving again.’).” 
• The Bellows decision stated explicitly: “Mr. Trump did not win the 2020 election. In fact, there appears to be no dispute between any of the parties that President Biden prevailed over Mr. Trump. Therefore, given that Mr. Trump has only won a single election for President, he is not barred from being elected to the same office again under the Twenty-Second Amendment.” (pg. 15-16)
• Secretary Bellows later withdrew her decision regarding Trump’s disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, but her analysis regarding the applicability of the 22nd Amendment to presidential candidates was undisturbed by the Supreme Court and should remain applicable under Maine law.

Read the pdf here.

Maryland’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Maryland’s state legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on March 14, 1951, becoming the 39th state to do so. 
• Maryland’s ratification of the 22nd Amendment is notable because it was one of five states that ratified the amendment after it crossed the 36 state threshold to become part of the Constitution. 
• At the time of ratification, Maryland also had a Democratic majority in the Senate (18 to 11) and a Democratic supermajority in the House of Delegates (88 to 35).
• The House of Delegates’ Joint Resolution 2, “RATIFYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, LIMITING THE NUMBER OF TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES” was proposed by Republican Delegate Horace P. Whitworth, Jr.
• In legislative hearings before the General Assembly, supporters of the term limit “urged” the chamber to ratify the 22nd Amendment as a measure against “giant executive power” and “Caesarism.” 
• The resolution passed the Maryland House of Delegates by a bipartisan vote of 84 to 27 on February 26, 1951. The vote proceeded despite the fact delegates received word that the amendment had crossed the 36 state threshold to become part of the Constitution and was sent to the Senate for consideration.
• Maryland’s Baltimore Sun reported that the resolution passed “after opponents of ratification [including members of the House of Delegates] had urged that the question of the number of terms for a president be left to the voters of the country.” Democratic Delegate Albert Sklar opined, “Let the people decide that the very same way that they decide all questions–by ballot.” Speaker of the House Delegate John Luber agreed, but as the lopsided vote reflects, this position was overwhelmingly rejected by their colleagues. 
• Following passage by the House of Delegates, the Baltimore Sun noted on February 28, 1951 that “[t]his amendment limits future Presidents of the United States to two terms. It is the statement of the people through their legislatures, that, having tried more than two terms once, they want to foreclose on similar experiments in the future.”
• Democratic Senator Leroy Preston from the Intergovernmental Cooperative Committee reported House Resolution 2 favorably to the full Senate despite the fact that the vote would be “[t]oo late to make a practical difference” as the amendment would already become part of the Constitution.
• The resolution passed the Maryland Senate on a bipartisan basis with a vote of 27 to 0 including Democratic Senate President George Della.
• The Baltimore Sun’s coverage of the Senate’s passage simply explained that the resolution “[r]atifying the constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms a person may be President of the United States to two” as among the “Bills Passed” by the legislature that day.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Maryland:

• There are no relevant cases in Maryland courts that analyze the provisions of the 22nd Amendment.

Read the pdf here.

Michigan’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Michigan’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on March 31, 1947, becoming the second state to do so after Maine ratified the Amendment earlier in the day. 
• The joint resolution to ratify the Amendment passed by overwhelming supermajorities in the legislature. The vote in the Michigan House of Representatives was bipartisan and 69 to 1.
• The Michigan Senate adopted the resolution by a vote of 25 to 0.
• Republican supermajorities in both chambers presided over the Michigan legislature’s effort to ratify the 22nd Amendment. The joint resolution was introduced in the Michigan House by Republican Representative George Gillespie.
• Republicans outnumbered Democrats 96 to 5 in the Michigan House of Representatives and 28 to 4 in the Michigan Senate.
• During the ratification process, Democratic Representative John S. Ptaszkiewicz explained his support for the amendment stating that “[a] two-term limit appeals to me as a good strategy.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Michigan:

• Case law in Michigan highlights both the “unambiguous” and “familiar” public understanding of the 22nd Amendment’s “lifetime” ban on a president being elected to more than two terms in office.
• In Citizens for Legis. Choice v. Miller, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the language of Art. 4, § 54 of the Michigan Constitution was “unambiguous” and “absolute” in imposing a lifetime term limit for state representatives who had already served their maximum allowance. 993 F. Supp. 1041, 1051 n. 14 (E.D. Mich. 1998). The Court noted that “§ 54’s language is almost identical to the Twenty Second Amendment’s limit on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.” The Court also cited a Ninth Circuit decision holding that drafters of a term limit provision “easily could have presented to the voters an unambiguous lifetime-ban provision by simply tracking language of the [22nd Amendment]” (quoting Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d 843, 856 n. 21 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)).
• In Massey v. Sec’y of State, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld a ballot measure to apply term limits to members of the Michigan legislature. The Court analogized state term limits to the 22nd Amendment, stating: “[W]e observe, as did the circuit court, that the term limit with which the average voter is most familiar is the limit on the office of President of the United States. That is a lifetime limit.” 457 Mich. 410, 421 (Mich. 1998)

Read the pdf here.

Missouri’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Missouri voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on May 22, 1947, becoming the 17th state to do so.
• The amendment was introduced to the Missouri State Senate for consideration as Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 by Senator Randle Jasper Smith (R). 
• Senator William Quinn (D) offered a motion to have consideration of ratification delayed until the question could be submitted to “conventions of the people” in line with the 1945 Constitution of Missouri, Article I, Section 4. This motion was rejected.
• The Missouri State Senate voted to ratify the amendment on May 14th, 1947 on a bipartisan vote of 21 to 10 with 3 absences.
• The Missouri House of Representatives then voted to ratify on May 22, 1947 by a vote of 95 to 42 (with 17 abstensions).

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Missouri:

• There are no relevant cases in Missouri courts that analyze the provisions of the 22nd Amendment.

Read the pdf here.

Ohio’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Ohio’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd amendment on April 16, 1947, becoming the 13th state to do so.
• The Columbus Dispatch speculated that Ohio could become one of the first states to ratify the 22nd Amendment through the “simple procedure” of approval by three-fifths of the state House and Senate.
• The joint resolution to ratify the amendment passed in a bipartisan vote in the Ohio House 116 to 11, and the Ohio Senate through a concurrence vote of 26 to 5 with only Republican support.
• The joint resolution was introduced in the House by Representative Paul L. McCormick (R) and in the Senate by Senator David A. Liggitt (R).

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Ohio:

• Ohio case law confirms that the 22nd Amendment bars a president from being elected to a third term in office regardless of whether their two terms were successive or broken up by an intervening election.
• State ex rel Rhodes v. Brown, examined whether Ohio’s constitutional term limits barred Governor James (Jim) Rhodes (R) from seeking a third term after a three year hiatus from serving as Ohio’s Governor from 1963-66 and 1967-71. The Secretary of State, Ted Brown (R), rejected Rhodes’ filing citing Ohio’s Constitutional limitation on holding office for “more than two successive terms.” Rhodes filed suit challenging this rejection, and in a 5-2 vote, the state’s supreme court held that Rhodes was eligible to run for a third term given no language limiting term limits for Governor in Ohio. 34 Ohio St. 2d 101 (1973)
• With respect to the 22nd Amendment, the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged that “the framers of this limitation upon executive tenure were unequivocal in their declaration.” 34 Ohio St. 2d 101, 103-04 (1973)
• The Court noted that the Ohio Constitution’s language was deliberately a “distinct and clear departure” from that of the 22nd Amendment.

• The Ohio Supreme Court explained that while the language of the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment “limits [presidents] to two, four-year terms, during their lifetime” the Ohio Constitution only prohibits gubernatorial candidates from running for more than two terms successively.
• The Court wrote: “Had the people desired to reach the only logical result advocated by respondent, they would certainly have found the words of the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States a compelling model: ‘No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice….’ Yet, in our state, those who sought to confine executive tenure chose the language heretofore discussed. This constituted a distinct and clear departure from that which could have been easily stated if the desired result was to limit persons to two, four-year terms during their lifetime.”

Read the pdf here.

Pennsylvania’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Pennsylvania voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 29, 1947 after majorities in both chambers approved the measure, making it the 15th state to do so. 
• The Joint Resolution passed the Pennsylvania House on April 15, 1947, by a vote of 162 to 35 with 8 representatives not voting. 
• The Joint Resolution passed the Pennsylvania Senate on April 29, 1947, by a vote of 33 to 16.
• The Pennsylvania legislature engaged in spirited debate about the 22nd Amendment. Pennsylvania legislators in support of the Joint Resolution ratifying the 22nd Amendment quoted from the founders and argued the amendment was necessary to prevent elections for life and to promote safety, liberty and representative government.
  • Senator Bertram Frazier, a Republican, described the amendment, stating: “I do not think it is steeped in politics. I do not think it is an attempt to take away from the people the right to act; I think this gives them the right to act.”
  • Senator Weldon Heyburn, a Republican, explained his support for the amendment by quoting from prior presidents. Heyburn quoted President George Washington, who said, “[r]otation in office accords with the representative spirit of our Constitution, and the ideas of safety and liberty entertained by our people.” Heyburn also cited President Grover Cleveland, the first president to serve two non-consecutive terms in office, who said in 1844, “[n]o man ought to seek to disturb the public usage and unwritten law which prescribes that a third term, whether or not consecutive, is dangerous to the Republic.”
  • Senator Heyburn concluded his support of the amendment, stating, “these great Americans were afraid, if any man held power too long, he could build for himself such a strong political organization that he could never be removed from public office as long as he lived…The danger in this sort of thing lies in an office that has great appointive power and the power, if so desired, of perpetuating a person in office almost without any limit.”
• Representative Herbert Sorg, a Republican, described the amendment as giving “legal effect to a long standing tradition, originally established by those who were closest to that Constitutional Convention.” 
• Pennsylvania legislators opposed to the ratification of the 22nd Amendment argued it would infringe on the rights of Americans to pick their president and would be particularly problematic in times of national emergency. Ultimately, these arguments were soundly rejected when the Pennsylvania House and Senate each voted overwhelmingly to ratify the amendment.
  • Senator Burton Tarr, a Democrat, argued the amendment questioned “whether or not we believe our American form of democracy has been a success.” Sen. Tarr argued the amendment suggests “the American people can not be trusted to wholly or wisely decide on the question of their Chief Executive” and claimed “[i]n one hundred and sixty years America has never had a bad president, a president of whom we could say he was dangerous to our form of government.”
  • Senator Carleton Woodring, a Democrat, argued the amendment was “a shame, … a travesty on our democratic principles, … a bad piece of legislation” because it would prevent future generations from exercising “the democratic right to govern themselves,” particularly in the situation of “great national emergency by reason of war, or by reason of internal strife, for one reason or another, or by reason of great economic difficulties.” 
  • Senator Maxwell Rosenfeld, a Democrat, argued that “when the Democratic party is back in power nationally, … there will be at that time another constitutional amendment to do away with this constitutional amendment.” Of course, this prediction never came to fruition as the 22nd Amendment still stands today.

Cases involving 22nd Amendment in Pennsylvania:

• There is scant case law in Pennsylvania interpreting the 22nd Amendment, but in a 1986 decision in City Council of City of Bethlehem v. Marcincin, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that it is within the authority of the Council of the City of Bethlehem to limit terms of incumbent municipal officers, citing the 22nd Amendment as an example of term limits found in federal law. 515 A.2d 1320, 1325 (1986).
• The Court said: “By limiting a mayor to two consecutive terms pursuant to Ordinance 2389, the Council has followed a fair and well-established constraint on the qualification for elective office. Such traditional limitation extends to the highest office in the United States. An incumbent president of the United States is limited to two terms pursuant to the twenty-second amendment to the United States Constitution, supra, which provides, inter alia, that “[n]o person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. …”
• Citing the 22nd Amendment, the Court explained how “[a] limitation upon the terms of office an executive may hold is considered by many to be salutary, in that it encourages a fresh approach and tends to prevent stagnation and/or corruption that may follow an administration that may overstay its productivity.”

Read the pdf here.

Vermont’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Vermont’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 15, 1947, becoming the 12th state to do so.
• The joint resolution to ratify the amendment passed along party lines in the legislature where Republicans held majorities in each chamber.
• The measure was passed in the Vermont House by a vote of 191 to 6, on April 9, 1947.
• Although “[t]hirty-one members of the Legislature listed themselves as Democrats in the Legislative biographies”, a mere six Democrats opposed the measure when it came to a final vote.
• The Vermont Senate approved the measure, J.H.R. 35 “Joint resolution ratifying a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States of America entitled, ‘Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the President,” in a concurrence vote on April 15, 1947. 
• Later that day, the Senate suspended their rules and the adopted joint resolution was messaged back to the House.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Vermont:

• The lone case in Vermont discussing the 22nd Amendment involved a birther challenge to President Obama’s election which the court rejected out of hand, but also noted that Obama could not “seek reelection” to a third term pursuant to the 22nd Amendment.
• In 2013, the Vermont Supreme Court dismissed a Vermont resident’s challenge to President Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 presidential ballot. Paige v. State, 195 Vt. 302 (2013)
• H. Brooke Paige, the Vermont resident, argued that President Obama was not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and that placing him on the ballot violated constitutional eligibility requirements. He also claimed that President Obama’s re-election could open the door to an unconstitutional third term, potentially violating the 22nd Amendment.
• The Vermont Superior Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and mootness after Obama won reelection. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issue was moot and that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. The Court emphasized that: “Recognized principles of mootness apply to the present case because it no longer involves a live controversy. Plaintiff has no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot, and he is now the President of the United States. President Obama is also unable to seek reelection.” Paige v. State, 195 Vt. 302, 306 (2013)

Read the pdf here.

Wisconsin’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• On April 16, 1947, Wisconsin voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment, becoming the 14th state to do so.
• Wisconsin ratified the 22nd Amendment through the legislature’s adoption of a Joint Resolution introduced by Republican Assemblyman Elmer Rundell.
• The WI assembly adopted the amendment the same day it was presented, on April 3, 1947, but not without procedural hurdles. Democratic Assemblyman and Floor Leader Leland McParland moved to reject the resolution, but the measure was defeated 12 to 74.
• Ultimately, the Joint Resolution to ratify the 22nd Amendment was approved in the lower chamber by a vote of 73 to 13. Thirteen other representatives were absent or did not vote.
• The Senate concurred in the resolution on April 16, 1947, with a bipartisan vote of 27 to 5. Democratic Senator Clement Zablocki joined his Republican colleagues in supporting the measure. One senator was absent and did not vote.
• Republican Senator Ernest Heden, who supported the amendment, said a president might conceivably “build himself up” through broad powers and “create emergencies himself” that would force the people to continue him in office. “There are men in this world who would capitalize on economic conditions and other catastrophes in order to exalt their own power.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Wisconsin:

• There are no relevant cases in Wisconsin courts that analyze the provisions of the 22nd Amendment.

Read the PDF here.