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

Alabama’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Alabama’s state legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on May 4, 1951, becoming the 41st and final state to do so. 
• Alabama’s ratification of the 22nd Amendment is notable because it was one of a few states that ratified the amendment after it crossed the 36 state threshold to become part of the Constitution. 
• Earlier that year, the Alabama Journal noted that although the 22nd Amendment had been ratified by 36 states, “Southern states [including Alabama] have been slow to give their approval, perhaps because of a feeling that the amendment was submitted by a Republican Congress and because it was regarded as a reflection upon President Roosevelt and an indirect reflection upon President Truman.” 
• Despite that partisan angle, on May 1, 1951, the Alabama Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, voted in favor of S.J.R. 2 to ratify the 22nd Amendment by an overwhelming margin of 27 to 1.
• The amendment’s supporters included Senate pro-tem and Chairman of the Interim Legislative Committee on Segregation in the Public Schools Albert Boutwell. 
• On May 4, 1951, on motion from Democrat Representative Walter Coats Givhan, the Alabama House suspended the rules and concurred in and adopted S.J.R. 2, ratifying the 22nd Amendment.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Alabama:

• There is next to no case law involving the 22nd Amendment in Alabama. The only mention is in McInnish v. Bennett, where the dissenting opinion seems to accept that President Obama would have been barred from running for a third term by the 22nd Amendment.
• In McInnish v. Bennett, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the dismissal of a “birther” complaint demanding that the Alabama Secretary of State verify Barack Obama’s eligibility for presidential office or remove him from the ballot. The Court issued a per curiam decision with no opinion, but both concurrences expressed the view that the Secretary of State has no “affirmative duty” to investigate the eligibility of candidates for presidential office. 150 So. 3d 1045 (Ala. 2014).
• Chief Justice Roy Moore dissented, arguing that regardless of explicit statutory authorization, the Secretary of State had a mandate to investigate the underlying qualifications of a presidential candidate, and implicitly accepting that President Obama could not run for a third presidential term under the 22nd Amendment. 
• In a footnote, Chief Justice Moore explained: “The Secretary of State argues that this case is not capable of repetition because President Obama may not constitutionally run for a third term. Secretary of State’s brief, at 8–9 (citing U.S. Const. amend. XXII, § 1). President Obama, however, is not the defendant in this case; the Secretary of State is, and her refusal to investigate the eligibility of presidential candidates for the general-election ballot is capable of repetition.” 150 So. 3d at 1060.

Arkansas’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Arkansas legislature ratified the 22nd Amendment on February 15, 1951. 
• On February 12, 1951, the Arkansas Senate voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment by a vote of 24 to 9.
• According to press reports, opposition in the Senate was “only mild,” with criticism that the measure was sponsored by the Republican Party.
• Legislative history from the Arkansas House is limited, but the Northwest Arkansas Times reported that “[e]arlier the House had passed the measure overwhelmingly.” The Senate concurred.
• Following this process, House Joint Resolution No. 1 – “A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Ratifying the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Known as the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relating to the Terms of Office of the President” – was “approved” on February 15, 1951. 

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Arkansas:

• There is little Arkansas case law interpreting the 22nd Amendment, but the relevant decisions recognize that the amendment established term limits for the president.
• In Plugge v. McCuen, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would have imposed term limits on Arkansas’s federal representatives did not clearly violate the Standing Qualifications Clause of the U.S. Constitution and could remain on the ballot. While the court reasoned that the constitutional question could be decided if the amendment passed, the dissent argued that the proposed amendment clearly violated the Standing Qualifications Clause and it was the court’s duty to enjoin its inclusion on the ballot. 
• Citing the 22nd Amendment, the dissenting opinion noted, “A clear understanding of the founders’ intentions leads to the inescapable conclusion that additions to the Standing Qualifications Clauses can be achieved only by amending the text of the Constitution, as was done with the Twenty-second Amendment, which limits the President to eight years of service.” 310 Ark. 654, 671 (1992).
• In Arkansas State Conf. NAACP v. Arkansas Bd. of Apportionment, a federal redistricting case, the district court for the Eastern District of Arkansas referred to the Constitution as an “imperfect” document that “required attention from later generations of Americans” to correct its “defects,” citing the 22nd Amendment as an example of such a correction. 586 F. Supp. 3d 893, 922 (E.D. Ark. 2022), aff’d, 86 F.4th 1204 (8th Cir. 2023).
• Plaintiffs claimed that a 2021 reapportionment plan for the Arkansas House of Representatives would dilute the voting strength of Black voters by failing to include at least four additional majority-Black districts. The plaintiffs claimed that this was in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which specifically prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race and color, amongst other things. The Court held that there was no private right of action to enforce § 2 and ordered the case to be dismissed in five days, absent intervention by the US Attorney General.
• The Court states, “Everyone knows the Constitution had many defects—ranging from minor to serious” citing to the 22nd Amendment’s term limit along with the 12th and 19th Amendments in the accompanying footnote: “See, e.g., U.S. Const. am. XII (fixing the manner in which the President and Vice-President were elected so as to avoid those officials being from two different parties); U.S. Const. am. XXII (limiting the President to essentially two terms); U.S. Const. am. XIX (providing women the right to vote).” 586 F. Supp. 3d at 922.

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.

Connecticut’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Connecticut’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on May 21, 1947.
• On April 1, 1947, Republican Governor James McConaughy transmitted a certified copy of the resolution from Congress to Connecticut’s General Assembly.
  • On April 29, 1947, House Joint Resolution No. 272 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
  • Despite a failed motion to postpone action on House Joint Resolution No. 272 to the next session of the General Assembly, on May 15, 1951, the resolution was adopted.
• The Hartford Courant noted the “long debate” in the House over the measure. Democratic Leader John P. Cotter criticized the amendment for being aimed at President Roosevelt and placing restrictions upon free choice.
  • Republican Representative George Ramsey said the amendment was a “forward-looking piece of legislation, aimed at no one.” He warned, “There is no indispensable man, and if that fallacy arises, there is the end of our Republic.”
• On May 21, 1947, the resolution passed in the Senate by a vote of 25 to 7 (with 4 excused/absent/abstaining). That margin was significantly more than the 17 votes necessary for passage.
• Senators voted along party lines, with all Republicans voting yes and all Democrats voting no.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Connecticut:

• There are no relevant cases in Connecticut that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Delaware’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Delaware’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 8, 1947, with the approval of House Concurrent Resolution 10 of the 114th General Assembly. 
• Republican Representative Alber Husbands introduced the concurrent resolution.
• The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 22 to 11 (with 2 absences). The vote was along partisan lines, with Republicans in the majority and Democrats in the minority. 
• The Senate then took up the concurrent resolution, which passed by a vote of 10 to 6 (with 1 absence).
• Delaware was one of the earliest states to vote for the proposed amendment. Prior to the 22nd Amendment being approved by Congress and sent to the states, in 1947, the Delaware General Assembly petitioned Congress to call for a constitutional convention for purposes of proposing the amendment.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Delaware:

• There are no relevant cases in Delaware that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Florida’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Florida legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 5, 1951.
• Florida is notable in that it was one of just a few states that voted to ratify the amendment after it crossed the 36 state threshold to become part of the Constitution. 
• Due to a quirk of Florida law, the state was never going to be among the first to ratify the amendment. As The Bradenton Herald noted in April 1947, the Florida legislature could not take up the amendment during that legislative session since all of the members had been elected before Congress sent the amendment to the states earlier that year. 
• The paper explained that Florida’s “Constitution provides that a federal amendment can be acted upon only by a legislature which was elected after the amendment was proposed to the states by a joint resolution of the Congress.”
• Several years passed before Florida ratified the 22nd Amendment. Neither chamber of Florida’s legislature took a final vote on ratification until over a month after the Administrator of General Services certified that the 22nd Amendment had been adopted by the requisite number of states to become part of the Constitution on March 1, 1951.
• On April 4, 1951, the Florida Senate overwhelmingly voted to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 2, to ratify the 22nd Amendment by vote of 34 to 1. The only nay vote was Democratic Senator Luther C. Tucker. 
• Later that month, the Florida House unanimously voted 89 to 0 to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 to ratify the proposed amendment.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Florida:

• The only Florida case interpreting the 22nd Amendment is in Mayfield v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of State, where in a concurring opinion, a justice of the Supreme Court of Florida acknowledges that the amendment creates a “lifetime limit on service” in presidential office.
• In the 2025 Mayfield decision, the Supreme Court of Florida held that the Secretary of State had no statutory discretion to exercise independent judgment as to candidate’s constitutional eligibility for office as part of the qualifying review process, and that candidate Mayfield was not barred by the state’s constitutional term limits from seeking election to a state senate seat.
• Justice Canady’s concurrence agreed that Mayfield could remain on the ballot, but distinguished Florida’s “term limit of eight consecutive years” which applies only “to a person who seeks to appear on the ballot for reelection to an office that the person currently holds or would currently hold but for resignation” from the 22nd Amendment, explaining that latter was an example of how “[a] constitutional provision certainly could be fashioned to impose a lifetime limit on service in a particular office.” 402 So. 3d 1002, 1011-1012 (Fla. 2025)

Georgia’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment: 

• The Georgia legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 16, 1951. 
• On January 10, 1951, HR 12-89c, “A Resolution to ratify the Twenty-second amendment to the Constitution of the United States by the Legislature of the State of Georgia”, introduced by several representatives, was referred to the House Committee on Amendments to the Constitution #1.
• Following the committee’s consideration on January 16, 1951, Chairman William Bradford Freeman (D), conveyed the committee’s recommendation that Speaker Fred Hand (D) “Do Pass” the resolution. 
• On January 16, 1951, Spence M. Grayson (D), Chairman of the Georgia Senate Committee on Amendments to the Constitution conveyed his committee’s recommendation that President of the Senate Lt. Governor S. Marvin Griffin (D) “Do Pass” Senate Resolution 8 to ratify the 22nd Amendment.
• On January 17, 1951, the Senate resolution was reported out of committee and adopted by a 40 to 0 vote of the full Senate.
• Following the Senate vote, on January 18, 1951, the House voted to table its resolution to ratify the 22nd Amendment, HR 12-89c, ostensibly in favor of the Senate version. Curiously here, the House Journal refers to the resolution HR 12-89c by a slightly different name, “A Resolution to ratify the 22nd amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. by the Legislature of the State of Georgia, and for other purposes” but includes no explanation for the change.
• On February 16, 1951, Senate Resolution 8 was adopted in the House by a vote of 110 to 1. 
• As one newspaper described the process, Georgia’s Democrat-controlled legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment without debate as “the measure had been delayed until the last day of the session only by the press of other business.”  

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Georgia:

• In the only Georgia case interpreting the 22nd Amendment, the Supreme Court of Georgia opined that the provision “precludes an incumbent President from seeking the office for a third time.”
• In Maddox v. Forston, the state’s high court held that a provision in Georgia’s constitution which barred a governor from seeking reelection for four years following the conclusion of their term in office did not violate the 1st or 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 
• The Court surveyed the history of the provision and similar provisions in other state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. The Court distinguished the 22nd Amendment from Georgia’s term limit, writing, “In 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the Federal Constitution was approved. This amendment precludes an incumbent President from seeking the office for a third time and it is more stringent than the Georgia provision which permits an incumbent Governor to seek the office after an interval of four years.” 226 Ga. 71, 74 (1970)

Idaho’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Idaho’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on January 30, 1951.
• The Joint Resolution passed the Idaho Senate on January 24, 1951 by a vote of 27 to 14 (with 3 excused from voting). 
• The same measure was introduced in 1949, but failed passage in the then-Democrat controlled Senate.
• The Joint Resolution passed the House with bipartisan support by a vote of 39 to 19 on January 30, 1951. 
• Three House Democrats, Representatives Herman McDevitt, Joseph Kaschmitter and House Minority Leader Arthur Murphy, joined with the Republican majority to support the ratification measure.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Idaho:

• There are no relevant cases in Idaho that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

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.

Indiana’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Indiana legislature completed a vote to ratify 22nd amendment on January 19, 1951. 
• In the Senate, Republican Senator Lucius Somers introduced the measure on January 5, 1951 as Senate Joint Resolution No. 1. 
• On January 12, 1951, the resolution received a favorable review by the Committee on Federal Relations. The minority of the committee announced there would be no minority report filed.
• The resolution passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote 38 to 11 on January 18, 1951 and the House was notified of its passage.
• In the House of Representatives, Senate Joint Resolution 1 to ratify the amendment passed by a bipartisan vote of 68 to 23 on January 19, 1951. 
• Two years earlier, in 1949, ratification of the proposed amendment failed in the legislature after it passed in the Republican-controlled Senate, but died in the Democratic-controlled House.
• Although in 1951, Republicans controlled both chambers of the Indiana legislature, Democratic Representatives Carson King, Otis Knopp and Edgar Sale joined the Republican majority to support the ratification effort.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Indiana:

• There are no relevant cases in Indiana that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Iowa’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Iowa’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 1, 1947, one of the earliest states to do so. 
• The matter moved quickly through both chambers of the Iowa legislature. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Frank Byers (R) drafted the resolution on March 26, 1947, with The Cedar Rapids Gazette noting that: “There remained some question as to how soon the legislature should act on [the amendment], however, as formal and official notice that congress has adopted the proposal has not been received.”
• On March 30, the resolution passed the Senate overwhelmingly and in bipartisan fashion with a vote of 46 to 3 (with 1 absent/non-voting). 
• On April 1, 1947, the House followed suit, passing “Senate Joint Resolution 10, a joint resolution ratifying a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, relating to the term of office of the President” by a bipartisan vote of 85 to 8 (with 15 absent/non-voting).
• In explaining his vote joining Republicans in support of the amendment, Democrat House Rep. Eugene “Gene” Poston said: “With the understanding that Senate Joint Resolution 10 in no way is a reflection upon our late president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I am supporting this resolution. I believe that a limitation of two terms for the president of the United States or the governor of the state of Iowa is in the interest of good government, with the possible exception of serious emergencies.”
• On April 3, 1947, Iowa Governor Robert D. Blue (R) signed the resolution. 

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Iowa:

• There are no relevant Iowa cases that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Kansas’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Kansas legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 1, 1947.
• Republican Senators Riley W. MacGregor and Roy F. Bailey introduced the proposed amendment in the chamber, which became Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 16 (SCR16). 
• On an emergency motion by Senator MacGregor, the resolution was read and moved to a roll call vote, which passed with overwhelming support in both chambers.
• On March 31, 1947, the resolution passed the Kansas Senate by a vote of 34 to 2 (with 4 absent/not voting).
• On April 1, 1947, the resolution passed the Kansas House on a bipartisan basis by a vote of 106 to 0 (with 19 absent/not voting).

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Kansas:

• There are no relevant cases in Kansas that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Louisiana’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Louisiana legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on May 17, 1950.
• Democratic Senator E.M. Toler introduced the Concurrent Resolution to ratify the amendment on May 8, 1950. 
• On May 15, 1950, the Louisiana Senate passed the resolution 32 to 0 (with 7 absent). 
• The Concurrent Resolution was introduced in the House on May 10, 1950 by Democratic Representative Jesse J. Verret.
• On May 17, 1950, the Louisiana House unanimously adopted the resolution without objection. No roll call vote took place.
• According to Democratic Representative Henry Sevier, the 22nd Amendment was in line with “the plain intention of the drafters of the constitution” that presidents serve no more than two terms. George Washington, Rep. Sevier said, refused to continue his presidency “for the reason that we did not want to have a dictator and that no president should interfere in the other branches of government” nor “pack the supreme court.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Louisiana:

• There are no relevant cases in Louisiana that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

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.

Minnesota’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Minnesota legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 27, 1951.
• Minnesota’s ratification of the 22nd Amendment is notable because it was one of a few states whose legislature voted to ratify the amendment after it crossed the 36-state threshold to become part of the Constitution. 
• On February 13, 1951, the Minnesota Senate passed the joint resolution 39 to 27.
• There was robust debate in the Senate with 20 Senators speaking on the issue. Supporters of the amendment expressed concern that “so much power now is concentrated in the presidency as to make it dangerous for one man to hold office for more than eight years.”
• Opponents of the amendment argued that the term limit was “political” in nature and that “it would restrict the freedom of the people to choose their own president.” As the vote reflects, these concerns did not carry the day.
• On February 27, 1951, the Minnesota House passed the resolution 80 to 43.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Minnesota:

• There are no relevant cases in Minnesota that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Mississippi’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Mississippi legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 12, 1948.
• Although only a simple majority is necessary to ratify a Constitutional amendment in Mississippi, the 22nd Amendment was ratified with overwhelming support.
• In the Senate the resolution to ratify the amendment was introduced by Democratic Senator Earl Evans Jr.. 
• On February 10, 1948, the Mississippi Senate passed the resolution by a vote of 36 to 6 (with 7 absent/not voting).
• On February 12, 1948, the Mississippi House passed the resolution by a vote of 123 to 4 (with 13 absent/not voting).

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Mississippi:

• There are no relevant cases in Mississippi that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

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.

Montana’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Montana ratified the 22nd Amendment on January 25, 1951.
• On January 4, 1951, six Republican Montana legislators–Representatives O’Connor, Scofield, McElwain, Working, Peters and Schiltz–introduced the proposed amendment as House Joint Resolution No. 1. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Judiciary, which later recommended it do pass.
• On January 16, 1951, the resolution passed the Montana House by a vote of 51 to 37 (with 2 absent/not voting). 
• On January 17, 1951, the resolution was introduced in the Montana Senate and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, which, one day later, recommended the resolution be concurred in. 
• On January 25, 1951, the resolution passed the Montana Senate by a vote of 31 to 24 (with 1 excused); both votes include “pairs” of votes which were made after the initial roll call vote.
• Montana’s legislature considered presidential term limits at the same time it debated amending the state’s constitution to limit governors to two consecutive terms. Two years prior, in 1949, a proposal to ratify the 22nd Amendment failed in the legislature, where it was passed by the Republican-controlled Senate, but died in the Democrat-led House of Representatives.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Montana:

• There are no relevant cases in Montana that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Nevada’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• Nevada’s legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 26, 1951, becoming the 36th state to do so, officially crossing the three-fourths threshold to become part of the Constitution. 
• Joint Resolution No. 6 to ratify the amendment was introduced in the Assembly on January 31, 1951 by Representatives Cada Castolas Boak (R), Frank A. Buol (R), M.A. (Tiny) Fairchild (R), Samuel Boyd Francovich (R), George H. Hawes (R), Charles A. Hendel (R) and James C. Perkins (R).
• On February 26, 1951, the Assembly voted to pass the resolution ratifying the 22nd Amendment 29 to 12, including nine Democrats.
• Later that day, the Senate also voted in a bipartisan manner to ratify the amendment by a margin of 16 to 1.
• As the Nevada State Journal reported, the Republican controlled Senate gave “lifelong Democrat” Senator John Robbins the privilege of making the motion to ratify the amendment and to consider it as an emergency measure for approval.
• Senator Robbins said: “Some have given the measure the stigma of partisan politics. To me there is no such stigma. As a Democrat, active in Nevada Democratic circles for more than 40 years, I’d like to remove that stigma. I consider it a real honor that this Republican controlled Senate has picked me to make the motion to ratify the 22nd Amendment.”
• The Senate went into recess and waited for confirmation that Utah voted to ratify the amendment in order for Nevada to become the 36th ratifying state.
• In a February 27, 1951 article headlined “Truman Gets Last Shot at Three Terms,” The Nevada State Journal reported on the passage noting: “Final adoption of the 22nd amendment through action of the Nevada legislature left President Truman today as the last man who can aspire to more than two terms in the nation’s biggest job.”
• Despite the 22nd Amendment’s exemption for the incumbent Truman, contemporaneous reporting indicated, “[s]ome politicians believe, though, that ratification presents an ethical obstacle to his seeking another term on the basis that it reflects widespread feeling that more than eight years is too long for any man.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Nevada:

• The only relevant Nevada case law addressing the 22nd Amendment reaffirms that “the President is limited to two terms of office.”
• In Harris v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., the plaintiff sued both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee for violating the 22nd Amendment and the Sherman Act based on the assertion that the president has been a member of one of those two parties since the nineteenth century.  No. 2:25-CV-00428-MMD-NJK, 2025 WL 1189770 (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-2888, 2025 WL 2237448 (9th Cir. July 30, 2025).
• The court dismissed the case with prejudice due to frivolity, explaining: “[T]he 22nd Amendment, on its face, applies to ‘person[s],’ not the parties to which they belong. U.S. Const. amend. XXII(1). This view is broadly held. See, e.g., Ronald D. Rotunda, John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law – Substance & Procedure, § 9.19(d)(i) Popular Efforts to Impose Term Limits, 2 Treatise on Const. L. § 9.19(d)(i) (Jul. 2024 Update) (‘[T]he U.S. Constitution, since 1951, provides that the President is limited to two terms of office.’) (footnote omitted).” 2025 WL 1189770, at *1.

New Jersey’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The New Jersey legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on April 15, 1947.
• On April 1, 1947, a resolution to ratify the amendment was introduced in the Senate by Republican Senator Samuel Bodine.
• According to Senate President Charles K. Barton (R), the amendment aimed to halt “the zeal of a certain outfit to stay in power,” and that no person should stay in power for “the sake of authority alone.” 
• Senator Barton added that those who opposed the two-term limit “are trying to idolize their idol,” but the 22nd Amendment will “bring America back to the ideals of our forefathers.”
• Democrats who opposed the measure criticized the amendment as a “limit to the freedom of the people of the United States.” Democratic Senator Edward O’Mara warned that a future international crisis might lead to concern about having a term-limited president in office. 
• These critiques were ultimately rejected, as the measure passed the Senate on the same day the resolution was introduced by a 15 to 3 vote.
• On April 15, 1947, the House passed the resolution by a viva voce (oral) vote.

Cases involving 22nd Amendment in New Jersey:

• The only relevant case in New Jersey interpreting the 22nd Amendment reinforces the understanding that a twice elected president is ineligible to be elected to the presidency again.
• In Gordon v. Sec’y of N.J., 460 F. Supp. 1026, 1027 n.1. (D.N.J. 1978), the District of New Jersey dismissed a frivolous complaint that the 1976 presidential election was illegitimate due to a minor candidate having been arrested during the campaign. In the process of discussing the case, the court noted: “Under Article II, s 1, par. 5, every natural born citizen of the United States, over the age of 35 years and a resident for 14 years, is eligible to be elected President. There is only one individual now alive, otherwise qualified, who is ineligible. That individual is Richard Nixon, who was twice elected, and so is barred by Amendment XXII.”

New Mexico’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The New Mexico legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 1, 1951.
• A similar measure to ratify the amendment failed in the 1949 legislative session after its Republican sponsor was unable to garner sufficient support.
• When the amendment came up for consideration again in 1951, both chambers of the legislature were controlled by Democrats. In the Senate, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 18 to 6, and in the House, Democrats controlled by a margin of 46 to 9.
• The Senate Concurrent Joint Resolution No. 3 was introduced on January 24, 1951 by Republican Senators T. C. Jaramillo, Margarito A. Baca, J. A. Des Georges and Filiberto Maestas.
• The Senate passed the joint resolution on January 25, 1951 by a vote of 13 to 8 (with two absent). 
• Following passage of the measure in the Senate, The Albuquerque Journal editorial page wrote: “New Mexico has only this session and the next to ratify an amendment that is a safeguard against continued tenure in office” noting that an attempt to lift the two term limits for the governorship was “snowed under in a special election in 1937.”
• The House resolution to ratify the amendment was introduced by Democratic Representative I. M. Smalley.
• Upon motion by Rep. Smalley, the measure passed the House by a vote of 51 to 2 (with 2 excused) on February 1, 1951.

Cases involving 22nd Amendment in New Mexico:

• The only relevant case law from New Mexico interpreting the 22nd Amendment is a decision addressing Donald Trump’s candidacy in 2024 that makes explicitly clear that the provision bars Trump, and any other president who has been elected twice, from being elected to the presidency for a third term. 
• In Castro v. Oliver, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed an attempt to remove President Trump from New Mexico’s 2024 Republican primary ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause due to Trump’s participation in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol. No. 24-2007, 2025 WL 467099 (10th Cir. 2025).
• While declaring Castro’s suit as moot following the 2024 presidential election, the court explicitly addressed President Trump’s ineligibility to pursue a third term under the 22nd Amendment. The court explained: “The Twenty-second Amendment, however, mandates that President Trump cannot be elected to another term after the current one. Hence, the possible injury to Mr. Castro of a future presidential candidacy of President Trump is, at best, highly speculative. See Grinols v. Electoral Coll., 622 F. App’x 624, 625–26 (9th Cir. 2015) (challenge to President Obama’s eligibility under the natural-born-citizen clause was moot and the repetition of the alleged wrong was rendered ‘too remote and speculative’ by the Twenty-second Amendment since he was serving his second term). This case must therefore be dismissed as moot.” Id. at *2.

New York’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The New York legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on March 9, 1948.
• In January 1948, New York Governor Thomas Dewey (R) urged the passage of the amendment, admonishing the legislature, “I am sure that you will be interested to know that when the State of New York ratified the Constitution of the United States at a convention held in 1788, that convention strongly urged the following amendment to the Constitution: ‘That no person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States a third term.’”
• Governor Dewey was the 1944 and would be the 1948 Republican nominee for the presidency. Dewey’s announcement was met with immediate criticism from Senate Democratic Leader Elmer F. Quinn, who said, “It is an insult to the memory of the greatest president for the governor to make this suggestion while his excellency is seeking the nomination as president.”
• On January 26, 1948 a concurrent resolution was introduced in both the State Assembly and Senate by Republican Senator Pliny W. Williamson and Republican Assemblyman Harry A. Reoux.
• Despite the political posturing, on February 10, 1948, the Senate voted to ratify the amendment on a bipartisan basis 40 to 13. Three Senate Democrats voted in favor of ratification, including Democratic Leader Quinn.
• The New York State Assembly passed the amendment by a vote of 103 to 44 on March 9, 1948.
• The amendment passed over the opposition of much of the Democratic caucus of the State Assembly, who were joined in voting no by Republican Assemblyman William J. Drohan.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in New York:

• The limited case law from New York courts addressing the 22nd Amendment use it as a reference point for the legality and ubiquity of term limits for certain public offices. 
• In Roth v. Cuevas, a petitioner filed a motion seeking to have the court validate initiative petitions filed with the city clerk to amend the New York City Charter to establish a limit on the number of consecutive terms of office that various elected officials could serve. 
• In establishing the constitutionality of the proposed local law, the court cited the West Virginia Court of Appeals and the 22nd Amendment: “Constitutional restrictions circumscribing the ability of incumbents to succeed themselves appear in over twenty state constitutions, and exist in the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States with regard to the Presidency. The 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.” 603 N.Y.S.2d 962, 972 (Sup. Ct.), aff’d, 603 N.Y.S.2d 736 (1993), aff’d, 624 N.E.2d 689 (1993).
• In Spota v. County of Suffolk, the defendant, Suffolk County, sought summary judgment upholding the county’s 12-year term limits on various elected offices. Despite rejecting the county-specific term limits on district attorneys, sheriffs and county clerks as unconstitutional under New York state law, the Court cited the 22nd Amendment in acknowledging the general rationale in favor of term limits: “First and foremost, term limits are not per se illegal. Simultaneously, the concept is in no way inherently immoral or unjust. To the contrary, for generations they have been accepted as a part of the political process. See, U.S. Const., Amendment XXII (President of the United States limited to two terms).” The Court continued: “First of all, there can be no dispute that term limits are qualifications for an elected office. That issue has been resolved. They have been succinctly, clearly, and simply so-labeled by no less than our Nation’s highest judicial authority.”  2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4633, *33, 38 (Sept. 25, 2012 Sup. Ct.).

North Carolina’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The North Carolina legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 23, 1951.
• On March 27, 1947, Acting U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson transmitted a certified copy of Congress’s “JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the President” to Governor R. Gregg Cherry (D).
• Democratic Representative Herbert Clifton Blue introduced H.B. 59 to ratify the amendment on January 17, 1951. The resolution was postponed several times, and ultimately indefinitely as the ratification process proceeded in the Senate.
• On February 9, 1951, Senate President Pro-Tem, Democrat R. Grady Rankin, introduced S.B. 168 to ratify the 22nd Amendment.
• S. B. 168 was reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments on February 20, 1951.
• On February 21, 1951, the Senate approved the measure to ratify the 22nd Amendment by a vote of 33 to 8.
• On Thursday February 22, 1951, S.B. 168 was introduced in the North Carolina Senate and passed the second reading on February 22, 1951, but the proposal for the third reading was objected to by Senator Sanders and remained on the calendar.
• The Senate bill was voted on by the House of Representatives on February 23, 1951. The bill failed in its second reading in a vote of 28 to 74 but passed on the third and final measure in the House by a vote of 67 to 41; both votes include “pairs” of votes which were made after the initial roll call vote.
• Days later, after the 22nd Amendment passed the 36 state threshold to become part of the U.S. Constitution, an editorial in The High Point Enterprise opined, “Legislatures, we believe, were doing more than amending the constitution. They were also letting it be known that the majority of the states do not like prolonged tenure by any president.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in North Carolina:

• There are no relevant cases in North Carolina that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

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.

Oregon’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Oregon legislature voted to ratify the 22nd amendment on April 3, 1947, becoming one of the earliest states to do so.
• House Republicans Colon R. Eberhard and Pat Lonergan introduced House Resolution 25 to ratify the proposed 22nd Amendment on April 1, 1947, which was described as “Providing for ratification of proposed amendment to U.S. Constitution limiting the terms of Presidents to two.” 
• On April 2, 1947, the House overwhelmingly voted to ratify the amendment by a vote of 55 to 1 (with 2 absent & 2 excused). 
• The House vote was bipartisan with both Democrats in the chamber supporting ratification.
• As Salem’s The Capital Journal explained, “the House approved and sent to the senate Wednesday a resolution to ratify the proposed 22nd amendment to the federal constitution to prevent any president from serving a third term.”
• On April 3, 1947, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve the measure by a bipartisan vote margin of 25 to 3 (with 2 excused).

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Oregon:

• There are no relevant cases in Oregon that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

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.

South Carolina’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• South Carolina’s legislature completed voting to ratify the 22nd amendment on March 13, 1951.
• South Carolina’s ratification of the 22nd Amendment is notable because it was one of several states that ratified the amendment after it crossed the 36 state threshold to become part of the Constitution. 
• The joint resolution to ratify the amendment passed in the House of Representatives on January 23, 1951, in a vote of 98 to 10.
• Prior to the final roll call vote, the House rejected a motion from Representative Vernal Glenn Arnette of Williamsburg to table the resolution.
• According to contemporaneous reporting, senators “wrangled” over the House resolution to ratify the amendment.
• Senator John C. Taylor, a former Democratic member of Congress, reportedly “lead[] the battle for [the] two-term limit” and pushed unsuccessfully to fix the amount of time for voting to ensure quick passage. Taylor also expressed concern that an incumbent president’s control of political party funds would ensure that nominating conventions were “controlled from the top and not from the grass roots.” Senator Taylor hoped the resolution would be adopted on George Washington’s birthday because Washington “set a precedent for two terms.”
• Fellow Democrat, Senator W. Lewis Wallace, objected to the procedural move stating, “I can’t see the reason for hurrying” and “I have never seen such pressure for the voting upon a matter that can have no immediate effect on anyone.”
• Senator Edward Williams Cantwell, another Democrat, said of the 22nd Amendment debate, “no man is indispensable.”
• The measure eventually passed the Senate on March 1, 1951, by a vote of 24 to 9, but senators sent the measure back to the House to address a minor typographical error.
• The House approved the revised measure on March 13, 1951.

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in South Carolina:

• There are no relevant cases in South Carolina that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

Texas’ consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Texas legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 22, 1951 after overwhelming majorities in both chambers approved the measure. 
• Democratic Representative Max C. Smith sponsored the Joint Resolution proposing ratification. He noted that although “Southern states have hesitated to ratify the amendment because Democrats were in office … New York and Missouri, the home states of President Roosevelt and Truman, both have approved the proposition” and did not view the amendment as partisan.
• The Joint Resolution to ratify the amendment passed the Texas House on February 20, 1951, by a bipartisan vote of 122 to 22 (with 5 absent). 
• In debate in the House, some representatives who supported President Franklin Roosevelt “rallied to the cry that [the Amendment] would be a slap at his memory.” Legislators against the Amendment argued it would tie “the hands of future generations” and considered the amendment to be “anti-Roosevelt…still fighting the ghost of FDR.” The Texas legislature ultimately rejected this argument as the Joint Resolution passed by an overwhelming margin in both chambers. 
• The measure passed the Texas Senate on February 22, 1951, by a vote of 25 to 4 (with 2 absent).
• Texas senators chose to ratify the amendment on George Washington’s birthday, February 22. Senator Keith Kelly (D), a cosponsor of ratification, said “[t]oday is George Washington’s birthday. Don’t you think it is an appropriate day to write into the Constitution a good old American custom?” As described by contemporaneous reporting, the amendment put “into the Constitution the custom set by Washington” of presidents serving only two terms.
• At the time of ratification, the Texas legislature was controlled by Democratic majorities, but the measure enjoyed bipartisan support. Republican Representative Edward Dicker, who voted in favor of the amendment said, “I’m for it 1,000 per cent. And it is going to be our handicap, because the next President will be a Republican and the 2-term limit will apply to him. But they can count on me to be for it, Republican or Democrat.”
• Representative Samuel Jackson Isaacks (D), dean of the Legislature, described, “The Constitution is written to see to it that our public officers do not have too much power. Any President, by force of patronage, can renominate himself. The President appoints every federal judge, every district attorney, and indirectly every postmaster. They are responsible to him for bread and meat. When a man can renominate himself through patronage, he may also be re-elected through patronage. That’s not democratic. It resembles dictatorship.”
• The House Speaker, Democrat Reuben E. Senterfitt, signed the Joint Resolution, as a courtesy on February 26, 1951, after its passage by both chambers. Under Texas House Rules, the customary procedure for ratification of an amendment to the Federal Constitution was merely a majority vote of each house approving a Joint Resolution proposing ratification. 
• A column in the Dallas Morning News following the House’s passage of the Joint Resolution described the merits of the 22nd Amendment: “Too much power accumulates in the hands of a long-time President. He becomes in time an absolute monarch.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Texas:

• There are no relevant cases in Texas that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.

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. 

Wyoming’s consideration of the 22nd Amendment:

• The Wyoming legislature voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment on February 12, 1951.
• H.J.R. No. 1, the resolution to ratify the amendment, was introduced by House Republicans W. Wallace Anderson, T.C. Daniels and Marlin T. Kurtz on January 12, 1951.
• W. Wallace Anderson, the Republican Chairman of the Memorials and Federal Relations Standing Committee within the Wyoming House, recommended that H.J.R. No. 1 pass. 
• The resolution passed in the House on January 19, 1951 with bipartisan support by a vote of 38 to 16 (with 2 excused). 
• The governor’s message to the 31st state legislature recommended the joint resolution to pass ratifying the 22nd Amendment.
• On February 8, 1951, the Senate voted to ratify the 22nd Amendment with bipartisan support by a vote of 18 to 9.  
• On February 12, 1951, Republican Governor Frank A. Barrett gave his signed approval to H.J.R. No. 1.
• Following the bipartisan, bicameral votes to ratify the 22nd amendment, the editorial page of The Casper Tribune-Herald praised the wisdom of the founding fathers for the amendment process, stating, “The fathers of the Constitution left the ultimate decision on constitutional changes very close to the people and, in so doing, they probably guaranteed the survival of this republic as a republic.”
• The editorial added, “In the case of the 22nd amendment now receiving the consideration of the states, it is an amendment born of a fear that the existence of the republic as a republic may be endangered by the presence of any one man too long in the office of chief executive. … It is not inconceivable that, should the amendment become law, the Democrats might find themselves in the position some years hence of being happy that it is on the books.”

Cases involving the 22nd Amendment in Wyoming:

• There are no relevant cases in Wyoming that analyze the requirements of the 22nd Amendment.