The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Wednesday rejected a challenge to a Michigan law restricting term limits in the legislature.

Michigan voters added term limits for state legislators and state executives to their state constitution in 1992. The term limit in the Michigan House of Representatives is six years, while the term limit in the Michigan Senate is eight years. This limitation was challenged after it first took effect, at which time the Sixth Circuit upheld the limitations.

Even though the court upheld these limitations over twenty years ago, veteran legislators challenged the provisions again in 2020. They claimed that the term limits violate their ballot access and freedom of association rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They also challenged the limitations under two provisions of the Michigan Constitution.

On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit rejected the challenge. The court first concluded that it did have jurisdiction to hear the case because it raised claims under the Federal Constitution. It then went on to state that, contrary to the legislators’ contentions, “[r]ather than keeping eligible candidates off the ballot—like the prototypical ballot-access or freedom-of-association case—term limits restrict eligibility for office.”

The court asserted that candidates do not have a fundamental right to run for office, so it reverted to applying rational basis. In analyzing whether the term limits were rationally related to a legitimate government interest, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Michigan had several legitimate interests. The foremost was its “sovereign interest in structuring its government as it sees fit.”

The appeals court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitution claims, remanding them to the district to be dismissed.

The court concluded:

More than twenty years ago, the people of Michigan chose a citizen legislature, not a professional one. Now, legislators with years of experience seek to use the federal courts to get around their state’s sovereign choice. But it’s not our place to intervene on their behalf. If they want to change the law, they’ll have to do that at the ballot box.