## Facts

- Missouri voters adopted a state constitutional amendment intended to advance a proposed federal congressional term-limits amendment.
- The amendment “instructed” Missouri’s congressional delegation to support and pursue the federal term-limits amendment.
- It required Missouri ballots to include negative labels next to certain federal candidates’ names:
  - For incumbents who did not take specified actions supporting term limits: “DISREGARDED VOTERS’ INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS.”
  - For non-incumbents who refused to sign a pledge to take those actions if elected: “DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS.”
- The Missouri Secretary of State was directed to decide whether a candidate met the conditions for the ballot labels and to print the labels.
- A non-incumbent candidate for the U.S. House sought to enjoin enforcement, arguing the ballot-label scheme violated the U.S. Constitution.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment for the candidate; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri’s ballot-label scheme was a permissible regulation of the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections under the Elections Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1).
2. Whether the State could justify the scheme as an exercise of reserved state authority (including a claimed “right to instruct” representatives) rather than as delegated federal election-regulation power.
3. Whether labeling candidates to pressure support for term limits unconstitutionally seeks to dictate outcomes or to favor or disfavor a class of candidates in federal elections.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the challengers and held the Missouri amendment unconstitutional.
- The Court concluded the Elections Clause permits state regulation of procedural election mechanisms, not measures designed to influence voter choice by rewarding or penalizing candidates for their views or conduct.
- The ballot labels were outcome-directed: they were intended to pressure candidates to support term limits and to sway voters by stigmatizing disfavored candidates at the point of voting.
- The State’s Tenth Amendment and “right to instruct” arguments failed because regulation of federal congressional elections is exercised under delegated constitutional authority, not residual state power.
- Although the Justices wrote separately in concurrences, the Court agreed that the ballot-label scheme could not be sustained.

## Legal Principles

- State authority under the Elections Clause to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections is limited to procedural regulations for administering elections.
- The Elections Clause does not authorize a State to use ballot design or ballot statements to dictate electoral outcomes or to favor or disfavor a class of federal candidates based on substantive positions.
- When States regulate federal elections, they act under a delegated constitutional function; they may not rely on reserved powers to expand control over the structure or conduct of federal elections beyond what the Constitution permits.
- A State may not indirectly achieve substantive changes in the composition or behavior of the national legislature by coercive ballot mechanisms, even if the State does not exclude candidates from the ballot.

## Conclusion

Missouri’s required ballot labels targeting candidates based on support for term limits exceeded the State’s limited Elections Clause authority because they were not neutral, procedural election regulations but instead an attempt to influence voter choice and pressure candidates, and thus were unconstitutional.


Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)