RULING ON BALLOTS IS BEST FOR MISSOURI

The U.S. Supreme Court decided, appropriately, that Missouri cannot use election ballots to brand congressional candidates as opponents of term limits, a practice known as "scarlet letter" labels. The court would have established dangerous precedence had it upheld the practice.

Missouri voters amended the state constitution in 1996 to endorse -- but not mandate -- 12-year term limits for U.S. senators and six-year limits for U.S. House members, but they went too far in doing so. If a member of Congress had failed to aggressively work for a national constitutional term-limit amendment, the words "Disregarded Voters' Instruction on Term Limits" would have appeared beside his or her name on the ballot at the next election. In addition, first-time candidates were asked to take a term-limit vow. Next to decliners' names would have appeared the words "Declined to Pledge to Support Term Limits."

A Democratic congressional candidate, Donald Gralike, challenged the Missouri amendment and won in lower courts. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the amendment violated candidates' free-speech rights, unconstitutionally set new qualifications for members of Congress and usurped Congress' power to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Justice Department took Gralike's side, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the appeals court decision.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the state lacks the power to impose any conditions on the election of senators and representatives. He also said a state can't interpose itself between the people and their national government as Missouri sought to do when voters decided to require the state congressional delegation to support and work for term limits or be identified as an opponent of the cause on state-issued ballots.

Justice John Paul Stevens said such labels put targeted candidates at a disadvantage "and attempt to dictate electoral outcomes." Stevens pointed out that "it seems clear that the adverse labels handicap candidates at the most crucial stage in the election process: the instant before the vote is cast."

With those words, Stevens hit on what is most disturbing about Missouri's practice of "scarlet letter" labels. A candidate's position on any issue should be made clear during the course of a campaign, and certainly not in the voting booth.

Had Missouri been allowed to identify candidates' positions on term limits, what would prevent the state from requiring their positions be listed on other issues as well?