Whether candidate qualifications should be subjected to heightened scrutiny

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Michigan’s state legislative term limits—the shortest and harshest in the nation—impose an absolute ban on the participation of a certain category of candidates: experienced legislators. And while Michigan’s sovereign interest in structuring its government may be entitled to some deference, that does not mean the State gets a free pass under the First Amendment. To the contrary, the First Amendment guarantees the “rights of expression and association” including the “important interest in the continued availability of political opportunity.” Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 710, 715 (1974). And courts should be skeptical of restrictions that bar candidacy for political office “without reference to the candidates’ support in the electoral process,” U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 835 (1995). The two questions presented are: 1. Whether candidate qualifications should be subjected merely to rational-basis review, as the Sixth Circuit concluded below, or some heightened level of scrutiny, as five other circuits and four state courts of last resort have held. 2. Whether Michigan’s lifetime term limits—the shortest and harshest in the nation—violate candidates’ and voters’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.