To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

1994 Minnesota House of Representatives election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minnesota House of Representatives election, 1994

← 1992 November 8, 1994 (1994-11-08) 1996 →

All 134 seats in the Minnesota House of Representatives
68 seats needed for a majority
  Majority party Minority party
Leader Irv Anderson Steve Sviggum
Party DFL Independent-Republican
Leader since September 1, 1993 April 17, 1992
Leader's seat 3A–International Falls 28B–Kenyon
Last election 87 seats 47 seats
Seats before 84 50
Seats won 71 63
Seat change Decrease13 Increase13
Popular vote 799,973 899,609

Speaker before election

Irv Anderson

Elected Speaker

Irv Anderson

The 1994 Minnesota House of Representatives election was held in the U.S. state of Minnesota on November 8, 1994, to elect members to the House of Representatives of the 79th Minnesota Legislature. A primary election was held on September 13, 1994.

The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) won a majority of seats, remaining the majority party, followed by the Independent-Republicans of Minnesota. The new Legislature convened on January 3, 1995.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    10 581
  • ✪ Can Congress Have Term Limits? | U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton


Mr. Beat presents Supreme Court Briefs Arkansas November 3, 1992 Citizens vote to approve Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which says any federal Congressional candidate who has already served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives or two terms in the U.S. Senate can’t be on the ballot in elections. Now, representatives could still run for a fourth term and Senators could still run for a third term- their names would just have to be written-in on the ballot. For people who can’t spell, though, this might be a problem. Anyway, Bobbie Hill, a member representing the League of Women Voters, was not happy Amendment 73 passed. She sued Arkansas, arguing the amendment went against the United State Constitution, yo. Specifically, it’s Article 1, Section II No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen But wait, there’s more. It’s Article 1, Section III: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. And of course Hill brought up the 17th Amendment as well. Ray Thornton, a U.S. Congressman representing the 2nd district of Arkansas, was one of the folks who would not have his name on the ballot in the next election. He joined Hill and the League of Women Voters with another lawsuit. Representing Arkansas in the lawsuit by Hill was Attorney General Winston Bryant. Representing Arkansas in the lawsuit by Thornton was U.S. Term Limits, the organization who helped get Amendment 73 to pass to begin with. The Arkansas Circuit Court sided with Thornton and Hill. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court also ruled in favor of Thornton and Hill. U.S. Term Limits and Bryant appealed yet again to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear both cases, hearing oral arguments on November 29, 1994. U.S. Term Limits argued that Amendment 73 didn’t actually prevent anyone from running for an additional term- she or he could run as a write-in candidate. But Thornton and Hill argued this additional obstacle was enough to overstep Article 1, sections 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution. So, could states do that as indirect way to prevent career politicians being in government? The Court said “no.” On May 22, 1995, they announced they had sided with Thornton and Hill. It was a close one. 5-4, and split based on political ideology. The more conservative justices sided with U.S. Term Limits. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, using the 17th Amendment to back it up. “The Congress of the United not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.” Writing for the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote...wait a second Justice Thomas? Holy crap we never hear from that dude. Anyway, he wrote, “Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress.” In other words, this seemed like a state’s rights issue for the dissent. Regardless, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton made it clear that if people wanted there to be term limits for members of U.S. Congress, there would have to be a constitutional amendment, and we all know how easy it is to pass those, amiright? Now, SHOULD Congress have term limits? I’m going to redirect you Peter of the channel Professor Politics to answer that question. Go ahead, check out the video and come on right back. So, what'd you think? I can't hear you, but 82% of Americans in a recent poll said they thought members of Congress should have term limits. Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida Congressman Francis Rooney Hold on, let me get a better picture of Ted Cruz. That's better. recently introduced an amendment to the Constitution to restrict Senators to 2 six-year terms and Representatives to 3 two-year terms, and President Trump and both Democrats and Republican have expressed support for it. That said, that doesn’t mean term limits are coming to Congress any time soon. I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury! What do you think? So should Congress have term limits? Let me know in the comments below. And thanks to my Patreon supporter Casper for suggesting this topic. I made the video because he donates at least $10 or more a month to me on Patreon. So thanks Casper! And if you want your Supreme Court case suggestions made into a video, that's probably the quickest way to make it happen. Don’t forget to check out the Professor Politics video about why term limits may not be such a great idea. He has a great channel so go subscribe, too. Eh? Eh? Eh? Thanks for watching, Beatniks. My wife, Mrs. Beat, wants me to tell you all to check out my Instagram. I need more Instagram followers apparently.


Summary of the November 8, 1994 Minnesota House of Representatives election results
Party Candidates Votes Seats
No. No. %
Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party 124 799,973 71 Decrease13 52.99
Independent-Republicans of Minnesota 132 899,609 63 Increase13 47.01
Natural Law Party of Minnesota 1 352 0 Steady 0.00
Independent 4 9,672 0 Steady 0.00
Total 134 ±0 100.00
Turnout (out of 3,253,779 eligible voters)[1] 1,794,618 55.15% Decrease18.76 pp
Source: Minnesota Secretary of State,[2] Minnesota Legislative Reference Library[3]

See also


  1. ^ "Minnesota election statistics 1950-2014" (PDF). Minnesota Secretary of State. Retrieved August 13, 2016.[permanent dead link]
  2. ^ "Minnesota Election Results 1994" (PDF). Minnesota Secretary of State. pp. 37–48. Retrieved November 1, 2015.
  3. ^ "Party Control of the Minnesota House of Representatives, 1951-present". Minnesota Legislative Reference Library. Retrieved November 27, 2015.
This page was last edited on 25 August 2019, at 19:04
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.