Frustration with America’s political system has led to some renewed interest in setting term limits for lawmakers, though it’s an idea broadly opposed by experts.
Voters have long been supportive of hard caps on how long someone can be in office, but recent in-fighting among Republicans over who should be Speaker of the U.S. House and health issues among aging members of Congress have reignited calls for federal term limits. Ethics scandals at the U.S. Supreme Court have led to separate calls for judicial term limits.
As dissatisfaction with the functioning of America’s political apparatus continues to grow, the notion of imposing term limits on elected officials is resurfacing in public discourse. Despite encountering resistance from experts, the idea has gained traction due to recent events within the political landscape.
The desire for change is palpable among voters, many of whom have long advocated for strict time constraints on politicians’ tenures. However, it is the recent turmoil within the Republican ranks, particularly concerning the selection of the next House Speaker, that has brought this issue to the forefront once again. Additionally, concerns about the health and aging of Congress members have amplified the call for federal term limits.
Moreover, ethics scandals at the U.S. Supreme Court have contributed to the push for judicial term limits, further emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of how long individuals serve in key positions of power. These converging factors have reignited a national conversation on the necessity of implementing limitations on political and judicial terms, reflecting a growing sentiment that changes are imperative to ensure a more dynamic and accountable governance system.
Should congress have term limits pros and cons
The approval rating of Congress is consistently below 20%, yet the reelection rate is over 95%. If Congress were a television show, it would be taken off the air and not return for another season.
Why are our elected officials able to keep their jobs despite abysmal performance results?
Career politicians can stroll the Capitol’s marble halls for decades and accomplish very little (except reelection) because our electoral system provides candidates with the wrong incentives. When Congress members are constantly thinking about reelection, they end up devoting more time to campaign fundraising instead of serving the people. This revolving door in DC is hard to break, and the average age of senators is now 64.3 years — the oldest in history.
On April 10, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg testified before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearing on Capitol Hill to a group of out-of-touch lawmakers. Senators from both parties asked questions that revealed how little they know about the Facebook platform and technology in general. If they weren’t so busy focusing on reelection, maybe they would have had time to research the social media platform before the hearings.
The persistent disapproval of Congress, with an approval rating below 20%, starkly contrasts with its reelection rate of over 95%. This paradoxical scenario paints a picture of a system where performance seems disconnected from accountability.
Elected officials can spend decades within the hallowed halls of the Capitol, achieving little beyond securing their own reelection. This phenomenon is a byproduct of a flawed electoral system that incentivizes a relentless pursuit of campaign funding over genuine public service. As a result, the average age of senators has reached a record 64.3 years, perpetuating a sense of stagnation within the legislative branch.
Reflecting on April 10, 2018, we witnessed Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before a joint Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committee. The session exposed a concerning truth: our lawmakers, far removed from the pulse of modern technology, struggled to grasp even the basics of the Facebook platform. If not consumed by perpetual reelection concerns, perhaps they would have allocated time to understand the very platform they were scrutinizing.
The persistent cycle of low approval, high reelection, and a disconnect from modern realities highlights the urgent need for electoral reform. Only then can we hope to break the chains of stagnation in our legislative processes, fostering a Congress that truly serves the interests of the people.
Disadvantages of term limits
Congressional term limits have long been argued as an easy mechanism for improving the effectiveness of Congress and government at large. More specifically, advocates suggest term limits would allow members to spend less time dialing for dollars and more time on policymaking, enable them to make unpopular but necessary decisions without fear of retaliation at the ballot box, and avoid the corruptive influence of special interests that many assume is an inevitable result of spending too much time in Washington, D.C.
Plus, proponents reason, new blood in Congress is a good thing. New members bring fresh ideas and aren’t beholden to the old ways of Washington that have left so many voters frustrated and Congress’ approval rating in shambles. At the very least, term limits would prevent members from being reelected despite serving long past their primes.
In a political environment where bipartisan agreement on any issue of any size is rarely enjoyed, this proposal is incredibly popular. Seventy-four percent of likely voters are in favor of congressional term limits. In fact, many members—the very people who would be affected should such a policy be put in place—have shown their desire to limit the number of terms they themselves are eligible to serve by introducing legislation in nearly every congressional session since 1943 that would add a term-limit amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even then-candidate Donald Trump argued term limits would effectively help him “drain the swamp” when elected, much to the delight of his anti-establishment base.
The implicit argument is that Washington, with its corrosive practices, corrupts even the most well-intentioned lawmakers. Because of this, the best—and maybe only—form of inoculation is to limit, constitutionally, the time elected officials can spend in power. At their core, limit advocates contend that elections can’t be trusted to produce incorruptible representatives.
Much of the term-limit reasoning makes sense. However, it ignores the very real downsides that would result. Despite widespread support, instituting term limits would have numerous negative consequences for Congress.
Limiting the number of terms members can serve would:
- Take power away from voters: Perhaps the most obvious consequence of establishing congressional term limits is that it would severely curtail the choices of voters. A fundamental principle in our system of government is that voters get to choose their representatives. Voter choices are restricted when a candidate is barred from being on the ballot.
What would it take to put term limits on congress?
Congressional term limits have long been argued as an easy mechanism for improving the effectiveness of Congress and government at large. More specifically, advocates suggest term limits would allow members to spend less time dialing for dollars and more time on policymaking, enable them to make unpopular but necessary decisions without fear of retaliation at the ballot box, and avoid the corruptive influence of special interests that many assume is an inevitable result of spending too much time in Washington, D.C.
When I speak with people about congressional term limits, they’ll often say “Of course. Everyone supports that! Why don’t we have it already?”
The answer is simple: We don’t yet have term limits on Congress because politicians on both sides of the aisle are blocking it for self-serving reasons. Legally speaking, congressional term limits could be adopted in one week’s time if America’s politicians actually listened to the people they represent (80% of whom support the issue). It would take a simple two-thirds vote in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, followed by majority votes in 38 state legislatures. That would pose no problem if term limits were something our leaders wanted. But it’s not. In fact, there is nothing members of Congress want less than term limits, because term limits are a threat to their power, perks, and privilege.
Term limits would transfer power away from the entrenched establishment in both parties and back to the American people, whose beliefs and aspirations are viewed cynically by Washington elites. Here’s the good news, though: we can still term limit Congress despite this roadblock. Let’s walk through the steps.
The idea of congressional term limits has often been lauded as a simple solution to enhance the functioning of Congress and the broader government apparatus. Proponents argue that term limits would reduce the time spent by members on fundraising and increase their focus on policymaking. Additionally, it would empower them to make tough decisions without fear of electoral repercussions, while also mitigating the corrupting influence of special interests that often accompany prolonged stays in Washington, D.C.
In conversations about term limits, many individuals express a sentiment of widespread support, wondering why such a measure has not already been implemented. The answer, according to many observers, lies in the self-interest of politicians from both sides of the political spectrum. While a majority of the American populace, 80%, backs term limits, the road to implementation is blocked by politicians who prioritize their own power and privilege.
Legally, the adoption of congressional term limits could be a swift process, achievable within a mere week if elected officials truly heeded the desires of their constituents. A two-thirds vote in both the U.S. House and Senate, followed by majority approval in 38 state legislatures, is all it would take. However, this straightforward path is obstructed by the reluctance of Congressional members themselves. Term limits, they argue, pose a direct threat to their entrenched authority and benefits.
Despite this opposition, the potential benefits of term limits remain clear. Such a policy would reallocate power from the entrenched political elite back to the American people, whose voices are often dismissed or cynically viewed by the Washington establishment.
The good news is that the path to term limiting Congress is still viable. By understanding the necessary procedural steps and fostering continued public support, there remains a pathway to transforming the entrenched nature of Congress, empowering a new generation of leaders, and reinvigorating the democratic process.
Who voted against term limits for congress
On March 29, the House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to limit the terms of members of Congress (HJ Res 73). The vote, marking the first outright defeat on a plank of the House Republicans’ “Contract With America,” concluded action on term limits for the year.
Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., pledged to revisit the issue in the following year, informing reporters after the House vote that term limits would be a potent Republican weapon in the 1996 elections. “It’s coming back. We’re going to talk about it all year. We’re going to talk about it next year,” Gingrich stated. He further commented that Democrats displayed a “suicidal desire” in their overwhelming opposition.
The House on March 29 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at limiting the terms of members of Congress (HJ Res 73). This decision, notable as the first outright defeat concerning a component of the House Republicans’ “Contract With America,” effectively halted action on term limits for the current year.
Following this outcome, Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., made a commitment to readdress the issue in the subsequent year. Speaking to reporters after the House vote, Gingrich expressed his belief that term limits would serve as a potent tool for the Republican Party in the upcoming 1996 elections. “It’s coming back. We’re going to talk about it all year. We’re going to talk about it next year,” Gingrich affirmed. He also criticized Democrats, accusing them of possessing a “suicidal desire” due to their overwhelming opposition to the proposal.
The House’s decision on March 29 marked a pivotal moment as they rejected a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to limit the terms of members of Congress (HJ Res 73). This event, recognized as the first direct defeat related to a part of the House Republicans’ “Contract With America,” effectively suspended further action on term limits for the year.
Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., in response to this outcome, pledged to revisit the issue in the ensuing year. Addressing reporters post-vote, Gingrich emphasized the potential of term limits as a potent strategy for the Republican Party in the upcoming 1996 elections. “It’s coming back. We’re going to talk about it all year. We’re going to talk about it next year,” Gingrich assured. He also criticized Democrats, alleging a “suicidal desire” in their overwhelming opposition to the proposal.
Editor