Policy Spotlight: Term Limits

“Term limits are the first step towards reforming Capitol Hill. Eliminating the political elite and infusing Washington with new blood will restore the citizen legislature that our Founding Fathers envisioned. The American people have called for increased accountability and we must deliver.”

—Representative Ron DeSantis (R-FL), 1/3/17, on the introduction of the Cruz-DeSantis Term Limits Constitutional Amendment in Congress

The idea of term limits in national American politics has a long and complicated history. The Framers of the Constitution, after much debate, eventually decided not to include term limits for members of Congress and the President, preferring instead regular elections and self-imposed limits by citizen legislators. Following Franklin Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms as President, Congress and the states approved the 22^nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting the President to two terms.

A groundswell of support for Congressional term limits in the 1980’s and 1990’s led to several states attempting to impose term limits on their own federal lawmakers, which were in turn struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The ruling held that only a constitutional amendment could require term limits, a precedent set by the 22^nd Amendment. In response, Congress voted on, and narrowly failed to approve, an amendment mandating term limits. Since then, the public’s interest in term limits has surged several times, but in general the status quo has remained in place.

This is unfortunate. Opponents of term limits do their best to argue the merits of an unpopular opinion, and some of those arguments make sense—the need, for instance, of legislators to accumulate experience and seniority if they are to be truly successful at aiding their constituents. Experience is always a useful thing to have, to some degree. But its importance can also be overstated, which is what generally happens when making the case against term limits. With an able staff, a new senator or congressman should be able to learn the ropes and start making a difference in short order—if the institutional requirement of seniority, perpetuated by politicians who have been in office for decades, don’t stand in his way, that is.

But perhaps the most important factor when discussing term limits is the culture of power, money, and influence that pervades Washington. Even the most well-intentioned candidates for office can easily be seduced into abandoning their principles by the temptations that lurk in every back corridor in the capital. The best way of ensuring those candidates don’t lose their way is by putting them on notice, from before they even arrive in Washington, that their days facing temptation are numbered.

The Framers, after much debate, rejected mandating term limits, believing that the best term limit was the will of the people, exercised through competitive elections. But in this they may have been mistaken, by underestimating the way in which the rise of major political parties would make so many races uncompetitive—and by how long tenures in office would make incumbents less and less likely to be unseated by their constituents. The amendment process was built into the Constitution because the Framers knew they were not infallible. It is a power that should be used judiciously, but in the case of Congressional term limits, one vital to restoring accountability and good government in the federal government.