Weekly Beat: Congressional Term Limits

A Letter From Voice For Values Founder, Judy Stahl

Greetings! May is one of my favorite months of the year. I hope you are getting out and enjoying the freshness of the season. For many of us in cold country—and, yes, Arizona does have cold country— it's a time to open up the windows, air things out, and do some spring cleaning.

This brings me to the main story for this edition of the Weekly Beat: Congressional Term Limits. Currently, there are bills in the House with sponsors in the Senate addressing this issue. Interestingly, all of the sponsors are Republicans. We promise to bring you our educated opinion on matters of importance to you and our country regardless of which side of the aisle from which they may originate.

At Voice for Values, we believe that term limits for congressional members would benefit and strengthen our Democracy in many ways; Not the least of which is the opportunity to air things out. My position of support for term limits can be articulated in two names: Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley. 

In years past, Mitch McConnell was my nominee for Worst Person in America. Nothing that he's done in recent years has changed my mind on that. Leaving aside the numerous times he's frozen up mid-sentence in a press conference for all the world to see, like someone on a Zoom screen, his power was more than one person should have. He should not have been able to influence our Supreme Court to the corrupt extent that he has. Yes, he is now stepping down, but the damage has been done. 

Some of you know that I knocked doors in Iowa for Chuck Grassley's worthy Democratic opponent in the 1976 Congressional election. I was 16 years old; not even able to vote yet. Folks, I had my Medicare birthday this year. Let's face it, if I were 16 years old today, given our current political environment, I don't think I would be nearly as hopeful as I was almost 50 years ago. This must change! Term limits must be a part of the solution.

Meanwhile, please take heart from the successes in court this past week: The young man in Vermont released from ICE custody, who said "I am not afraid of you." And the Trump-appointed judge in Brownsville, Texas who determined that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used to hold and deport people without due process. As well as the May Day marches that took place on a Thursday and will continue this weekend. Stay tuned for the 'No Kings' March on Saturday, June 14. It will be huge! The convicted felon in the White House wants a big parade for his 79th birthday, so let's give him one!

For the future,

Judy  

---

Main Story: Term Limits—A Fix for Democracy or a Loss of Legislative Experience?

We live in an age when public trust in our government hovers near historic lows; as of 2024, just 22% of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing “most of the time.” In this time of public distrust, elected officials are understandably looking for solutions to increase public trust. One solution that was recently proposed was the imposition of term limits on members of Congress.

On April 29th, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit members of the House of Representatives to serving just three 2-year terms and members of the Senate to two 6-year terms. If approved by a ⅔ majority in each body of Congress, the amendment would then go to the states for ratification and would require ¾ of states to ratify before it becomes valid law.

Seems like a heavy lift, right?

Maybe not. Term limits have broad bipartisan support. According to a 2023 Pew Research survey, 87% of Americans favor term limits for members of Congress, cutting across party lines and ideological divides. With this level of favorability, what would normally be a near-impossible feat has a viable path for success.

That being said, the rising popularity of term limits and other government reforms, as well as the swiftly diminishing public trust, now require a thorough examination of the benefits and potential pitfalls of implementing term limits on Congress.

Benefit 1: Curbing Careerism in Washington

One of the core reasons proponents of term limits cite is the elimination of careerism in Washington. From the inception of our government, public service was intended to be a temporary civic duty, not a lifelong career. In fact, President Washington set this precedent when he voluntarily stepped down from the Presidency after two terms. Later, after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt mere months into his fourth term, the country came together to impose term limits on the Presidency. As a result, a sitting President is now limited to serving just two 4-year terms.

Despite limits on the executive branch, members of Congress often serve decades in office, making them more beholden to party machinery and special interests than to the citizens who elected them. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), for example, retired in 2023 after 48 years in the Senate. Such longevity often leads to complacency, not effectiveness.

Representative Kay Granger

More alarmingly, members of Congress have an unsettling pattern of either dying or losing competency in office. For example, Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX, shown to the left) missed every vote in the last 6 months of her final term due to complications with dementia. Rather than step down and allow a special election to take place, her unelected staff covered for her, maintaining a “business as usual” message to the public. At the time, she had served for over 27 years.

Some would argue that imposing term limits undermines institutional knowledge, leading to legislators being less effective over the course of their careers. In reality, this assumption is unfounded. In fact, our modern Congress has been one of the least effective legislative bodies in history, while also touting some of the longest serving legislators amongst its membership.  In the 2023-25 term, the 118th Congress introduced 19,000 bills but passed just 150 bills, a less than 1% success rate. This is the lowest bill pass rate the U.S. has seen since 1951.

Term limits would ensure regular turnover and prevent legislators from prioritizing reelection above all else. Politicians with a known expiration date are less likely to cater to entrenched power structures and more likely to focus on legislative accomplishments during their finite time in office. It creates a system where accountability is built in—not just through elections, but by design.

Benefit 2: Breaking the Incumbency Stronghold

Many opponents of term limits have claimed that imposing term limits undermines voters' choices. If voters are satisfied with their elected representatives, they should have the opportunity to reelect them. Election data paints a very different picture.

The power of incumbency has created a system where democratic competition is largely illusory. On average, an incumbent’s chance of reelection is well over 90% and increases the further they get in their careers. This overwhelming success rate is not the product of unrivaled performance but structural advantages—name recognition, campaign war chests, gerrymandered districts, and institutional support. These advantages discourage capable challengers and lead to voter apathy. For why would someone vote for an opposing candidate when their failure is all but assured?

Term limits level the playing field. By setting a maximum number of terms, we open the door to a more diverse and representative Congress. Younger candidates, women, people of color, and nontraditional candidates—who often face steeper barriers to entry—would have a more equitable chance to compete in an open-seat election. This infusion of new voices is essential for a dynamic and responsive democracy.

Benefit 3: Dismantling the Power of Lobbyists

A common criticism of term limits is that they would empower lobbyists by making Congress less experienced. This claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, the opposite is true. Long-serving members of Congress build deep relationships with lobbyists, who capitalize on those ties to shape legislation. The longer a politician remains in office, the more embedded they become in the Washington influence ecosystem.

The revolving door between Congress and lobbying exacerbates this problem. More than 466 former members of Congress currently work as lobbyists for a variety of special interests. As it stands now, many of the members they are negotiating with are not random elected officials but former colleagues with whom they have existing long-standing partnerships.This puts special interests at a huge advantage and contributes to voters eroding trust in government.

Term limits disrupt this cycle. New legislators are less likely to be captured by special interests because their shorter time in office discourages cozy, long-term alliances with lobbyists. Moreover, term-limited lawmakers may feel freer to act in the public interest rather than in service of campaign donors or lobby groups whose support they would otherwise need to secure reelection over decades.

Our Take

The United States stands at a crossroads. We can continue to allow Congress to calcify into a permanent political class, or we can embrace structural reforms that reinvigorate our democracy. Term limits are not a panacea, but they are a vital step toward a more accountable, representative, and citizen-driven government. For the sake of our republic, it’s time to say: enough is enough.

---

Take Action: Demand Term Limits On Congress