term limits essay

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Term limits for Congress are wildly popular. But most experts say they'd be a bad idea

Ashley Lopez

Congressional term limits are really popular with voters. With experts, not so much. Catie Dull/NPR hide caption

Congressional term limits are really popular with voters. With experts, not so much.

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 infighting 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.)

A Pew Research Center survey this summer found a whopping 87% of Americans say they support congressional term limits.

And it's one of those rare issues that appeals to people from across the political spectrum, with Democratic and Republican respondents in the Pew poll backing the policy in equal measure.

This story is part of a series of reports on alternatives to how Americans vote and elect their political leaders. Click here for more NPR voting stories .

Casey Burgat, the director of the Legislative Affairs program at the Graduate School of Political Management at the George Washington University, says that's not surprising.

"There's a lot of dysfunction in our politics, particularly within Congress," he says. "Congress is one of the most unpopular institutions we have. And so when we have something unpopular, it makes a lot of sense to refresh the people who serve in that institution."

The idea has over the years been proposed by Democratic and Republican candidates alike, including then- President Donald Trump . And the appeal for term limits has only grown recently, says Nick Tomboulides, executive director of an advocacy group called U.S. Term Limits.

"When you're talking about the average American and why 87% of them support term limits, it's the storytelling," he says. "It's these high-profile examples that you see of people who have either lost control, they have cognitive decline ... [and] they're making the most important decisions in our country."

The incumbency advantage

Tomboulides also points to stories of lawmakers staying in office despite scandals and ethics violations.

And he blames all of this on the power of incumbency.

"Ninety-seven percent of incumbents get reelected ," he says. "Last election cycle, 100% of Senate incumbents on the ballot got reelected. Not a single sitting U.S. senator was defeated last cycle. And so from a democracy standpoint, from an election standpoint, our elections are not very democratic."

While the incumbency advantage is perhaps the most popular argument in support of term limits, academics who study this issue say it isn't as cut and dry as many people think it is.

Burgat says there are multiple factors that make it easier for incumbents to win elections, including redistricting. Most members of Congress are in uncompetitive seats drawn to particularly favor their party.

"Over 90% of our elections are uncompetitive, meaning we know essentially what party is going to win those elections, no matter what candidates are running," he says. "And so the faster you turn those politicians over, the more often you're going to have to replace them."

The U.S. has a 'primary problem,' say advocates who call for new election systems

What research has found.

Burgat says term limits don't solve the core problems in American politics that make people dislike Congress — things like gerrymandering, political polarization and the influence of special interests, as well as money in politics.

In fact, academics have broadly found that the effects of term limits are often either mixed or fall short of what proponents claim.

For example, supporters have argued term limits reduce polarization because lawmakers will be forced to be beholden to their constituents over their political parties. However, researchers found that term limits actually increased polarization in some cases.

Burgat says there is also evidence of some unintended consequences in the 16 states that have term limits for their state legislators.

Institutional knowledge

Susan Valdes is a Democratic state lawmaker in Florida, which is one of those 16 states.

"I've seen how the term limits have affected the policies at a state level and how much longer it takes to get good policies done," she says.

As a member of the Florida House, Valdes only gets a maximum of four two-year terms in office. She says she thinks of every term like one school year.

'"I'm going into my next election [thinking it] will be for my senior year," Valdes says. "And these six years in the Florida House have gone by so fast that really and truly the first two sessions, you're really just getting to know the ropes, understand how the lay of the land works, if you will, in that arena."

Florida state Reps. Susan Valdes, left, and Randy Fine high-five after debating a bill during a legislative session on March 8, 2022, in Tallahassee, Fla. Wilfredo Lee/AP hide caption

She says this is the case for pretty much everyone. Valdes says there's not a way for someone to train to become a legislator before getting into office.

Burgat says term limits often force people out of the job when they just start becoming effective and knowledgeable.

"And so when you term-limit someone," he says, "you are effectively cutting out their incentive to invest in learning how to do the job, to delve into policy issues at the depth that they need to and to really dive into how the procedures work, which just takes years. Because, again, there's no training ground for this. There's no training program."

But Tomboulides says he doesn't think lawmakers are spending their time gaining institutional knowledge, even when they have an unlimited amount of time in office. He says there is evidence that members of Congress spend most of their time raising money for their reelection.

"They're not studying the issues," Tomboulides says. "They're not reading these thousand-page bills because they're so focused on getting reelected. They're so focused on keeping the job rather than actually doing the job."

He says if politicians knew they had a limited time in office they would spend more time working for their constituents, instead of focusing on their next election.

But Valdes says she doesn't think term limits have created better legislators in her state.

"What I find is that we wind up trying to create legislation like we check our spaghetti," she says. "Let's see if it sticks to the wall and dinner's ready."

And she says what usually happens is that lawmakers have to go back during the next session and fix the unintended issues created by new policies.

"But in the meantime, what has happened is that people have been affected by those unintended consequences," Valdes says. "And that's where for me, the fairness, the equity, the righteousness of our policies and the intent of the laws that we pass sometimes get misguided."

Republican states swore off a voting tool. Now they're scrambling to recreate it

Voting online is very risky. But hundreds of thousands of people are already doing it

Power of special interests.

Some academics have found evidence that term limits give special interests more influence , because lobbyists and legislative staff have the bulk of the institutional knowledge in state legislatures.

Burgat says he also thinks term limits don't force lawmakers to be more beholden to their voters.

"In reality, studies have shown that term-limited lawmakers behave differently, that when you sever that electoral connection, when they're no longer dependent on voters to remain in office, then they start looking out for No. 1," he says. "They start looking out for themselves in a lot of different ways."

And that includes cozying up to lobbyists to line up their next job. Burgat says a lot of lawmakers don't want to forfeit all the relationships, institutional knowledge and policy expertise they gained in office.

But Tomboulides says he is not convinced that term limits equate to a big win for lobbyists and special interests. He says that's because, in his experience, lobbyists are some of the biggest opponents to his group's efforts.

"I've never had a lobbyist knock on my door and say, 'Hey, I really want to help you guys get term limits,' " he says. "It never happens. But I always have lobbyists opposing me."

Tomboulides says the fact that there is still debate about whether Congress should have term limits just shows the outsized influence that politicians have.

"Because we don't debate other 87% issues," he says. "We don't debate whether, like, my town should have a park or whether we should have, like, regular trash pickup — other 87, 90% issues. We just say this is what the American people want, this is what we're going to do. But term limits are imposed so strongly by the permanent political class in Washington."

And in the end, it is largely up to members of Congress to impose these limits on themselves.

A 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling went further to say that even if members of Congress managed to impose term limits on themselves, it could be ruled unconstitutional . That means congressional term limits might have to pass through a constitutional amendment, which is an exceedingly more difficult hurdle to clear.

• voting stories

April 4, 2024

Goldman School of Public Policy's Official Undergraduate Public Policy Journal at UC Berkeley

Congressional Term Limits are the Key to Maintaining Our Democracy

By  Michelle Tombu

T he democratic system of government in America was designed to most effectively serve the nation by vesting power in all its people. And yet it has increasingly become a weapon employed by individual politicians in fulfilling their sole objective of, first, garnering political power and then permanently remaining in it. An imposition of term limits for members of Congress has long been backed by a large majority of Americans on the impulse of fostering candid debate and forging a more progressive society – one which maintains the true integrity of our nation’s democracy. The current effects of congressional stagnation has resulted in more than 90% of House incumbents being continuously reelected year after year, with the reelection rate among Senators falling below 80% only three times total since 1982 [4]. Congressional term limits have the potential to ameliorate many of America’s most pressing political issues by “ counterbalancing incumbent advantages, ensuring congressional turnover, securing independent congressional judgment, and reducing election-related incentives for wasteful government spending” [1]. But perhaps most importantly, such a change will allow Congress to appear directly face to face with its own fragility, acquire a sense of its own transitoriness and potentially even come to learn ways in which to sustain legitimacy. Term limits are a very necessary corrective to the current political inequalities which perpetually avail incumbents and inevitably hinder their challengers. 

The 22nd Amendment of the United States Constitution imposes a two term limit on all presidencies as a check on federal executive power. P residential term limits sustain the democracy of the position and ensure a single candidate does not cling on to power for an excessive period of time. Our national legislation has already appointed term limits on the office of the President in an effort to maintain political impartiality, thus it is only logical that such measures be applied to Congress as well. Some argue that congressional elections serve as inherent term limits for members of the House. This can be refuted by political campaign donors’ recognition of an incumbent candidate’s higher reelection rate and subsequent inclination to support such a campaign in an effort to yield more profit. This makes it nearly impossible for other candidates to have a chance at a fair election. In primary elections, both the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) very rarely introduce new candidates to run against incumbents. Thus, the current office-holder often becomes the sole possible nominee [2]. The approval rating of Congress ranks consistently below 20%, yet the congressional reelection rate remains over 95% because of the intrinsic advantages incumbents have over challengers, making it virtually impossible to vote them out of office. Term limits have the capacity to prevent individuals from becoming too powerful in Congress and ultimately better reflect the will of the American people. This also plays into a citizen’s constitutional right to vote by giving voters more choices at the ballot box and effectively eliminating the electoral monopoly generated by incumbent advantages. Allowing new individuals to run for office will give voters more federal autonomy and opportunities to create a personal choice.

Term limits are supported by a large majority of American demographic groups: an overwhelming 82% of Americans support a “Term Limits Amendment” for Congress, even crossing major party lines at 89% Republican, 83% Independent, and 76% Democratic, making the issue nonpartisan in itself [4]. The longstanding legislative resistance to congressional term limits stands in sharp contrast with private citizens’ strong support for them. The only serious primary opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians and the special interest groups that support them, particularly labor union groups. The extreme influence of lobbyists such as super Political Action Committees (PACs) and special interests serves as a threat to our democracy because these groups have held the financial power to sway elections and overpower the voices of others through absolutely exorbitant campaign donations. ​​According to “Open Secrets”, 97% of corporate PAC money goes to the incumbent candidates because they are often most established and easily-influenced – l obbyists and special interest groups already have them in their back pocket [5]. Term limits would effectively break the chokehold these groups have on the members of Congress, reducing the amount of money spent on incumbent candidates and thus making our elections more democratic and just. They would aid in reducing political corruption by severing politicians’ ties with lobbyists and bureaucrats, making ex-lawmakers overall less valuable. In doing so, public service is safeguarded from those who seek to exploit it for personal benefit.

 Time and time, year after year, we are represented by the same people. In 2020, both the House and Senate elections, 93% of incumbent candidates nationwide won their respective races. Such candidates have the name recognition, money, and power necessary to easily win these elections, however, they do little for their constituents and advance their own interests by gaining committee chairmanships and seniority. Bills and other legislatures are most often stalled in congressional election years when politicians are primarily focused on reelection rather than their duty to serve districts and address significant community matters. As it turns out, when members of Congress spend every waking moment of their given term consumed by the prospects of their own reelection, the concerns of the American people fall by the wayside. “As a result, all we are left with is unsolved problems and a $27 trillion national debt” [3]. When not fully invested in the matters of their own country, Congress members are forced to vote along party lines to ensure they are re-elected by their party. The introduction of term limits would create more acts of political courage. Term limits will allow the most capable lawmakers to have these positions while encouraging other members to do the same, creating a sense of ability over seniority. Term limits provide representatives who are closer to their constituents and who know they have a limited time in office to do the work they were sent there to do. They remain cognizant of the return they will make back home, where they too must live under the laws they have enacted.

Congressional incumbency is “ a paradigm of careerism, combining power, stature and influence with lavish benefits : a high salary; unparalleled business connections; limited working days; spectacular working conditions; periodic taxpayer-funded fact-finding trips; a sizable staff (that could include family and friends); exceptional medical, dental and retirement benefits; weakened insider trading rules; taxpayer funded legal expenses; the ability to moonlight at other jobs; free flights back and forth to the lawmaker’s home state; a family death gratuity; and free parking” [2]. Considering this it is truly no wonder that these guys make every effort to maintain their jobs for as long as humanly possible. Innovative public policy, which includes the addition of term limits, is the only way to address the most pressing of issues currently affecting our nation. How will we address problems such as foreign debt, climate change, immigration, etc. if the congressmen who have been unable to pass successful resolutions continue to remain in power? The solution lies in the succeeding and thus they must be rewarded an equal opportunity.

• Greenberg, Dan. “Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean up Congress.” The Heritage Foundation , Political Process, 1994, https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/term-limits-the-only-way-clean-congress
• Fulcrum, William NatbonyThe. “Ted Cruz Is Right! Congress Needs Term Limits.” Shelby News , 17 Aug. 2021, https://www.shelbynews.com/opinion/ted-cruz-is-right-congress-needs-term-limits/article_0bfe80b1-b6d9-5894-a39f-7e18376b8274.html
• “OpEd: We Need Congressional Term Limits.” Representative Jake LaTurner , 20 July 2021, https://laturner.house.gov/media/editorial/oped-we-need-congressional-term-limits
• “Suggestions on the Benefits of Term Limits.” U.S. Term Limits , 5 Aug. 2021, https://www.termlimits.com/suggestions/
• Markman, Allison. “Congress Needs Term Limits.” The Iris , 7 Sep. 2021, https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/congress-needs-term-limits

Published in Edition V: Policy in the Media

Be First to Comment

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Debate Over Term Limits for Congress

The Pros and Cons of Imposing Terms Limits for Congress

MPI /  Getty Images

• Campaigns & Elections
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Legal System
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government

The idea of imposing  term limits for Congress , or a mandatory restriction on how long members of the House and Senate can serve in office, has been debated by the public for centuries. There are pros and cons and strong opinions on both sides of the issue, perhaps a surprise, given the electorate's less-than-flattering opinion of their representatives in modern history.

Here are some questions and answers about term limits and the ongoing debate surrounding the idea, as well as a look at the pros and cons of term limits for Congress.

Are There Term Limits for Congress Now?

No. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two years at a time and can serve an unlimited number of terms. Members of the Senate are elected for six years and also can serve an unlimited number of terms.

What's the Longest Anyone Has Served?

The longest anyone ever served in the Senate was 51 years, 5 months and 26 days, a record held by the late Robert C. Byrd.   The Democrat from West Virginia was in office from Jan. 3, 1959, through June 28, 2010.

The longest anyone ever served in the House is 59.06 years (21,572), a record held by U.S. Rep. John Dingell Jr.   The Democrat from Michigan was in office from 1955 to 2015.

Are There Term Limits for the President?

Presidents are restricted to only two four-year terms in the White House under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."

Have There Been Attempts to Impose Term Limits on Congress?

There have been numerous attempts by some lawmakers to pass statutory term limits, but all of those proposals have been unsuccessful. Perhaps the most famous attempt at passing term limits came during the so-called Republican revolution when the GOP took control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections.

Term limits were a tenet of the Republican Contract with America. The contract called for a removal of career politicians through a first-ever vote on term limits as part of the Citizen Legislature Act. Term limits never came to fruition.

What about the Congressional Reform Act?

The Congressional Reform Act does not exist. It is a fiction passed off in email chains as a legitimate piece of legislation that would limit members of Congress to 12 years of service - either two six-year Senate terms or six two-year House terms.

What Are the Arguments in Favor of Term Limits?

Proponents of term limits argue that restricting the service of lawmakers prevents politicians from amassing too much power in Washington and becoming too alienated from their constituents.

The thinking is that many lawmakers view the work as a career and not a temporary assignment, and therefore spend much of their time posturing, raising money for their re-election campaigns and running for office instead of focusing on the important issues of the day. Those who favor term limits say they would remove the intense focus on politics and place it back on policy.

What Are the Arguments Against Term Limits?

The most common argument against term limits goes something like this: "We already have term limits. They're called elections." The primary case against term limits is that, indeed, our elected officials in the House and Senate must face their constituents every two years or every six years and get their approval.

Imposing term limits, opponents argue, would remove the power from voters in favor of an arbitrary law. For example, a popular lawmaker seen by her constituents as being effective and influential would want to re-elect her to Congress - but could be barred from doing so by a term-limit law.

" Longest-Serving Senators ." United States Senate, 2020. 

" Members with 40 Years or More Service ." History, Art & Archives, United States House of Representatives, 2020. 

• Qualifications to be a US Representative
• How Many Years Can a President Serve in the White House?
• About the United States Senate
• Can You Recall a Member of Congress?
• Why No Term Limits for Congress? The Constitution
• Basic Structure of the US Government
• About the Legislative Branch of U.S. Government
• The Three Branches of US Government
• Why the Congressional Reform Act Will Never Pass
• Tips for Writing Effective Letters to Congress
• The Powers of Congress
• Supermajority Vote in US Congress
• Why the President's Party Loses Seats in Midterm Elections
• Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
• The Impeachment Process in US Government
• Code of Ethics for United States Government Service

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Why the Supreme Court Needs (Short) Term Limits

By Rosalind Dixon

Dr. Dixon is a law professor and testified before the Supreme Court Commission in July 2021.

The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court recently issued its final report , considering a range of procedural changes to how the court operates — most notably, the introduction of term limits for the justices. It pointed to 18-year terms as the leading model for such change. Ideally, it suggested, the states would ratify a constitutional amendment, but some of the commissioners believed this could also be attempted through an act of Congress.

In writings after the report, other members of the commission suggested that term limits do not go far enough to curb an institution they view as hyperpartisan and as having lost public trust. (The court’s approval rating has plummeted , according to Gallup, to its lowest point since 2000, when the poll began.) They said that what was needed was an increase in the size of the court — to rebalance it in a more bipartisan direction.

More is needed to address the court’s current composition and approach — not by expanding the size of the court but through even more powerful, that is, shorter, term limits.

Eighteen years is too long to address the crisis in Supreme Court functioning and legitimacy. We need term limits that start to bite much sooner — after 12 years.

Judicial term limits are a tool widely employed by constitutional designers around the world. Some countries follow the British model of judicial age limits. Others follow the German model of fixed judicial terms, but almost all — other than the United States — reject the idea of lifetime judicial tenure. And they do so by imposing term limits shorter than 18 years.

Perhaps most important, countries with strict judicial term limits include some of the most powerful and respected constitutional courts. In Germany, justices of the Federal Constitutional Court are appointed for a single, nonrenewable 12-year term. It is the same in South Africa. And in Colombia and Taiwan, constitutional justices are appointed for an eight-year term.

Like term limits for the presidency, judicial term limits have several salutary benefits. They encourage regular turnover on a court and the renewal of democratic consent and input into the process of judicial review.

They also discourage the appointment of young, hyperideological judges who are seen as having the capacity to stay on the court for the long run and shift it in a particular predetermined ideological direction.

The Supreme Court does a lot more than call balls and strikes. It decides a range of complex legal and political questions, where legal and political philosophy inevitably play a role.

But for a court to earn and retain the public’s trust, those decisions must reflect a judge’s considered individual moral and political judgments, not any fixed ideological position or platform. Justices must also engage in true collective deliberation, not factional conferencing based on ideological positions.

The Supreme Court still does this in a wide range of nonconstitutional cases and cases that involve complex federal statutes like the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. But it rarely engages in that kind of thoughtful, collective deliberation in cases that involve constitutional rights and freedoms. What is good enough for employment benefits should be good enough for constitutional rights.

Expanding the court (“court packing”) might be justified if things were to get worse. For now, it risks setting off a dynamic with dangers for democracy. It could result in a cycle of escalation: As soon as Republicans regain control of Washington, they would seek to expand the size of the court as well. This would create a court that is too large, is forced to sit in panels rather than en banc, or as a whole, and produces uneven and unpredictable results. This is basically the experience of the Supreme Court of India, which has about 30 justices.

And it would mean that would-be authoritarians around the world would feel licensed to do the same. They would be encouraged to engage in what David Landau of Florida State University College of Law and I have called a form of “abusive” borrowing — the adoption of court packing as a strategy to advance anti-democratic rather than democratic aims.

No reform is without risks. Judges with fixed terms might also start considering postjudicial opportunities in their judgments. This is especially true for lower court judges, which explains why current reform efforts are focused solely on the Supreme Court. But this seems like a minor risk for the Supreme Court itself: Most justices are likely to prefer international arbitration or law teaching to ambassadorships. And as the commission itself noted, at least if there was a constitutional amendment, there could be a bar on judges’ holding certain offices during a period after retirement.

Some might worry that the court could turn out to be too responsive to politics under a 12-year term. This was the main reason the commission itself preferred 18-year judicial terms. But the composition of such a court would remain constant only for a single presidential term. And the details would matter: All judges could be appointed during the final two years of a president’s term, when there is less likely to be unified government and when a president’s choices would affect only the next president. This could also be accompanied by changes to how the Senate vets and votes on nominees.

The biggest risk is that the reform will simply fail to get off the ground. Judicial term limits can be adopted by statute or constitutional amendment. If adopted by statute, it would come before the Supreme Court for review — and the court might well reject the argument that it is compatible with Article III, which entrenches guarantees of judicial independence.

That makes constitutional amendment the safest path for any reform effort — but it is also the most difficult path. Article V provides that any successful amendment requires a supermajority in Congress and among the states. And if an amendment were a serious possibility, one might put a range of reforms — broader changes to how justices are appointed, electoral districts are drawn and campaign finance is regulated — ahead of term-limit reform in the list of structural changes likely to improve American law and politics.

Reforming an institution like the Supreme Court is tricky: Too rapid and radical an approach risks undermining all the institutional respect and capital it has built over centuries. Too moderate a response risks leaving it to face a slow decline in institutional integrity and public respect.

But especially if they could be adopted by statute, 12-year staggered judicial term limits might just help thread that needle — and contribute to meaningful yet restrained change to an institution that is in urgent need of it.

Rosalind Dixon is a law professor and director of the Gilbert + Tobin Center of Public Law at U.N.S.W. Sydney. She is the author, with David Landau, of “ Abusive Constitutional Borrowing : Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the purpose of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court report. It was to consider reforms to the Supreme Court, not call for reforms to it.

How we handle corrections

Term Limits and Their Many Theories

• First Online: 01 November 2023

Cite this chapter

• Jordan Butcher 2  

32 Accesses

Term limits were first introduced to the public as a fix for politicians that had become too far removed from constituents. While term limits were a popular subject well into the early 2000s, the research on term limits has declined. Regardless of the state in question or the time of the proposal, term limits remain a popular policy among the public and their merits will continue to be debated for another 20 years. Term limits were pushed as a solution to the careerism caused by professionalization, but their lasting effects are largely unknown. In “Navigating Term Limits,” Butcher explores the long-term effects of term limits on legislative careers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The Legislative Bills raw data are from LegiScan but have been restructured.

A member’s race is often difficult to confirm in the context of historical data and not wanting to mislabel someone, while there are hopes of updating this information in the future it is worth noting that there is missing data here, primarily for Florida, Maine, and Ohio.

Lower: Speaker, Speaker Pro Tem, Majority Leader, Assistant Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Assistant Minority Leader, and Majority/Minority Whips; Upper: President/President Pro Tem, Majority Leader, Assistant Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Assistant Minority Leader, and Majority/Minority Whips.

Given that members sometimes serve in multiple leadership positions during their service, there is the possibility of repeat individuals.

The raw data can be found here https://legiscan.com/datasets .

A list of the committees and states used in this additional analysis can be found in Table B.5 in Appendix B.

Nebraska has a slightly different format because they do not have party leaders and there is only one chamber.

Bibliography

Associated Press. 2018a. Missouri constitutional amendment would change term limits . https://apnews.com/article/89a2059fc8004855a1790a5a25a1a3f9 (accessed July 30, 2018).

Associated Press. 2018b. Alabama Senate rejects term limits proposal . https://www.al.com/news/2018/03/alabama_senate_rejects_term_li.html (accessed July 30, 2018).

Berman, D. 2007. The effects of legislative term limits in Arizona: More churning, more chaos, and a diminished institutional role for legislators. In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits . Lexington Books.

Google Scholar  

Cain, Bruce E., and Thad Kousser. 2004. Adapting to term limits: Recent experiences and new directions . Public Policy Institute of California.

Cain, Bruce, and Gerald Wright. 2007. Committees. In Institutional change in American politics: The case of term limits , ed. Bruce Cain Karl Kurtz, and Richard G. Niemi, 73–89. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press chapter 4.

Cain, Bruce, T. Kousser, and K. Kurtz. 2007. Institutional imbalance: The effect of six year limits in California . In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits. Lexington Books.

Capell, Elizabeth A. 1996. The impact of term limits on the California legislature: An interest group perspective. In Legislative term limits: Public choice perspectives , 67–85. Springer.

Carey, John M., Richard G. Niemi, and Lynda W. Powell. 2000. Term limits in state legislatures . University of Michigan Press.

Clucas, Richard A. 2003. California: The new amateur politics , 17–32. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Crane, Edward H., and Roger Pilon. 1994. An American debate. In The politics and law of term limits , ed. Edward H. Crane. Cato Institute.

English, Art, and B. Weberg. 2007. Term limits in the Arkansas General Assembly: A citizen legislature responds . In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits. Lexington Books.

Farmer, Rick. 2007. The 2004 partisan transition in the Oklahaoma house and term limits. Oklahoma Politics 16: 19–46.

Farmer, Rick, and T.H. Little. 2007. Legislative power in the Buckeye State: The revenge of term limits . In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits. Lexington Books.

Hickey, Walt. 2022. Americans think the government is too old—And wide margins support term limits, age caps, and cognitive tests, an insider/morning consult poll finds.

Jacob, Paul. 1994. From the voters with care. In The politics and law of term limits , ed. Edward H. Crane. Cato Institute.

Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2006. Term limits’ multiple effects on state legislators’ career decisions. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (4): 357–383.

Masket, Seth E., and Jeffrey B. Lewis. 2007. A return to normalcy? Revisiting the effects of term limits on competitiveness and spending in California assembly elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (1): 20–38.

Article   Google Scholar  

Minot Daily News . 2022.  Poll: Voters back term limits  (accessed October 7, 2022).

Moen, Matthew C., and Kenneth T. Palmer. 2003. Maine: The cutting edge of term limits. In The test of time . Lexington Books.

Moen, Matthew C., Kenneth T. Palmer, and Richard John Powell. 2005. Changing members: The Maine legislature in the era of term limits . Lexington Books.

Moncrief, Gary., and Joel A. Thompson. 2001. On the outside looking in: Lobbyists’ perspectives on the effects of state legislative term limits. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 1 (4): 394–411.

Moncrief, Gary, Linda W. Powell, and Tim Storey. 2007. “Composition of legislatures.” In Institutional change in American politics: The case of term limits , ed. Bruce Cain Karl Kurtz, and Richard G. Niemi, 22–37. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press chapter 4

Mooney, C. 2007. Truncated careers in professionalized state legislatures. In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits . Lexington Books.

Rochester First. 2019. New bill seeks to impose term limits for state legislature .  https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/archive-state-news/new-bill-seeks-to-impose-term-limits-for-state-legislature/ (accessed September 13, 2019).

The Council of State Governments. Various Years. The book of the states . Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.

Olson, Michael P., and Jon C. Rogowski. 2020. Legislative term limits and polarization. The Journal of Politics 82 (2): 572–586.

Penning, James M. 2003. “Michigan: The end is near.” In The test of time , ed. Rick Farmer, John David Rausch Jr., and John C. Green. Lexington Books.

Petracca, Mark P. 1994. Restoring “the university in rotation”: An essay in defense of term limitation. In The politics and law of term limits , ed. Edward H. Crane. Cato Institute.

Powell, L.W. 2012. The influence of campaign contributions in state legislatures: The effects of institutions and politics . Legislative Politics and Policy Making University of Michigan Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=7pZFDwAAQBAJ

Powell, R.J., and R. Jones. 2007. Institutional change and legislative term limits in Maine.” In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits . Lexington Books.

Rosenthal, A. 2007. Living with term limits. In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits . Lexington Books.

Sarbaugh-Thompson, Marjorie. 2010. Measuring term limitedness in US multi-state research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10 (2): 199–217.

Sarbaugh-Thompson, Marjorie, and Lyke Thompson. 2017. Implementing term limits: The case of the Michigan legislature . University of Michigan Press.

Sarbaugh-Thompson, Marjorie, Lyke Thompson, Charles Elder, John Strate, and Richard Elling. 2004. The political and institutional effects of term limits . Springer.

Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and politics: Political careers in the United States. Rand McNally and Co.

Squire, Peverill. 2017. A Squire index update. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 17 (4): 361–371.

Squire, Peverill, and Gary F. Moncrief. 2010. State legislatures today: Politics under the domes . Rowan & Littlefield.

Straayer, J. 2007.Colorado legislative term limits: The worst of both worlds. In Legislating without experience: Case studies in state legislative term limits . Lexington Books.

Straayer, John A. 2003. Colorado: Lots of commotion, limited consequences. In The test of time . Lexington Books.

Strickland, James M., and Jesse M. Crosson. 2022. K Street on main: Legislative turnover and multi-client lobbying. In Political Science Research and Methods , 1–17.

The Salt Lake Tribune . 2019.  Signature gathering starts for Utah term limits initiative . https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/09/11/signature-gathering/ (accessed September 13, 2019).

Washington Post . 2019.  Virginians like term limits—But their representatives don’t . https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/local-opinions/virginians-like-term-limits--but-their-representatives-dont/2019/08/30/dfe5b1c8-c915-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html (accessed September 13, 2019).

White, Gary. 2018. Gov. Rick Scott pitches term limits, longer congressional schedule during US Senate stump speech in Lakeland.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR, USA

Jordan Butcher

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordan Butcher .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Butcher, J. (2023). Term Limits and Their Many Theories. In: Navigating Term Limits. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39423-2_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39423-2_1

Published : 01 November 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-39422-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-39423-2

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog

Student and Practitioner Legal Scholarship Online

Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?

Photo by Jessie Collins on Unsplash

Sarah Simon, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

I. Introduction

Justices on the Supreme Court are appointed for life. Most retire, but four justices have died during their term: Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [1] Justice Ginsburg’s sudden death after serving 27 years on the Supreme Court has reignited a popular debate: Should the Supreme Court have term limits? [2]  

House Democrats proposed The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act (“Act”), a bill that would create term limits of 18 years for justices. [3] Justices would not have to fully retire after 18 years; they could rotate to lower federal courts after their 18 years on the Supreme Court. [4] The Act would only allow presidents to pick two justices during a four-year term to limit political clashes over replacements. [5]

Approximately 53 percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court should have term limits and a mere 28 percent believe justices should serve for life, according to a 2018 survey. [6] Although there is public support for term limits, enacting them is more complicated. Part II will discuss the constitutionality of term limits. Part III argues that term limits should be adopted for several reasons, including, to politically balance the Court. Part IV concludes by acknowledging the political control of the Senate could prevent the term limits bill from being passed.

II. Constitutionality of Term Limits

While the majority of Americans support term limits, another important question must be addressed: How should term limits be effectuated? Some legal scholars argue that term limits may only be imposed through an amendment to the Constitution. [7] This is because Article III Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour . . . ” [8] The term “good behavior” has been interpreted by textualists to mean Supreme Court justices should serve life terms. [9] Under this view, amending the Constitution is the only way to make term limits constitutional.

However, the Constitution was ratified in 1787 when the average life expectancy for a white male in the US was about 38 years. [10] Today, US life expectancy is about 79 years (across demographics) and the average justice spends 28 years on the Court. [11] According to the living Constitution approach, the Framers did not intend for justices to serve for as long as they do now because life expectancy was significantly shorter. [12] Therefore, implementing term limits by statute would still be consistent with the Framer’s intent.

A third approach to interpreting the “good behavior” requirement in Article III Section 1 of the Constitution points out that it “does not expressly grant life tenure to Supreme Court justices.” [13] This means the requirement of having justices serve “during good behavior” could be met by a law allowing justices to continue their service on another federal court after they serve on the Supreme Court. [14] The proposed Act includes this option for justices after they spend 18 years on the Supreme Court, which makes the Act constitutional according to some legal scholars. [15] Therefore, the proposed Act is likely constitutional. But, why should term limits be implemented?

III. Discussion

First, the Act should be adopted to politically balance the Court by giving each president an equal amount of nominations. Thus far, presidential appointments have not been evenly distributed between Democrat and Republican presidents. Democrats have appointed only 4 of the past 18 justices. [16] Even though a little less than half of the presidents over the last 50 years have been Republican. [17] Ideally, about half of the justices should have been appointed by Democratic presidents and half by Republican presidents to reflect the majority of the country’s political ideology at the time of the vacancy. The Act would help solve this imbalance by limiting president appointments to two per term, giving future Democratic presidents more opportunities to appoint justices than they have had so far. This assures those newly appointed justices are reflective of the country’s political leaning, which is critical for a robust democracy.

Second, the Act would not harm the Court’s legitimacy. Legitimacy refers to the Court’s ability “to resolve disputes in ways people find acceptable even if they don’t like the decision.” [18] Term limit critics argue life terms insulate justices from political pressure, which protects the Court’s legitimacy. [19]  If the Court is not viewed as legitimate, the public is less likely to follow its opinions. [20] Under the Act, justices would be limited to 18 years on the Court, instead of life. 18 years is still a long time, equal to three Senate terms. Therefore, 18-year terms would protect justices from politics and the Court’s legitimacy would not be tarnished. 

Third, the Act would limit the increasing divisiveness of the Supreme Court confirmation process. Although few Democrats today would agree with Justice Scalia’s opinions, he was confirmed 98-0 in 1986. [21] No justice has been confirmed unanimously since. [22] Instead, justices are increasingly confirmed with narrow margins and the votes are often along party lines, with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh confirmed 54-45 and 50-48, respectively. [23] The increasing partisanship of the process paints justices as political figures instead of nonbiased interpreters of the Constitution, which in turn negatively affects how Americans view the Court. The Act would balance the number of justices that each president can nominate, which would help the confirmation process become less partisan.

Fourth, the tense political climate along with approaching elections heightens the need for term limits. Currently, President Trump is attempting to get his third nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barret, confirmed to the Court. [24] Without term limits, Judge Barret could be on the Supreme Court for several decades as she is only 48. [25] This is arguably too much power for one president to harness. Also, President Trump lost the popular vote, so him getting his third appointment makes the Court seem less in tune with the public. [26] As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said when he refused to confirm Judge Merrick Garland in an election year, “the American people should have a say in the court’s direction.” [27] Overall, term limits should be implemented to assure presidential appointments are balanced to reflect the electorate.

IV. Conclusion

Currently, the House has a strong Democrat majority, but the Senate has a Republican majority. [28] If the bill is passed, President Trump’s nominee, Judge Barret, would not be confirmed as President Trump has already appointed the maximum of two Supreme Court justices, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So, Justice Ginsberg’s vacancy would not be filled until next year, when either President Trump or a new president takes office. But the current political makeup of the Senate and the requirement that President Trump sign the bill make it unlikely that the bill will become law. However, if the Senate flips and a new president is elected, Democrats could try to pass term limits next year.

[1] Josh Blackman, Justices Who Died in Office , Volokh Conspiracy(Sept. 18, 2020) https://reason.com/2020/09/18/justices-who-died-in-ofice/ .

[2] Nina Totenberg, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion of Gender Equality, Dies At 87 , NPR (Sept. 18, 2020) https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87 .

[3] Andrew Chung, Democrats Prepare Bill Limiting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years , Reuters (Sept. 24, 2020) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years-idUSKCN26F3L3?utm_source=reddit.com .

[6] Julia Manchester, Americans Tend to be in Favor of Term Limits for Most Institutions, says Pollster, The Hill (Sept. 27, 2018) https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/408781-americans-tend-to-be-in-favor-of-term-limits-for-most .

[7] Zack Stanton, ‘It’s a Crazy Way to Run a Country’: How to Reform the Supreme Court , Politico(Sept. 24, 2020) https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/24/supreme-court-reform-ideas-term-limits-rbg-age-packing-421203 .

[8] U.S. Const. art. III, § 1.

[9] Kalvis Golde, House Democrats to Introduce New Bill for Supreme Court Term Limits, SCOTUSblog (Sept. 24, 2020) https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/house-democrats-to-introduce-new-bill-for-supreme-court-term-limits/ .

[10] Frank Whelan , In the America of 1787, Big Families are the Norm and Life Expectancy is 38, The Morning Call (June 28, 1987) https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1987-06-28-2569915-story.html#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20in%20the%20America,years%20for%20a%20white%20male .

[11] CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Mar. 17, 2017) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm ; Kalvis Golde, Experts Tout Proposals for Supreme Court Term Limits , SCOTUSblog(Aug. 4, 2020) https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/ .

[13] Fix the Court, Term Limits, Fix the Court (2020) https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/ .

[15] Chung, supra note 3.

[16] Stanton, supra note 7.

[18] Id. (quoting Professor Daniel Epps).

[21] U.S. Senate, Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present) https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm .

[24] Rick Pearson & Jason Meisner, President Trump Officially Nominates Chicago Federal Judge and Ex-Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court, Setting Up a Bitter Confirmation Confrontation in Senate, Chicago Tribune (Sept. 26, 2020) https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court-nomination-ginsburg-20200925-sro7jixc55gk7e5idsqokxuxg4-story.html .

[25] If confirmed, Judge Barret would be the youngest member of the current Court; id.

[26] Stanton, supra note 7.

[27] Ron Elving, What Happened with Merrick Garland in 2016 and Why It Matters Now , NPR (June 29, 2018) https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now ; Judge Merrick Garland was former President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016.

Sarah Simon

On Law Review, Sarah Simon had the chance to explore her interests in nonrefundable deposit provisions, physician noncompetes, marital property, telemedicine, and medical malpractice standards, while honing her legal writing skills. Sarah hopes to become a transactional attorney and looks forward to perfecting her writing.

Discover more from University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Read our research on: Abortion | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

10. how americans view proposals to change the political system.

Reflecting the public’s unhappiness with the U.S. political system , there is broad support for a number of significant structural changes to politics:

Term limits for members of Congress . An overwhelming majority of adults (87%) favor limiting the number of terms that members of Congress are allowed to serve. This includes a majority (56%) who strongly favor this proposal; just 12% are opposed.

Maximum age limits for elected officials in Washington, D.C., and Supreme Court justices. Nearly eight-in-ten adults (79%) favor maximum age limits for elected officials in Washington, while 74% favor a maximum age limit for Supreme Court justices.

Requiring voters to show government-issued identification. By more than three-to-one (76% to 22%), Americans support requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification in order to vote. These views are little changed from 2021 .

A narrower majority (62%) favors automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote.

A proposal to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court, by contrast, draws slightly more opposition (51%) than support (46%).

Overwhelming majorities in both parties favor term limits for members of Congress

Term limits for members of Congress are widely popular with both Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (90%) and Democrats and Democratic leaners (86%).

Establishing age limits for elected officials in Washington, D.C., also draws broad bipartisan support.

There are wider partisan differences in views of putting a maximum age limit for Supreme Court justices. Still, 82% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans support age limits for the justices.

As in past surveys, Republicans and Democrats hold different views of proposals to change how voting works in this country.

Nearly all Republicans support requiring all voters to show government-issued identification (93% favor this), compared with a narrower majority (61%) of Democrats. Meanwhile, Democrats (80%) are much more likely than Republicans (45%) to favor automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote.

Increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court is supported by about two-thirds of Democrats (66% favor). But only about a quarter of Republicans (27%) favor expanding the size of the court, while more than twice as many (72%) are opposed.

Young adults more likely than older people to support adding Supreme Court justices

There are fairly modest age differences in views of most of these proposals. However, adults under age 50 are more likely than those 50 and older to favor automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote (66% vs. 57%).

And a majority of adults under 30 (58%) favor increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Support for this proposal decreases with age: About a third (35%) of those 65 and older favor this. 

These age differences are more pronounced among Republicans than Democrats. About four-in-ten Republicans ages 18 to 29 (44%) favor expanding the court, but that drops steadily with age; just 13% of Republicans 65 and older support this. In contrast, Democrats in all age groups are nearly equally likely to favor increasing the number of justices on the court.

Views of the Electoral College

Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) favor changing the current system for presidential elections so that the candidate who receives the most votes wins, while a third prefer to keep the current system so that the candidate who wins the Electoral College vote wins the election.

Support for changing the current system has ticked up slightly since last summer .

Democrats remain much more likely to favor a popular vote system for presidential elections than Republicans: 82% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they would prefer to change the current system, compared with 47% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Among all political independents and others who don’t identify with a party, about two-thirds (66%) favor changing the current system so the candidate who receives the most votes wins, while 31% prefer to keep the current Electoral College system. However, Democratic-leaning independents are much more supportive of changing the Electoral College system than Republican-leaning independents.

Should the size of the U.S. House of Representatives change?

About three-in-ten adults (29%) say the size of the House of Representatives should be increased beyond its current 435 members, while a narrow majority (53%) say the size of the House should stay the same. Another 15% prefer to decrease the size of the House.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that the number of members in the House should increase, though larger shares in both parties favor keeping the House at its current size.

About a third of Democrats and Democratic leaners (35%) favor increasing the size of the House, compared with 23% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Republican-leaning independents (30%) are more likely than GOP partisans to favor increasing the size of the House (19%). The views of Democratic-leaning independents on this question are nearly identical to those of Democratic identifiers.

Senate seats and population size

When it comes to the Senate, 66% of adults say that the method of determining representation in the upper chamber should not be changed, and all states should continue to have two senators regardless of population size. Roughly half as many (32%) say that the Constitution should be amended so that states with larger populations have more senators than smaller states.

Eight-in-ten Republicans favor maintaining the Senate’s present structure.

Among Democrats, a narrower majority (54%) favor the current allocation, while 45% say the Constitution should be amended.

The views of independents are similar to the overall public’s views, with 65% preferring to keep the current system as-is. However, Democratic-leaning independents’ views are nearly identical to Democratic partisans’ views, while Republican-leaning independents’ views are nearly identical to Republicans’ views.

Younger adults more supportive of structural changes

Younger adults are more likely than older adults to favor a popular vote for president, an expansion of the House of Representatives and a change to the way representation in the Senate is apportioned.

While majorities of adults across age groups support changing the presidential election system so the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election, this view is more common among those under 50 (69%) than among those ages 50 and older (61%).

Age differences are larger when it comes to changes to the structure of Congress, with support for changes decreasing with age. Adults under 30 are much more likely than those 65 and older to say both that the number of House members should be increased (44% vs. 17%) and that the Constitution should be amended so that more populous states have more senators than smaller states (45% vs. 18%).

Facts are more important than ever

In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data. Please support our research with a financial contribution.

Report Materials

Table of contents, about 1 in 4 americans have unfavorable views of both biden and trump, how republicans view climate change and energy issues, tuning out: americans on the edge of politics, americans’ dismal views of the nation’s politics, narrow majorities in u.s. house have become more common but haven’t always led to gridlock, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Annual Civics Lesson & Earl C. Michener Essay Contest

The essay contest is back in 2022! If you are a teacher who’d like to sign up to participate, please email [email protected].

2022 Essay Contest Details:

SIGN UP: EMAIL [email protected]

U.S. Term Limits is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that educates on the issue of term limits. For a second year in celebration of National Term Limits Day we are inviting teachers to participate in a Zoom lesson on the history of term limits in America. We are also inviting attending classes to participate in an essay contest with prizes for winning students and their teachers.

CIVICS LESSON

A pre-recorded presentation will be sent to all participating classes in January. Classes can view according to their own schedules up till around February 27th, National Term Limits Day. Students should take notes of questions they have while watching the presentation. Then, teachers will arrange at time to hold a Q&A over Zoom with a U.S. Term Limits staff member. This is a great opportunity for students to learn from experts in an area of governmental reform both about the idea of term limits and the constitutional processes used to put them in place.

The presentation is non-partisan and purely educational in nature.

ESSAY CONTEST

Attending classes are invited to participate in our Second Annual Earl C. Michener Essay Contest. The contest is named in honor of the main author of the 22nd Amendment which was ratified by the states to subject the presidency to a 2-term limit.

The essay question for this year’s contest is: Explain the events which led to the 1995 Supreme Court case U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. Next, summarize in your own words the gists of majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and the dissenting opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Finally, explain what this decision means for if the country wants to put term limits on Congress. Essays are to be 500-750 words. They will be evaluated by a judge panel at U.S. Term Limits roughly according to a rubric that will be sent to participants.

Participating classes and their teachers will be given 4-5 primary and secondary source documents with reference to which students will build their essays.

1st prize is a $50 Amazon gift card and plaque.

2 runners up will receive a prize is a $25 Amazon gift card and 2nd place ribbon/certificate. Matching prizes will be awarded to the winners’ respective teachers.

The first 100 participants and their teachers will receive commemorative school gear.

The 1st place winner will also be invited on our national Facebook livestream to talk about their essay with the U.S. Term Limits team. The winner will also be invited to record an audio file of his/her winning essay which will be shared on an upcoming episode of No Uncertain Terms, our popular weekly podcast. The winning student may also opt to have their teacher or a U.S. Term Limits team member read the essay for them.

To sign up your class, send an email to Aaron Dukette at [email protected] with “ESSAY CONTEST” as the subject line. Include a good number and time to call you. I will follow up with you over the phone after you sign up, and we can talk more about the details and make arrangements!

All the best to you and your students!

Aaron Dukette U.S. Term Limits [email protected]

Winner of 2021 Earl C. Michener Essay Contest Announced! Congratulations to Inez Privette of Asheville Catholic School in Asheville, North Carolina for winning our first annual Earl C. Michener Essay Contest on the topic of the historical conditions of the 22nd Amendment. You can read her essay here .

Testimonials

Customer Reviews

Know Us Better

• Knowledge Base
• Referencing Styles
• Know Our Consultance
• Revision and Refund Policy
• Terms Of Use

Finished Papers