Comment; Congress is broken, but term limits won’t fix it

Looking at term limits in state legislatures, such reforms have resulted in several drawbacks.

By Charlie Hunt / For The Conversation

There’s no denying that the current Congress has been one of the most chaotic in recent memory. The paralysis in 2023 and 2024 over the selection of the speaker of the House helped lead to one of Congress’ most unproductive years in history.

And although House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, survived an effort on May 8, by far-right members of his conference to oust him, the attempt is a signal of the dysfunction in Congress. It’s also a prime example of why so few Americans have a favorable view of the job Congress is doing.

For many Americans, the solution to this dysfunction is clear: Institute limits on the number of terms members of Congress can serve. If voters use term limits to “throw the bums out” and replace them with a new crop of elected leaders, the reasoning goes, the result will be a more effective and perhaps less polarized Congress.

According to recent surveys, 80 percent or more of the American people are in favor of congressional term limits. You’d be hard pressed to find another policy that more Americans from both sides of the aisle agree on.

Yet there’s a problem: Most political scientists agree that term limits are a bad idea. The evidence suggests that term limits create more problems than they solve and could even accelerate the polarization that’s been hobbling Congress for longer than a decade.

The value of long incumbencies: Advocates of term limits often point to a striking statistic to support the reform: the consistently high reelection rates of congressional incumbents. Current members of Congress enjoy a strong advantage from their status as an elected representative – that is, more name recognition and campaign resources than their challengers. Advocates for term limits say they are necessary to cut long-term incumbents’ service short in favor of new blood.

But term limits, often set at eight years in state legislatures, undervalue the benefits of representatives who have been serving in office for a long time. These members have had more time to gain knowledge and experience about Congress as an institution; develop policy expertise in issues important to their districts; and cultivate working relationships with fellow members that help them make policy more effectively.

Data from the Center for Effective Lawmaking, a research center with the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University, which tracks members’ success rates for legislation they sponsor, strongly supports this perspective: The longer members serve, the more effective a lawmaker they are likely to become.

Fresh perspectives in Congress are important, which is why the U.S. has elections. But term limits would stifle members’ lawmaking careers just as they’re getting off the ground. Even worse, losing well-seasoned members with issue expertise would leave inexperienced lawmakers vulnerable to influence from lobbyists and special interest groups that would highlight their own expertise and seek to influence legislation in their favor.

This is precisely what has happened in state legislatures that instituted term limits around the turn of the century.

Term limits don’t solve extremism: Term limits are also unlikely to make Congress less ideologically extreme.

Judging from statements they’ve made, many of the more tenured members who are retiring at the end of the current Congress are the ones lamenting extremism and partisanship, often citing these trends as the reason they’re leaving.

Meanwhile, many of the most polarizing and best-known representatives in Congress — think Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican; Matt Gaetz of Florida, also a Republican; and Democrat Ilhan Omar from Minnesota — are newer members with less apparent interest in compromise and achievement of long-term policy goals. The data reflects this: The average long-serving member of Congress nearly always has lower ideological extremism scores than the average congressional newcomer, based on roll call votes on policy issues.

Vast majorities of Americans say they prefer a Congress that compromises to get things done. Term limits would almost certainly fail to achieve this.

Congressional ‘senioritis’: But this isn’t the only negative impact of term-limits reform.

Research by political scientist Gerald Wright suggests not only that term limits for state legislators were ineffective at reducing polarization, but that term-limited lawmakers — those legally prevented from running for reelection — tend to exert “decreased legislative effort” and missed roll call votes compared with their colleagues who are up for reelection.

In other words, members in their legally mandated final term in office enjoy a kind of “senioritis” — the apathy that can hit students in their last term of high school or college — in their legislatures because they don’t have to face the voters again at the ballot box.

Elections are the ultimate term limits: Most political scientists agree that high incumbent reelection rates are mainly the result of highly partisan districts and voters, not corrupt incumbents advantaged by years of service. The voters already have a say in primaries and general elections to vote out incumbents.

But they largely choose not to.

It is likely that very loose term limits — say, 20 years of service — could help prevent aging incumbents such as Mitch McConnell or the late Dianne Feinstein from serving well past their prime. But as a method for depolarizing Congress and making it effective again, the evidence is thin.

Charlie Hunt is an assistant professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
The City of Everett is set to purchase two single sidewalk restrooms from Romtec, a company based in Roseburg, Ore., for $315,000. (Romtec)
Editorial: Utilitarian but sturdy restrooms should be a relief

Everett is placing four stalls downtown that should be accessible but less prone to problems.

Schwab: What was lost when doctors stopped making house calls

More than just a convenience, a house call could inform a doctor about the patient’s care at home.

Dowd: Biden could take a lesson from Reagan on pace of travel

In his bid to look energetic, the president is jetting around the globe at a clip Nancy Reagan would not approve of.

Krugman: Public’s mood on economy shows a subtle positive shift

It might not provide much help to President Biden, but it may not be as much of a drag on him, either.

Goldberg: Attack on Pride in Colorado further splits the GOP

The state party president, who is running for Congress, is counting on homophobia to secure the base.

toons
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, June 13

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Stephens: Only way that Biden can win is not to run

The president can only commit to managing threats; his best chance for victory is to leave the ticket.

Krugman: The wealthy’s support of Trump isn’t just about money

They’re also not crazy about those who — like Biden — don’t pay sufficient deference to them.

Bouie: Should wealthy and powerful again put trust in Trump

They stepped away after Jan. 6, but — ignoring their own need for democratic norms — are drawn to autocracy.

Everett principal Betty Cobbs served kids, community for 51 years

Education and community. Those words are the best America has to offer;… Continue reading

Artist Natalie Niblack works amongst her project entitled “33 Birds / Three Degrees” during the setup for Exploring The Edge at Schack Art Center on Sunday, March 19, 2023, in Everett, Washington. The paintings feature motion-activated speakers that play each bird’s unique call. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: For 50 years Schack Art Center there for creation

The art center is more art studio than museum, supporting artists and fostering creativity in kids.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.