Should Congress Have Term Limits?

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms in office, serving from 1933 to 1945. But because of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, presidents today are limited to two four-year terms. Yet there are no restrictions on how long members of Congress can serve, and many have held their seats for decades.  

Now, a handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit members of the House to three two-year terms and members of the Senate to two six-year terms. 

Their argument: If lawmakers were to know they had a limited time in office, they would focus on enacting meaningful legislation—not courting wealthy donors and lobbyists who could help them win re-election. Supporters of term limits also say the current system favors incumbents, making it harder for new legislators—and new ideas—to reach Capitol Hill.

But opponents of the idea say career politicians bring years of experience and knowledge to the federal government. Term limits, they say, would unfairly prevent Americans from voting for veteran lawmakers—even if they’re the best candidates for the job.

Should Congress have term limits? Two experts weigh in.

Americans increasingly see Washington, D.C., as a “swamp” filled with career politicians who aren’t accountable to the people. To change that—and make it easier for new legislators to serve in Congress—we must institute term limits.  

To that end, I have introduced a constitutional amendment limiting members of the House to three two-year terms and members of the Senate to two six-year terms.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that Americans on both sides of the political aisle overwhelmingly favor term limits. The Founding Fathers intended those on Capitol Hill to be citizen legislators working in the best interests of their constituents. They did not want to create a class of political elites focused primarily on keeping themselves in office. 

Term limits would change priorities in Washington by putting an expiration date on each member’s tenure. With a fixed number of terms, members of Congress would be focused on making their limited time in office matter—by working to achieve real results for the American people. 

Under our current system, leadership positions are often given to those who’ve served the longest, not necessarily to those most qualified. Members of Congress with passion and expertise on policy issues have to wait years until they are able to serve in a leadership position and have a real impact. Term limits would also allow the best-qualified lawmakers to rise to the top more quickly. 

We don’t have to be beholden to the ruling elite who currently inhabit the swamp. Term limits would restore accountability to Washington and return government to the hands of the people.      

—Ron DeSantis
U.S. Congressman, Republican of Florida

With all that’s going on in Washington and around the world, amending the Constitution to impose congressional term limits would be unwise and distracting.  

The idea of congressional term limits is often hauled out as a solution for whatever discontent the public has with Congress—and the government in general. In the 1990s, almost two dozen states adopted term limits in their state legislatures. They hoped to reduce the influence of special interests, increase turnover, and make legislators more accountable. But many experts agree that state legislative term limits did more harm than good. Six states have since repealed them. 

The case for term limits is a bit stronger in the executive branch, where one person can amass too much personal power after years in office. But Congress is where our nation’s laws and budgets are written. Doing that requires a level of experience and knowledge that comes only from having served for a number of years. Term limits prevent voters from re-electing veteran lawmakers—even if they’re the best candidates for the job. 

Turnover in Congress is already very high: Usually over the course of a decade, at least half the members of the House and Senate are replaced. Some voluntarily retire, and others are voted out. 

About once a decade—most recently in 2010—we see an election in which the political winds shift and many incumbents are swept out of office. The 2018 midterm elections will provide the public with the opportunity to replace the majority party if they so choose and to get rid of lawmakers they’re not pleased with. There’s no need for term limits.        

—Thomas E. Mann
The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.