Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Catching up with the federal candidates
Next Post: Comptroller Mendoza: All GRF bills released, $1.9 billion in the bank, pension payments will be made early
Posted in:
* Press release…
U.S. Term Limits (USTL), the leader in the national, non-partisan movement to limit terms for elected officials, is gathering support from state lawmakers across the nation. Its mission is to get 34 states to apply for an amendment proposal convention specific to term limits on Congress. 2025 Illinois state house Rep. Sonya Harper (district 6), has committed support for term limits on Congress by signing the term limits convention pledge.
The U.S. Term Limits pledge is provided to candidates and members of state legislatures. It reads, “I pledge that, as a member of the state legislature, I will cosponsor, vote for, and defend the resolution applying for an Article V convention for the sole purpose of enacting term limits on Congress.”
In the 1995 case, Thornton v. U.S. Term Limits, the Supreme Court of the United States opined that only a Constitutional Amendment could limit the terms of U.S. Senators and House Representatives. According to Nick Tomboulides, Chief Executive Officer of USTL, the best chance of imposing term limits on Congress is through an Article V Proposal Convention of state legislatures.
“The Constitution allows for amendments to be proposed by either 2/3 of Congress or 2/3 of the states. While we’d like for Congress to take the high road and propose term limits on itself, we know they are too self-interested to do that without external pressure.” said Tomboulides. “That is why it is important to get buy-in from state legislators,” he added. Once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by 38 states.”
Tomboulides noted, “More than 87% of Americans have rejected the career politician model and want to replace it with citizen leadership. The way to achieve that goal is through a congressional term limits amendment. Sonya knows this and is willing to work to make sure we reach our goal.”
According to the latest nationwide poll on term limits conducted by Pew Research, term limits enjoy wide bipartisan support. Pew’s analysis states, “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.”
* The Question: Do you support a national constitutional convention to enact term limits for Congress? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 12:49 pm
Previous Post: Catching up with the federal candidates
Next Post: Comptroller Mendoza: All GRF bills released, $1.9 billion in the bank, pension payments will be made early
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Term limits on a legislative body risks making lobbyists the primary sources of “institutional memory.” I’d rather that institutional memory remain in the hands of elected officials that have to make their case to the voters every 2 (or 6) years
Comment by LM Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 12:55 pm
Term limits are a horrible idea that lead to much too much reliance on lobbyists and organized groups for expertise and experience.
A Con-Con is also a horrible idea as it won’t be limited to term limits and right now I don’t think the country is in a position to make rational changes.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:04 pm
No. A constitutional convention wouldn’t be limited to the question of term limits. The unthinkable can of worms that would be opened would utterly destroy our republican democracy.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:16 pm
I’ve never supported term limits. It is a solution to a symptom of a larger problem, which is our elections aren’t fair. I’d rather focus on the underlying problem with campaign finance and redistricting reforms.
Comment by Just Me 2 Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:22 pm
Hard no. In the words of Jed Bartlet: “We have term limits. They’re called elections.”
Voters decide when their representative needs to change. Not only don’t we need term limits, but members of Congress should be paid much, much more. The competition to be a member of Congress should be ruthlessly fierce, and their compensation and career opportunities within Congress should reflect that. The people, through Congress, run the government. Not lobbyists and special interests, who would gain tremendous sway if members were booted just as soon as they start getting good at being in Congress.
Comment by I-55 Fanatic Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:29 pm
I’ll be happy if there are elections…period.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:32 pm
Term limits? No. Redistricting reform nationally? Yes. Fair maps would help solve the problem the term limits idea is trying to solve.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:32 pm
Once they open Pandora’s box who knows what’ll come out of it. It won’t just be one thing, everyone will be fighting to change what the constitution says about… everything, really.
But to stay on topic, no I don’t really care about career politicians or term limits. I honestly think voters should be the limit, as untrustworthy as voters are.
If we wanted to tackle gerrymandering somehow, I think that’d do more to deal with this “problem”.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:37 pm
The only term limits we need are on Supreme Court Justices. Term limits in the legislature is a way to water down the power of the people, and elevate the power of special interests.
Comment by Incandenza Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:38 pm
No I am against term limits that is why we have elections. However I would love to see age limits. If you can’t fly a commercial airplane at 65 you should not be in the federal government either. Congress, Judicial or Executive
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:40 pm
A convention would be a disaster as there’s no way it could be constrained to just one topic. Let the people decide who their representatives should be.
Incandenza- I’m with you on the supreme court limits, but not sure about how that’s set up in the constitution.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:45 pm
Not without term limits for staffers. We would then end up with unelected staffs with the figurehead electeds doing nothing but fundraising and voting however their chief of staff tells them to vote for.
There are two ways to get the professional elected class out. 1) non-partisan jungle primaries with automatic runoff voting; and 2) No paychecks for elected officials. No healthcare. No pension. It’s volunteer.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 1:57 pm
===No paychecks for elected officials. No healthcare. No pension. It’s volunteer.===
In other words, only the wealthy may apply.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:00 pm
Adding in about SCOTUS limits. I’m good with 18 years on the bench and then done. Also, I’m all for a constitutional amendment for age limits. No one elected or appointed after age 78, no one elected or appointed to serve after age 80.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:00 pm
“In other words, only the wealthy may apply.”
I had this exact discussion with Elliot Richardson years ago. My response then is the same as it is now: We’re already there.
I suppose you could go completely the opposite. Salaries of say, $2,000,000 per year or more. Make an incentive for people who would never run to run. But volunteer representation is a better solution, IMO.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:03 pm
This proposal is a reckless procedure in the service of a bad idea.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:07 pm
===Do you support a national constitutional convention to enact term limits for Congress?===
No. Term limits are a bad idea. Look at the joke that Nebraska’s legislature has become.
===My response then is the same as it is now: We’re already there.===
Please ignore the multimillionaire bragging about how he isn’t having to self fund.
Double no. This is a trick. Constitutional Convention for Term Limits turns into a Constitutional Convention that weakens or destroys civil rights and civil liberties in an effort to turn our Constitutional Republic into a theocratic dictatorship.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:09 pm
== “We have term limits. They’re called elections.”==
Agree entirely. Term limits are an overly simplistic reaction to an overly complicated set of problems.
Comment by Linus Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:10 pm
===My response then is the same as it is now: We’re already there.===
That is simply not true. Your cynicism is crowding out facts.
Do you think, for just an example, Delia Ramirez or Lauren Underwood or Tammy Duckworth could serve without any recompense?
You’re nuts.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:12 pm
Also, you’re off topic.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:12 pm
red herring
Comment by 40,000 ft Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:13 pm
No.
Term limits are nothing more than an attempt to permanently kneecap the other side’s people who are better than you side’s. (With a wee bit of “dislike” thrown in - Ernie Chambers, Willie Brown).
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:14 pm
I think term limits rests on this fundamental, Mr-Smith-Goes-to-Washington fable, that politicians all go to Springfield or DC as these bright wide-eyed Jimmy Stewarts, and then they all slowly morph into Claude Rains, so you need term limits to automatically sweep them out and usher in the next cohort of Jimmy Stewarts. But in truth these are adults and they’re pretty much whatever they were, the first day they took their oath of office. If they were good they still try to be good, if they were bad they’re bad. But term limits is not going to fundamentally change the character of who serves in office, except as everyone has noted they will know a lot less about process and policy.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:29 pm
If 87% of people truly believed in term limits, then the elections wouldn’t come out the way they do. What is always left unsaid is that they actually want term limits for other people’s representatives, but they feel their own are doing great.
And as others have pointed out, an Article V convention cannot actually be limited like USTL is proposing. And color me skeptical of the motives of any organization which involves a relative and former IPI flunky of John Tillman as COO.
Comment by Anon324 Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 2:43 pm
“Do you think, for just an example, Delia Ramirez or Lauren Underwood or Tammy Duckworth could serve without any recompense?
You’re nuts.”
No, I don’t. But many of them can. As to being off topic, I don’t think we need term limits and I believe one way to get rid of career politicians is to not pay them, i.e. they’ll self term limit.
As to me being nuts, sure. Appreciate the compliment.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 3:06 pm
I voted no I don’t see any need. If they keep getting elected, then really is that the fault of the person who runs? Naturally I wonder how some keep getting elected but that is just me. Leave it alone if congress wants to do something leave it to them.
Comment by clec dcn Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 3:13 pm
===But many of them can===
And therefore all members of congress should be like them?
Again, that’s nuts.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 3:22 pm
I do not support term limits. Full stop. Term limits for leadership positions, sure, but I value institutional knowledge and the ability to legislate like a mature adult.
Comment by Matty Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 3:42 pm
I too voted no. What would it take for the wider public to become aware of the good reasons described in these comments for opposing term limits for senators and representatives (and for using a constitutional change to achieve them)?
Comment by Yooper in Diaspora Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 3:44 pm
I inexplicably accidentaly voted yes when I meant no. No for reasons already mentioned–it gives more control to the lobbyists, and staff, and it couldn’t be limited to that question.
Comment by Leslie K Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 3:53 pm
Meh, on term limits as I do not feel strongly one way or the other (I voted yes because I think it works fine for POTUS). Now age limits? I support 100%. Cannot be elected unless you’ll start your term prior to reaching 70 (and that includes POTUS).
Comment by Lurker Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 4:00 pm
== “We have term limits. They’re called elections.”==
I voted yes. Let’s debunk this old myth.
All of us would rather vote for a lousy incumbent of the party we prefer than for a promising newcomer of the party we don’t like.
If this were not true, how do so many lousy incumbents keep getting elected over and over? Or is it because we won’t admit our own party’s incumbent is a hack?
It’s so rare for an incumbent to be voted out that they can be lousy and tone-deaf with impunity.
Congress may have the lowest approval ratings in 100 years, but we will not vote for the other party’s candidates to limit the terms of stinkers.
We just won’t.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, Jul 1, 25 @ 4:11 pm