Next week, the U.S. Senate will make history as it begins consideration of S.J. Res. 21, a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms members of the House and Senate may serve. The amendment provides a uniform term limit of 12 years for House members and Senators.

          Term limits are needed because long-term congressional incumbency tends to distort the character of representation. By becoming overly oriented toward the federal government and insulated from the public, Members of Congress can develop a set of interests and sympathies at odds with those held by their constituents. Term limits therefore would work to keep elected officials more in touch with voters. In addition, frequent rotation in office would help assure a continuous flow of new energy and innovative thinking in Congress.

THE PUBLIC JUDGMENT

          Among major public policy issues, term limits enjoys virtually unrivaled public support. As far back as 1964, a Gallup poll recorded a 49 percent plurality of Americans favoring term limits; since then, support has swelled to 64 percent in 1990 and 73 percent in 1995. Moreover, even though a reform-minded Congress was elected in 1994, support for term limits continued to grow to 77 percent in 1996.¹

          Thus, unlike other "hot-button" issues whose support withers in the heat of public debate, support for term limits remains firm. Between 1990 and 1995, initiatives were approved in 23 states, with support averaging 66 percent.²

          Yet, despite this overwhelming public support, in May 1995, the Supreme Court declared in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that state-imposed term limits on federal lawmakers are unconstitutional. Thus, if federal term limits are to be enacted, the only remaining course appears to be adoption of a constitutional amendment such as S.J. Res. 21.

          The electoral tsunami of 1994 was due in no small part to public support for term limits, so the new majority in Congress has a special obligation to deliver on this issue. Indeed, ten of the 12 freshman senators already have announced their support for term limits. As public support continues to grow, long-term incumbents opposed to term limitsespecially those from states that already place term limits on their state and local officialsmust explain why they continue to ignore the public will.

TEN LEADING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT TERM LIMITS

1. Claim: Term limits are an untested innovation.

   Fact: Along with the President, 37 governors are subject to term limits. Term limits were contained in America's first governing document, the Articles of Confederation of 1781, but were not written into the Constitution, primarily because its authors saw them as "entering into too much detail" for a short document.³

2. Claim: The election of scores of new Senators and Representatives in 1994 disproves the need for term limits.

   Fact: 314 of the 348 incumbent House members who sought re-election won -- a re-election rate of 90 percent. Fully 92 percent of incumbent Senators -- 24 of 26 candidates -- won re-election.⁴

3. Claim: Campaign finance reform will render term limits obsolete.

   Fact: Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) has called term limits "the ultimate campaign finance reform vehicle." Term limits create open seats, which lead to contested races. These races are more competitive because they are less costly: Challengers do not have to compensate for the fundraising advantage held by incumbents, who nearly always win.

4. Claim: Term limits will deprive the nation of talented legislators.

   Fact: Self-governance is the basic supposition of democracy. It is sheer arrogance to maintain that only one person in a half-million is qualified to be in Congress. Furthermore, while term-limited Senators and Representatives could serve in different capacities, other talented individuals would be given opportunity for advancement.

5. Claim: Term limits are undemocratic because they restrict voter choice.

   Fact: Incumbents enjoy electoral advantages franking, staff, and travel allowances that present huge barriers to entry by challengers. Moreover, experience at the state level suggests that term limits actually increase voter choice. In California, for instance, the imposition of state-level term limits in 1990 led to an increase of over 25 percent in campaign filings for the Senate and a similar increase of over 50 percent in filings for the Assembly by 1992.⁵ During the past half-century, gubernatorial races have been more competitive in term-limited states -- even in years when governors can run for re-election.⁶

6. Claim: The limited-government agenda of the 104th Congress means that term limits are no longer needed to fight pork-barrel politics.

   Fact: The longer individuals serve in Congress, the greater their propensity to support new spending initiatives.⁷ The frequent rotation imposed by term limits, on the other hand, would help to institutionalize the 104th Congress's bias against big spending.

7. Claim: Conservatives should avoid amending the Constitution at all costs.

   Fact: As George Will, a former opponent of term limits, argues, term limits offer a necessary constitutional corrective to the profound extraconstitutional metamorphosis of the federal government. The Founders envisioned a citizen legislature as the backbone of limited government; as the interventionist state arose, however, politicians began to view public office as a career.⁸ Term limits would work to restore the Founders' intent by diminishing the tendency of Members of Congress to exploit their legally acquired powers to remain in office.

8. Claim: As Senators find their terms limited, the Senate's capacity for deliberation and independent judgment likewise will be restricted.

   Fact: Term limits enhance the capacity for independence by discouraging excessive concentration on fund-raising, re-election, and catering to special interests.

9. Claim: If term limits are such a good idea, they should be imposed retroactively.

   Fact: Rather than openly oppose term limits, opponents have pursued a shrewd strategy of calling for retroactive application. This argument is a red herring. Term limits represent principle, not retribution, and the public has rejected retribution. Only one retroactive congressional term limits measure has been offered to the voters (in Washington State in 1991), and it was rejected. It is not surprising that opponents of term limits are the only ones pushing for retroactive application.

10. Claim: Under term limits, unelected individuals will run Congress.

    Fact: This argument assumes that the departure of senior incumbents will create a vacuum in which more and more decisions are made by lobbyists and staff. Lobbyists thrive because they cultivate relationships with long-term incumbents; rapid turnover would greatly diminish the value of such contacts. As for staff, anyone who has seen a congressional office knows that Congressmen give assignments rather than take them. The specter of career staff manipulating freshman Members has little support in reality. In a non-term-limited Congress, staff employees work on average between five and six years.⁹ Under term limits, new Members would likely replace aides to former Congressmen with employees of their own choosing.

THE SENATE VOTE AND THE THREAT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

          One of the few reforms devised and implemented by people who live beyond the Beltway, term limits are a tribute to public involvement in politics. Yet, despite powerful grassroots support, term-limit laws in 23 states were overturned in May 1995 by the U.S. Supreme Court -- after the U.S. House of Representatives had failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a federal constitutional amendment.

          Frustrated by the Court's ruling and skeptical of Congress's desire to pass a constitutional amendment, some activists are pursuing a radical approach: calling for two-thirds of America's 50 state legislatures to approve an unprecedented constitutional convention to impose term limits. State legislatures in North Dakota and Utah already have called for such a convention. This year, 11 states will offer ballot measures to instruct state legislators to vote for a constitutional convention on term limits. Activists hope to garner the support of 34 state legislatures by the year 1999.

CONCLUSION

          Term limits will remain a potent issue in 1996. President Clinton has decided to ignore the continued groundswell by opposing term limits. By contrast, Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) deserves credit for assuring that they will be considered by the U.S. Senate. Whether members of the Senate will continue to ignore public opinion -- thereby fueling the drive for a term limits constitutional convention -- remains to be seen.

Endnotes:

1. David M. Mason, "House Term Limit Options: Good, Better, Best," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 406, March 22, 1995; The Tarrance Group, poll of 1000 adults between June 13-15, 1995, commissioned by Term Limits Legal Institute; The Tarrance Group, poll of 1,000 adults between January 22-24, 1996, commissioned by Americans Back in Charge.

2. Mason, "House Term Limit Options."

3. John H. Fund, "Term Limitation: An Idea Whose Time Has Come," Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 141, October 30, 1990. Jefferson noted his disappointment that the Constitution lacked term limits: "The second feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787, in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, ed. Merrill D. Peterson, (New York: The Library of America, 1984), p. 916.

4. Congressional Quarterly, Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1995), pp. 570, 565.

5. Dan Greenberg, "Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 994, August 10, 1994, pp. 8-9.

6. Paul Jacob, "From the Voters With Care," The Politics and Law of Term Limits, ed. Edward H. Crane and Roger Pilon (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1994), p. 41.

7. James L. Payne, The Culture of Spending (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1991), pp. 175-181.

8. George F. Will, Restoration: Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy (New York: The Free Press, 1992).

9. Staff data from Congressional Management Foundation, 1992 U.S. House of Representatives Employment Practices and 1993 U.S. Senate Employment Practices.