congressional term limits
How long should a member of Congress serve? The Constitution set two years for a House term and six years for a Senate term but put no restriction on how often members could run for reelection. The House should have “an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people,” James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers. “Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.” Senators, by contrast, serve six–year terms to give them greater distance from the “sudden and violent passions” of public opinion.
Senators are divided into three classes, with one class (or one-third of the Senate) standing for election every two years. When a new state joins the Union, the two new senators will flip a coin to determine which class they will join–-meaning who will get the longer or shorter term.
The lack of restriction on how often members could be reelected contrasted sharply with the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (1781–89), where members could serve only three out of every six years. The turnover of membership this limit caused denied the Congress continuity and members with experience in office.
In the 19th century, most members served only briefly in the national legislature before returning to state politics or private life. Even Henry Clay (Whig -Kentucky), who served between 1806 and 1852, actually left Congress and returned several times during those years.
In the 20th century, as advancement in Congress became determined by seniority, continuous service grew more important. As more members aimed to spend their entire career in Congress, it became commonplace for more than 90 percent to win reelection. Although citizens often expressed dissatisfaction with Congress in general, they regularly reelected their own senators and representatives. Turnover occurred more often through voluntary retirement than through election defeats. In 1990, 81 House members had no opponents, and another 168 faced challengers who could not raise enough money to mount a competitive campaign. Out of 435 members of the House, only 15 lost their election.
Opponents of this trend charged that campaign money from political action committees (PACs) heavily favored incumbents (those already holding office) against their challengers. Incumbents also had the benefit of such perks of office as the frank, or free mailing privileges, to keep their names before the voters. Noting that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, had limited Presidents to no more than two four-year terms, a number of states called for an amendment that would limit representatives to three two-year terms and senators to two six-year terms. The aim would be to rotate more citizens through Congress, so that members would not lose touch with “the real world.” Those who opposed term limits warned that such an amendment would replace experienced members with rookies and would deprive voters of the option of reelecting members who had performed well. Instead of a constitutional amendment, they suggested that voters could limit the terms of their senators and representatives simply by voting against them in the next election.
In the 1990s, voter displeasure over the congressional salary increase, the House bank scandal, and other congressional behavior led to a major turnover of membership. Despite the defeat or retirement of many longtime members, newly elected conservative Republicans pressed for formal term limits. A growing number of states approved ballot initiatives to set congressional term limits. But in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that only a constitutional amendment could impose such term limits.
See also Campaign financing, congressional; Elections, congressional; Incumbents; Perks, congressional; Public opinion; Seniority in Congress; Term of office, Presidential
Sources
- Charles O. Jones, Every Second Year: Congressional Behavior and the Two-Year Term (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1967)
