Term Limit Article Index for
Term 		Website Links For
Term 		 

Information About

Term Limit
  CATEGORIES ABOUT TERM LIMIT
   
electoral restrictions
   
APPAREL
BABY
BEAUTY
BOOKS
CAR TOYS
CELL PHONES
DVD'S
ELECTRONICS
GOURMET FOOD
GROCERIES
HEALTH & PERSONAL
HOME & GARDEN
JEWELRY
MUSIC
MUSIC INSTRUMENTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
SOFTWARE
SPORTING GOODS
TOOLS & HARDWARE
TOYS
VIDEO GAMES
SHOPPING HOME
MORE SHOPPING...



A term limit is a provision of a Constitution , Statute or Bylaw which limits the number of terms a person may serve in a particular elected office. An example would be the 22nd Amendment of the United States Constitution which says that no person can be elected President more than twice. Term limits are a particularly important issue in the United States .

In the United States the concept of term limits is not a new one: the constitution of the State of Delaware , adopted in 1787 , limits the Governor to two four-year terms. This provision remains in force. Currently, 36 states have adopted term limits of various types for their governors. One variation allowed a governor to be re-elected, but only to non-consecutive terms. (To circumvent this provision, George Wallace , the governor of Alabama , announced in 1966 that voters should elect his wife, Lurleen Wallace , their next governor. It was clear during the campaign that Mrs. Wallace would only be a Titular governor, and thus she was elected the first female governor of Alabama.) Virginia is the only state currently limiting governors to a single term.

President George Washington originally started the tradition of informal presidential term limits by refusing to run for a third term. The short-lived Confederate States Of America adopted a six year term for its president and vice-president and barred holders of these offices from seeking re-election. This innovation was endorsed by many American politicians after the war, most notably by Rutherford B. Hayes in his inaugural address. Hayes's proposal did not come to fruition, but the government of Mexico adopted the Confederate term and limit for its federal president.


ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR

The primary argument in favor of term limits in the United States starts with the presumption that Incumbent office holders—particularly in the nation’s legislatures—are generally able to stay in office for as long as they care to do so, because the election system is biased in favor of incumbency. With re-election rates of over 90%, and sometimes approaching 100%, Congress and the legislatures of many states, including that of the largest state in the country— California —this point is largely a given in the United States today (except, sometimes, to more virulent opponents of term limits). But this “fact” is not an argument in of itself. What term limit supporters argue is that democratic governance requires elected officials who are responsive and accountable to the people who elected them, and that elected officials who no longer fear losing their offices cease to be concerned with the needs of their Constituents .

  • Implementation of term limits, supporters argue, will first of all turn out the entrenched legislators who are in office at the time that reform takes effect. The current system is rigged, proponents of term limits argue, in favor of incumbents. Limiting terms would thus open hundreds of positions and spark the candidacies of many citizens who would normally not consider running for office. This initial exercise will be in of itself good for democracy.


  • Furthermore, supporters argue, legislators who are in office and know from the beginning of their service that their time in office is limited, will act differently than “career” legislators. To some extent, this argument presupposes that careerism is tantamount to Corruption , and that elimination of life-long officials will engender a more upright and principled civic body. For example, legislators who expect to make a life-long career out of office holding are more likely, proponents argue, to develop close relationships with Lobbyists . Eventually such legislators come to see the lobbyists, not the voters back home, as their constituents.


  • Additionally, it is argued, the power of one locality to perpetually re-elect a legislator (to whom has accrued much power through a long stay in office) can be harmful to the nation as a whole. A legislator in the United States who has held office for many years gains many privileges, and can use these to the advantage of his constituency, and the disadvantage of others. For example, voters in Iowa have no control over a high-ranking legislator elected from Illinois, who nonetheless can exercise power over Iowans.


  • Finally, term limits supporters also sometimes argue that term limits will bring us closer to a Participatory Democracy . Instead of filling offices with a political elite (itself the antithesis of democracy), ordinary citizens will take turns holding office and thus becoming more civically involved.


Term limits supporters argue that, whatever advantages may be conferred upon the current system (experience, better leadership, etc.), the price paid by long-term incumbency is simply too high, and outweighed by the benefits of term limits.


ARGUMENTS OPPOSED

The primary argument against term limits is that term limits, by definition, are anti-democratic. Taking away the right of voters to chose who will represent them is at best, misguided, and at worst, destructive of democracy. Aside from this philosophical argument, some practical arguments are raised as well.

  • Term limit opponents argue that, with experience, comes greater skill. The very use of the term “ Freshman representative” is indicative of the fact that the first-term legislator is less likely to be able to “get things done” in the legislature.


  • Lack of such experience and “know how”, it is argued by term limit opponents, will lead to a legislature whose members are dependent on those around them. Permanent Committee Staffer s, who ostensibly work for the representatives, would become more knowledgeable and powerful than the members themselves. Even worse, lobbyists in the employ of Special Interests , would tend to grow more powerful, as they can offer to “help” inexperienced members gain a foothold. Because both staffers and lobbyists are unelected, opponents argue, term limits are undemocratic because it places more power in the hands of the unelected.


  • Another argument against term limits is that it is the very fact that politicians ''need'' to go back to the voters for approval and reelection that keeps them responsive. With term limits, a Lame Duck legislator no longer has any motivation to continue heeding the concerns of his constituents.


  • Additionally, probably the strongest argument marshaled against term limits is democracy itself. Allow the electorate to do its job, argue opponents, and non-responsive legislators can still be held accountable. The voters can always limit a legislator’s term at the voting booth. The argument that the system is rigged in favor of incumbents, they argue, is not an argument for term limits, but rather for electoral reform.


Term limits opponents argue that the current system is perfectly capable of providing the results that are desired by term limits proponents, and that if more time were invested into turning out incumbents at the voting booth, instead of trying to completely change the system, everyone would benefit. Indeed, opponents argue, to make such a massive change in the system is to invite disaster, with a flood of novices who will simply not prove to be up to the job.

One last argument against term limits has been in the years since term limits were enacted in various states the benefits espoused by proponents have not markedly occurred, with local officials like city council members and county supervisors instead of ordinary citizens being the major source of new legislators while termed out incumbents tend to seek other offices turning elections into a version of musical chairs. This gives credence to the arguments of opponents that term limits are no panacea and should be reformed or repealed.


IMPLEMENTATION AND LEGAL ISSUES

Congressional term limits were featured prominently in the Republican Party 's Contract With America in the 1994 election campaign, and may well have contributed to the so-called " Republican Revolution ", as the Republicans wrested control of the US House Of Representatives from the Democratic Party for the first time since the 1952 election. As promised, in 1995 , having won the November elections, the Republican leadership brought to the floor of the House a Constitutional Amendment that would limit House members to six two-year terms and members of the Senate to two six-year terms. However, this amendment did not gain the approval of US Term Limits , the largest private organization pushing for congressional term limits. (US Term Limits wanted House members to be limited to ''three'' two-year terms.) With the Republicans holding 230 seats in the House, the amendment ''did'' receive a simple majority in the House. However, a two-thirds majority (290 votes) is required to pass a constitutional amendment, and thus the bill failed. The momentum behind the concept has subsequently been lost.

In May 1995, the 514 US 779 (1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal representatives or senators.

Several states, including California and Florida have imposed term limits upon both their constitutional officers and the people's representatives in their legislature.


TRIVIA

In 2002 the Idaho legislature became the first state to repeal its term limits, enacted by a public vote in 1994, obstensibly because it applied to local officials along with the legislature.


SEE ALSO




EXTERNAL LINKS