Congress is presently defined by heightened partisanship, ideological polarization, and unproductive gridlock. Could term limits be the solution?

Petty, indecisive, childish, embarrassing. Are these words describing the average American toddler or the average American Congressman? Most Americans would say the latter. From the 1970s to the 2020s, the American public’s approval rating of Congress has averaged around 30%. With seemingly constant gridlock caused by increased partisanship and ideological polarization, these numbers have dipped into the teens in the last decade. Americans’ everyday lives are plagued with hundreds of pressing issues, each of which may be improved by public policy. But rather than passing such legislation, Congress is stuck in a stalemate. 

Despite this reality, in the 2022 midterm elections, 95% of incumbent representatives won re-election. While this should seem surprising given Americans’ disdain for Congress in general, it is actually a long-held trend since the 1960s. Esteemed political scientist Richard Fenno has deemed this phenomenon Fenno’s paradox: Americans disapprove of Congress, but continue to re-elect the representatives who make up Congress. 

So what causes this dramatic disconnect? It mostly arises from an inattentive American public. While performative activism and impassioned retweets make Americans appear in tune with politics, in reality most Americans are out of the loop. Busy with the triumphs and challenges of their own personal and professional lives, Americans are not as politically versed as they like to think. Only 50% of Americans know which political party their representative belongs to, while a mere 37% actually know their name. When acknowledging this political ignorance, it is not surprising that Americans simply check the box next to “incumbent” when voting, rather than considering nuanced voting behavior and policy preferences at the polls. This phenomena creates a Congress full of career politicians elected based on status rather than merit. 

One way to resolve the re-election of ineffective representatives is a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits. To better understand the benefits of congressional term limits, first the incumbency advantage must be fully explained. The biggest incumbency advantage is, as already mentioned, simply having “incumbent” next to one’s name on the ballot. With little knowledge about the intricacies of public policy or political ideology, citizens are inclined to vote for whoever is currently in office. Besides this simple name recognition, incumbents also obtain large advantages regarding campaign funding and resources. 

According to the Federal Election Commission, the average cost of winning an election for the House of Representatives is a steep $1.5 million while the cost of winning a Senate seat is a whopping $10.5 million. The monetary advantages that incumbents possess, therefore, are extremely important in securing a spot in Congress. Concerning income alone, regular candidates typically must resign from their career to run a dedicated campaign for office, while incumbents still receive their $173,000+ annual salary from the government. Besides this, incumbents have congressional staffers and aides to complete their campaign’s work, while their opponents must pay their staffers out of pocket or using campaign funds. Additionally, incumbents usually receive backing from their political party, which provides significant funding and builds public support. All of these factors contribute to the incumbent’s advantage, increasing the likelihood of their re-election for reasons besides their merit. Congressional term limits would eliminate this advantage each time a legislator reached their maximum years of service, allowing new candidates to fairly fight to fill their spot. 

Besides increasing the likelihood that Americans vote based on merit, rather than the incumbent’s name recognition and better funded campaign, congressional term limits will improve representatives' priorities once in office. According to Fenno’s rigorous research in his book Home Style, legislators’ top priority is re-election, followed by power in the chamber, while public policy ranks at #3. David Mayhew’s well known book The Electoral Connection extends this work, claiming that congressmen are “single minded seekers of re-election.” By focusing on re-election, legislators place their most important job, accurate representation of the American people through effective public policy, on the backburner. 

By taking re-election off the table during congressmens’ last term, congressional term limits ensure that members of Congress make the American public their number one priority for at least their last term in office. Besides providing this obvious benefit, this policy will also discourage the negative side effects of prioritizing re-election. For example, running for re-election gives legislators motivation to cater to party leadership to secure funding for their campaign. This behavior increases policy polarization and concentrated partisanship within Congress, both of which increase gridlock. Congressional term limits could discourage these effects by preventing this political manipulation for one term of legislators’ time in office. 

While establishing congressional term limits seems like an effective method to promote competence and qualification within Congress, some are still hesitant to this idea. The main counterargument, “we have term limits; they’re called elections,” has been disproved by establishing Americans’ political inattention; it is not apparent that Americans vote out members of Congress when they are dissatisfied with their job performance. The other prominent argument against congressional term limits is that some believe they may be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for state legislatures to create term limits for members of Congress representing the state in the 1995 case US Term Limits v. Thornton. This decision did not declare the idea of congressional term limits unconstitutional however, it only outlawed this method of establishing them. In the same decision, the justices specified that congressional term limits would have to be created with the process outlined in Article V. This indicates that a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits, similar to the 22nd amendment establishing presidential term limits, is indeed constitutional. To create congressional term limits, ⅔ of state legislatures must propose this amendment which ¾ of states must then ratify at convention. While this is a high percentage, an impressive 80% of Americans are in favor of term limits. This means that so long as state legislators are acting in the interest of their constituents, this amendment should pass. 

The lack of government action on an issue widely agreed upon among Americans is unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless. Too often in American history are pressing issues met only with government inaction. This issue, however, has a widely bipartisan, clearly structured, financially feasible solution, making inaction even more inexcusable. To combat the clear incumbency advantage that perpetuates career politicians’ increased polarization and subpar representation, states should pass a constitutional amendment to establish term limits for US Congress.