States Lead Charge for Congressional Term Limits
By Philip Blumel President, U.S. Term Limits and Host, No Uncertain Terms Podcast
While Congress is embroiled in a traditional budget fight that will provide a traditional result of more spending and a growing national debt, there is a quiet revolution brewing in the states looking to improve the makeup of Congress and the incentives faced by its members. One after another, states are officially calling for Congressional term limits.
As of mid-May 2025, three more states have done so this year: Indiana, South Dakota and South Carolina. This brings the tally to 12 since the Florida legislature kicked off the campaign in 2016.
Specifically, the states are approving
what Article V of the U.S. Constitution calls “applications” for an amendmentproposing convention which are limited to the subject of Congressional term limits. Under that Article, if two-thirds of the states approve the application, a convention call it the Term Limits Convention “shall” be held.
The convention is only empowered to propose an amendment. However, if three-quarters of the states ratify the proposal, the amendment becomes part of the U.S. Constitution.
Traditionally, amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Congress before ratification, a process also outlined in Article V. Indeed, a Congressional term limits amendment has been introduced to both houses of Congress every session for decades.
The current bills are S.J. Res. 1, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and H.J. Res. 12, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina. Together, these bills have about 65 cosponsors so far, with an additional 85 Congress members who have signed U.S. Term Limits pledges committing themselves to sign on.
Nonetheless, without enormous external pressure, it is hard to imagine Congress members voting to limit their own terms. Hence, the movement by the states to take the lead on the reform. It is quite possible the campaign by the states will provide the requisite outside pressure. History suggests so. Until 1913, the U.S. Senate ignored successful amendment legislation in the U.S. House and bipartisan calls from the public for the direct election of Senators, who were originally appointed by state legislatures.
And yet, as state after state eventually reaching 28 called for a convention on the subject of direct election, the appointed Senators saw the writing on the wall and passed the 17th amendment, scuttling the need for a convention. With Congressional term limits amendment bills introduced in Congress each year, the table is set for Congress to make a similar calculation.
The States’ First Attempt
The Term Limits Convention project is the second attempt by states and citizens to try to circumnavigate the self-interest of Congress members. The first period was between 1990 and 1994 when 23 states approved referenda nearly all of which were placed on the ballot via citizen petitions that limited the terms
of these states’ Congressional delegations.
Unfortunately for the reformers, the U.S. Supreme Court voided the 23 successful referenda in U.S. Term Limits Inc. v Thornton (1995). In this split 5-4 decision, the court ruled that Congressional term limits could only be imposed via constitutional amendment.
It should not be surprising that states would take the lead for Congressional term limits. State legislators have experience with balancing budgets and 17 states have term limits currently in effect on their legislatures.
Also, in stark contrast to incumbent members of Congress, state legislators have a personal incentive to see term limits imposed. Term limits create open seats for state legislators to run for. This motivation will presumably become more powerful as the success of the term limits movement looks more likely and less speculative.
Beyond personal experience, state legislators have data to suggest term limits encourage fiscal responsibility. Economists Dr. Randall Holcombe and Robert J. Gmeiner of Florida State University published a study examining state government budgets before and after the implementation of term limits (Holcombe & Gmeiner, 2019).
The study shows that prior to the implementation of term limits, state revenues and expenditures tended to grow at about the same rate in states that implemented term limits and those that did not. After the implementation of term limits, revenues and expenditures grew more slowly in states that
implemented them. According to Holcombe and Gmeiner, the reduction in the growth of state budgets after the implementation of term limits is both economically and statistically significant.
The Case for Term Limits
The rising term limits movement warrants revisiting other chief benefits, particularly in promoting competitive elections. Since 1970, congressional incumbents have won well over 90 percent of their races. While there are a few exceptions every cycle, the norm is for nearly every incumbent politician to get reelected who doesn’t retire, die, or get indicted. The Center for Responsive Politics notes that top spenders win over 90 percent of congressional races, with House incumbents raising four to five times more than challengers.
The fact that challengers statistically do not win dramatically affects who runs. This enormous hurdle keeps most serious, goal-oriented candidates out of the race.
This influences the choices voters face on election day. For one thing, it means there are many uncontested races where the elections are simply canceled. There were 37 such races in 2024, which is a historically middling number.
That is not the primary problem. In a far larger number of cases, the elections are nominal, lopsided affairs. That is, they are not uncontested, but
undercontested. Due to the enormous advantages of the incumbent, it is easy to predict who will win in advance.
Term limits supporters believe that fundamental change is not possible in a system based on seniority in which incumbents funded by special interests statistically cannot lose. Change can only really occur via competitive openseat elections. And term limits create open-seat elections in every district every six to eight years, or whatever the term limit is.
Additional benefits of term limits include:
• Improved Citizen Access
• Attracting better candidates
• Broader Experience
• Weakened Special Interests
• Increased Transparency
• Reduced Corruption
• Satisfying Voter Demand
If enough states call for a Term Limits Convention and public engagement grows, Congress may face pressure to act, as it did with the 17th Amendment. With 12 states already on board and strong public support, the movement is gaining momentum. The coming years will reveal whether Congress will propose term limits or if a convention will force the issue, reshaping American governance.
Philip Blumel is president of U.S. Term Limits, a national advocacy organization, and host of its biweekly podcast No Uncertain Terms. Blumel lives in West Palm Beach and is a Certified Financial Planner working with Janney Montgomery Scott. See www.termlimits.com.
The LeMieux Center for Public Policy at Palm Beach Atlantic University provides a space for reasoned, thoughtful and civil discourse on pressing public policy issues confronting Florida, the United States and the world.
Your support allows the Center to continue with our mission. We invite you to give today online at pba.edu
