Perhaps one of the greatest ironies of American government is that while the legislative branch derives its power from the consent of the governed and is elected by popular vote, the institution as a whole isn’t very popular among voters.
According to an Aug. 12 Gallup poll, 90 percent of Americans disapproves of the 112th Congress — only 9 percent of Democrats and 10 percent Republicans approved of Congress’s job performance over the past two years.
Congress's approval rating has typically hovered between 20 and 40 percent, with the exception of the month following the 9/11 attacks. In October 2011, Congress’s approval rating was up an astonishing 84 percent.
That time is over. Congress is at a 40-year low and many Americans are fed up.
This has prompted a number of states to pursue term limits for members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
This is all well and good, and may in fact offer a slight respite from the culture of constant campaigning present in all levels of government.
But it would at best be just another temporary Band-Aid fix for a broken Congress. Multi-term congressmen and women are not the main problem with progress on issues facing our country.
The most recent congressional elections in 2010 saw a record number of incumbent representatives ousted from office, propelled by the Tea Party’s momentum and disdain for the federal debt and the budget deficit.
Yet the dissatisfaction with Congress remains.
Term limits won’t change that. Not only that, but term limits are unconstitutional. State governments can impose term limits on state officials within their own legislatures, so long as their state constitution allows it.
But as for the federal government, specifically the judicial and legislative branches, the Supreme Court has ruled that imposing term limits on constitutional officers — specifically senators and representatives — because it violates the qualifications clause of the Constitution.
According to the Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, states do not have the power to alter the qualifications politicians must meet to run for Congress. Furthermore, keeping incumbent candidates from running again would deprive the people of the right to freely choose their representatives.
In the same case, the court did strike down an Arkansas state constitutional amendment to limit terms from elected officials that passed with 60 percent of the vote. If there is any instance of depriving the free choice of the people, this case would be it.
For proponents of term limits, the next step to success is to amend the U.S. Constitution.
While a state-by-state approach may be more feasible, the problem of unequal access to the ballot in different states must impede this option. If a senator may only serve one term under Arkansas law or three terms under Washington law, there is a fundamental inequality that must be addressed.
On the other hand, multi-term members of Congress usually develop an area of expertise during their service that is highly valuable. Sen. Jon Kyl, for example, is widely considered the authority on water rights legislation, while former Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., was highly knowledgeable about health care reform efforts.
While there are issues with the current Congress, term limits would not be the panacea for which so many hope.
Reach the columnist at skthoma4@asu.edu or follow her at @SavannahKThomas.
Read Sean McCauley's counterpoint here.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
