My Views on Term Limits
I have already looked into the pros and cons of limiting the number of terms an elected official can serve. My thoughts last year were that term limits were a good thing, if only we had more time to discuss the unintended consequences and ways to overcome them. The hope was to have more public discussion around limiting the pool of candidates in our small city. However, at that time, the mayor and the city council passed the ordinance without much public input from residents. The names listed in the meeting minutes are only a few Clinton residents, while others from outside the city also showed up. What is interesting is that the agenda around this was not known until the Friday before the meeting over the Memorial Day weekend.
This topic has not left my mind, and recently, we started cleaning up the city code in the same chapter where this ordinance was placed. The topic was brought up again because, a year into it, people are questioning whether it is really necessary for our municipality to limit the number of years a person can serve in office. I have done a deeper dive this time to examine the pros and cons of term limits, the academic research, and share my own opinions on the subject.
Pros vs. Cons
There are several articles and opinions online about limiting the number of terms elected officials can serve. These viewpoints stress that, by limiting the number of terms, campaigns will become more competitive, increase public participation, and remove “career politicians.” There is opposition to these limits based on the assumption that bureaucrats will assume more power, lobbyists will have greater influence, and the quality of legislation will decrease. Here are some of the things I have found in my studies.
Pros
One of the strongest articles I found on the benefits of term limits was published in 2001, after several states had passed legislation limiting the number of terms for local officials. After a big push through the early 1990’s, states began implementing various ways to limit the terms of “career politicians” so they could “clean up” the chambers of power. The author of the article, Patrick Basham, was responding to California's attempt to repeal its term-limits law.
The analysis goes through several things, with some having stronger support and sources than others, that should be considered. The first one is about the turnover rate in state legislatures. Historically, from 1830 to 1850, the turnover rate for the House of Representatives was 51.5 percent. That meant that it was 50/50 of being re-elected to the House. It is concluded that the same was happening at the state level. However, from the 1960’s and 1970’s that percentage decreased substantially. Mr. Basham then shows that in 1988, the average state legislator turnover rate had fallen to 16 percent. He places the blame on chronic incumbency.
It is most difficult to run against an incumbent seeking re-election. A challenger has to get their information out there and show that their character value is higher than the incumbent's. This is difficult if their opponent has not done anything wrong. If the people are mediocre or just satisfied, then why make a change? That is the prevailing thought in the article, with sources backing up those claims.
Limiting the terms of elected officials does help with this matter. The article shows that turnover rates started to increase almost immediately. The article also showed that election turnout increased. This seems like a good thing and puts the public at a better advantage. Along with new elected officials, something interesting also happened: diversity. More women, latinos, and asians were elected to the California Assembly. Though I’m not sure whether this was properly sourced or even due to term limits, it is a positive to see representation from others.
Cons
The pro article attempted to prove that term limits were working, but it made some assumptions based on the author’s bias. One thing that I noticed was that several sections only appeared to have sources when, in fact, he was quoting opinion pieces. The main assumption I mentioned earlier, which he blamed for the decline in turnover rate, was chronic incumbency. This seems to be an assumption, since there were no sources other than those indicating that incumbents stay in office 99% of the time.
The data does bear that out, but another author provides actual data on why people vote for an incumbent over a new challenger. Bill Bishop wrote a book a few years later about the phenomenon of like-minded people moving to the same neighborhoods. The book states that Americans became very mobile during the latter part of the 20th century. People were moving to other cities to climb the career ladder. Others moved to look for better-paying work. With each move, people would find neighborhoods that matched their lifestyle and choices. They would gravitate to like-minded people.
As such, some articles show that the “career politician” isn’t so much a politician stacking the deck against the challenger, but that voters are more likely to vote for the same person who represents their views. Dr. H. Abbie Erler found that politicians know how to work around term limits by going for one office after another. If not elected, they will still seek appointments from their former elected colleagues to work in the government. Her work on how term limits don’t work is very in-depth and properly sourced.
Get Christopher Danson’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
There are several articles about the detriment of term limits. It was hard to be impartial on the subject since there was so much academic research against term limits. The biggest one, besides Dr. Erler, was a series of case studies published in a book edited by Christopher Z. Mooney. These were case studies provided by different academics to show that, no matter the state or the way term limits were implemented, there were more failures than successes.
Academic Research
The research consensus on the theme clearly shows that it depends on how term limits are implemented. The research demonstrates that imposing limits on a legislative body actually weakens it relative to an executive body. The executive branch, be that the President, Governor, or Mayor, can weather term limits better than the legislative body that represents the people. City municipalities are smaller than State Legislatures and the Congress of the United States of America.
If there is research showing the flaws in term limits, that makes me want to pause and discuss any city ordinance that changes the way we qualify people to run for office. There is some court precedent holding that State Governments cannot change the qualifications for running for public office unless an amendment to the Constitution is passed. This could be said for local municipalities attempting to change their State Constitutions as well.
I have found that more research should be done on the local, municipal level. There seems to be an understanding that for state and federal governments, research is decent in this area. However, any research for local municipalities is lacking.
My Opinion
While running for city council myself, I came across others who said the ordinance passed last year was taking away their right to vote. The people understood that if they wanted to get an official out of office, they could vote them out. That is what happened in 2021 when a former mayor lost the election for another term. Several people said they felt like he had been in for long enough and needed someone new. That new mayor then did things that the residents did not agree with and, in turn, was voted out in 2025.
People and elected officials are closer together, so communication is better. If we see that most term-limits research is done at the state and federal levels, that could mean that local research is not worth academics' time. I still think research is needed to make sure nothing is missing, but that could be why there's little research.
I think we can find a way to limit terms, but it won’t be the easy silver bullet people think it will be. As I said in my post last year, there should be a public discussion to explore ways to overcome the shortcomings of term limits. If we are not careful, things could have undesired consequences.
James Madison is one of my heroes. His ability to draft a constitution that rivaled those of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and other founding fathers inspires deep admiration in me. He understood that the federal government needed to be different than a state constitution. The framework has lasted for 239 years. It has moments of ups and downs, but in the end, it has withstood the onslaught of ambitious men.
This quote from the Federalist Papers resonates with me. James Madison wrote to encourage people to ratify the new Constitution. In regard to term limits, he stated:
“A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.”
Conclusion
Term limits sound good for replacing politicians who do not seem to listen to their constituents. However, in practice, they end up having a negative effect overall. Just remember that an incumbent is there because we are moving into neighborhoods with like-minded people. That means that an incumbent will always have that benefit. Attempting to write a new law or amend the Constitution will not change that fact.
If the people want to get a politician out of office, they can vote that person out. That is the people's right to keep a person in for however short or long they want them there. Forcing out a good politician because of a law should not be the prerogative of a free, democratic society.
