Congressional term limits won't make Congress better | Bradford Fitch

Starting in the 1990s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to improve democracy. The theory was that replacing legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress.

More than 30 years later, we now have substantial data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990, and dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on legislation, lobbying, staff and constituents.

Here are some key findings:

• Legislative capacity was reduced.

With less experienced lawmakers writing legislation, the legislators produced weaker and fewer bills. Intuitively, this makes sense. If you have less experienced people in any workplace, they require time to understand the nuances of the business. As a confidential consultant for members of the U.S. House and Senate, I’ve seen this countless times. Even experienced members of the minority party can legislate circles around rookie lawmakers.

• Power shifted to lobbyists.

With the institutional memory erased, special interest backed (and written) legislation was more likely to pass. When legislators are forced out of their jobs due to term limits, they often migrate to lobbying. But they still retain their knowledge of the institution and issues they gained as lawmakers.

To be fair, not all lobbyists fall into the grim stereotype portrayed in movies and TV. Most are subject-matter experts, and lawmakers rely on them to convey how a proposed piece of legislation might affect a group of constituents or businesses. Yet it likely would be better if legislatures were not compelled to rely on lobbyists because the in-house expertise couldn't seek reelection.

• Power shifted to leadership and the executive branch.

With inexperienced lawmakers trying to quickly get up to speed on their job, academic studies have suggested that the power vacuum in states is filled by legislative leaders and the executive branch. Of course, to have functioning legislators you need functioning leaders. But this power shift almost always consolidates power away from the majority of constituents.

We’ve seen this power shift in the U.S. Congress, under Democratic and Republican leaders, since 1995. And we've seen it shift on a massive scale since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term. Very few scholars (and most members of Congress) think a weakened legislative institution is healthy for our democracy.

With no electoral incentive, especially in lawmakers’ final terms, engagement with constituents slipped. Legislators grew more distant from the voters. Term-limited lawmakers also were more likely to skip committee meetings and miss floor votes. Putting oneself up for the voters’ assessment every two or four years is a remarkable human incentive our Founders created.

Also consider that general retirements and electoral outcomes often result in significant reductions in senior lawmakers. This effect was on display at the start of the 118th Congress, when Rep. Kevin McCarthy was forced to 15 ballots to gain the speakership. The 435 House members voting on McCarthy had not been sworn in (the speaker’s vote comes first). And at the beginning of that Congress in 2023, 49% of House members had four years’ experience in the Congress or less. Can we really say with that infusion of new blood that 2023 was a banner year for the Congress?

One can also assess what we would lose when experienced lawmakers are forced out of office. Under term limits, all of these lawmakers would have been required to leave before the pinnacle of their legislative effectiveness: Henry Clay, Lyndon Johnson, Orin Hatch, John McCain and Ted Kennedy. At the height of their careers, these legislators crafted historic bills on health care, transportation, taxes and defense policy.

A natural “stick it to the man” and “throw the rascals out” mentality runs through public opinion. Yet when we explore how to improve our democratic institutions, we should be grounded in solid research rather than impulsive passions.