Modern Day Monarchy

CULTURE Monarchy Modern Day

THE DEBATE AROUND SETTING TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS AND STATE OFFICIALS

By Kora Quinn, Culture Staff Writer • Graphic by Kate Madigan

From 1789, when George Washington took his oath of office to 1951 when the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, there were no term limits for the president of the United States. This was not an issue for nearly two centuries, as U.S. presidents followed the precedent set by Washington when he chose to only serve for two terms out of fear of imitating the monarch, King George III.1

Franklin D. Roosevelt broke that trend. Roosevelt was a Democratic president who served from 1933 to 1945, seeing America through both the Great Depression and World War II. He was elected to four terms in office, his fourth cut short by his death in April of 1945 and taken over by his Vice President, Harry Truman. It was only then that Congress thought to pass the 22nd Amendment and limit presidents to two four-year terms in office.2

While there are federal laws dictating how long a president can serve today, each state individually gets to decide whether or not state officials and members of Congress should have term limits. As of December 2018, only 15 states have set limits ranging from six to 12 years for both the House and Senate.3 Currently, 36 states have term limits set for Governors, but 14 do not.4 For other state officials, such as Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General and Treasurer, there is a mix.5 For example, in Georgia, the Governor can only serve two consecutive terms, but the Lieutenant Governor can serve unlimited terms. Notably, Wisconsin has no imposed term limits on any elected state official, the House or the Senate6 . The lack of term limits in some

Many States Have Term Limits on Their Legislatures,” U.S. Term Limits, 2018. 4 “Which States Have Term Limits on Governor?” U.S. Term Limits, 2018. 5 Perkins, Heather. “State Executive Branch: Constitutional and Statutory Provisions for Number of Consecutive Terms of Elected State Officials,” Book of States. CSG Knowledge Center, 2019. 6 Ibid.

“Setting term limits has the potential to improve Congress’ effectiveness in passing important legislation, bar an individual from holding too much power for too long and allow members of Congress to make unpopular decisions without fear of losing reelection.”

states allows positions in the government to be held by the same person for decades. For example, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984. 36 years later, he won the Kentucky Senate race yet again in the 2020 election.7 Currently, the longest time a Congress member has served is 51 years for the Senate8 and 59 years for the House.9

This can be attributed to something called the “incumbency effect.”10 When an incumbent, the person who currently holds a position or office is running against a new candidate they have a higher advantage in being elected. These advantages generally include the franking privilege, more fundraising opportunities, experience, a reputation and name recognition.

Demonstrated through Senator McConnell’s 36 years in office without term limits, the incumbency effect has the potential to carry a candidate for decades. While it is possible to beat the incumbent, seen with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory in the 2018 Democratic primary, it is uncommon.

When term limits are applied to the presidency, however, the incumbency effect only exists when the standing

7 Hulse, Carl. “Mitch McConnell Wins 7th Term as Republicans Battle to Keep Senate,” The New York Times, 2020. 8 “U.S. Senate: Longest-Serving Senators,” United States Senate, 2020. 9 “Members With 40 Years or More House Service,” United States House of Representatives, 2020. 10 Ansolabehere, Stephen & Snyder, James M. Jr., “The incumbency Advantage in U.S. Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942-2000,” MIT Economics, 2001. president is running for their second term.11 Afterward, completely new candidates take over the race and this phenomenon disappears.

In a 2013 survey conducted by Gallup, 75% of adults said they would vote for term limits for both the House and Senate, 21% said they would vote against term limits and 5% had no opinion.12 While the survey found that Republicans and Independents are more likely to vote for term limits than Democrats, the issue is still a bipartisan one overall.13 Thus, it is clear that the majority of Americans, across party lines, are in favor of making these term shifts in Congress.

Setting term limits has the potential to improve Congress’ effectiveness in passing important legislation, bar an individual from holding too much power for too long and allow members of Congress to make unpopular decisions without fear of losing reelection. As it stands, Congress spends too much time campaigning and catering to their base than passing meaningful laws. If term limits were applied, reelection wouldn’t be at the forefront of our legislator’s personal agendas.

However, the issue is far more complex than that. Setting term limits has its own set of negative consequences. In a piece published by The Brookings Institution, Casey Burgat argues that setting congressional term limits would take power away from voters, decrease congressional capacity, limit incentives for gaining policy expertise, automatically kick out effective lawmakers and do little to stop corruption.

11 Ibid. 12 Saad, Lydia. “Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College,” Gallup, 2013. 13 Ibid. Burgat claims, “On the surface, the case for term limits is strong… But, precisely because the creation of successful public policies by even the most experienced of officials is so difficult and uncertain, we should not mandate that our most effective and seasoned lawmakers be forced out of the institution.” Burgat goes on to say that voters should remove “unresponsive, ineffectual members of Congress” by simply voting them out.14

In a political climate plagued by polarization, Burgat’s answer isn’t as simple as it appears. It would seem effective for Democrats to push for term limits because it could potentially open the door to flip long-held Republican seats, like Senator McConnell’s. However, it would also prove ineffective because fresh and progressive Democratic voices, like Representative OcasioCortez’s, would be forced out before they can accomplish their long-term goals.

There is no simple solution to this issue, as both arguments present valid points. While those in Congress should not be allowed to serve for nearly 60 years, they should be allowed to serve long enough to have the ability to pass meaningful and effective legislation. The point of operating as a democracy is to allow the people to participate by selecting and, above all, replacing the governing body through a fair election. Thus, the question is ultimately up to the American people: is the lack of term limits creating a modernday monarchy? ■

14 Ibid.