Legislating Term Limits Throws Away Our Freedom of Choice

image
Published: 04 Dec, 2013
2 min read
With another campaign season rapidly approaching, termed-out legislators are filing for other offices and calls to establish term limits for Congress are once again being heard. Term limits not only legislate away our freedom of choice, they are also indicative of the pervasive attitude of refusing to take responsibility for one’s own decisions: blame the system, not ourselves.

Since 1990, 21 states have implemented statutory term limits for state elected offices. Of those, 15 still have them in place while six states, either by legislative action or court ruling, have repealed them. Countless cities and counties also have imposed statutory term limits.

It was considered unnecessary to include them in the Constitution because those serving in Congress were considered part-time citizen legislators. Turnover was also the norm.

Times have changed. However, the fact that voters have always had term limits they could impose during any election has not.

Vote for the other candidate sounds simple, but for some reason, voters have allowed themselves to be convinced that an incumbent has the advantage simply by being the incumbent. Why?

What if that person has done a terrible job, caused harm to their constituents? Conversely, what if the candidates running are not in the least qualified? The incumbent is still the best choice, but one cannot exercise that choice?

Term limits themselves have this impact.

By legislating turnover, governing bodies have lost leadership and expertise that was responsible for ensuring effective and efficient operations. There is more divisiveness in the legislative process.

The committee process, which is key to any legislative body, operates less effectively. Legislative staff, not the elected official, holds the power as they are now the ones with institutional knowledge. I should note that one of the original assumed positives of term limits, reduced government spending, has not materialized.

Voters have given up freedom of choice because it’s easier to blame the system. It’s easier to allow someone else to tell us what to think and how to act. If a voter believes the incumbent is the most qualified, they should have that choice. If not, vote for another candidate. It’s that simple.

Editor's Note: This article was previously published on policymic.com. The text has been slightly edited.

IVP Donate

You Might Also Like

Trump sitting in the oval office with a piece of paper with a cannabis leaf on his desk.
Is Trump About to Outflank Democrats on Cannabis? Progressives Sound the Alarm
As President Donald Trump signals renewed interest in reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I drug to Schedule III, a policy goal long championed by liberals and libertarians, the reaction among some partisan progressive advocates is not celebration, but concern....
08 Dec, 2025
-
5 min read
Malibu, California.
From the Palisades to Simi Valley, Independent Voters Poised to Decide the Fight to Replace Jacqui Irwin
The coastline that defines California’s mythology begins here. From Malibu’s winding cliffs to the leafy streets of Brentwood and Bel Air, through Topanga Canyon and into the valleys of Calabasas, Agoura Hills, and Thousand Oaks, the 42nd Assembly District holds some of the most photographed, most coveted, and most challenged terrain in the state. ...
10 Dec, 2025
-
6 min read
Ranked choice voting
Ranked Choice for Every Voter? New Bill Would Transform Every Congressional Election by 2030
As voters brace for what is expected to be a chaotic and divisive midterm election cycle, U.S. Representatives Jamie Raskin (Md.), Don Beyer (Va.), and U.S. Senator Peter Welch (Vt.) have re-introduced legislation that would require ranked choice voting (RCV) for all congressional primaries and general elections beginning in 2030....
10 Dec, 2025
-
3 min read