Legislating Term Limits Throws Away Our Freedom of Choice

Legislating Term Limits Throws Away Our Freedom of Choice
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 Of those, 15 still have them in place while six states, either by legislative action or court ruling, have repealed them.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.

IVP Donate

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

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read