Pros And Cons Of Term Limit Legislation In The United States

In 1990, beginning with California, Colorado, and Oklahoma, many states embarked on term-limit movements that resulted in the adoption of term limits for state legislatures. This was done in response to what many believed was widespread legislative tenure becoming standard with representatives securing lifelong careers in politics. Throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s eighteen more states would pass term limit legislation through the initiative process resulting in the restriction of the number of terms that elected representatives may serve in office (Bowman 161). Although such legislation would be repealed in 6 of those states, either by the courts or the legislature, rarely have such measures been supported by so many American voters.
Supporters quote Continental Congress member Thomas Jefferson who in 1776 warned of the dangers if representatives remained in office too long and suggested a proposed limit to congressional tenure. Jefferson stated “to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress… shall not have served in that office longer than two years” (Jefferson). I have identified three main pros that term limit supporters rely on to defend their position, yet they tend to overlook the cons that occur with term limits in
Expertise and experience in government has become proportionately more valuable and can be better that a fresh perspective. In addition, term limits may prevent the best person for the job from being elected. Voters who believe extended incumbency undermines our democratic system free to vote against their particular incumbents. Denying other voters the right to choose a particular candidate whom they have chosen many times before is inherently unjust. Our system of representative democracy rests on citizens choosing the legislatures that they believe are the best choose despite how many years that they have served in