From the Texas Tribune: With Trump on their side, Abbott and Cruz hopeful for term limits on Congress

Terms limits have been off the table for while, but there's an effort to bring them back.

- Click here for the article.

As President Donald Trump casts his election victory as a rebuke against career politicians, the idea of imposing term limits on Congress has drawn renewed attention. Two Texas Republican leaders are pushing different approaches on how to get there.

Last month, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, proposed a constitutional amendment with U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., that would limit members of Congress to serving a maximum of three terms in the House and two in the Senate.

“In one word, [the amendment] is excellent,” said Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, an organization that advocates for limiting the time elected officials serve at all levels of government. “It’s simple, straightforward, and it’s exactly the type of term limits amendment that polls show Americans are clamoring for.”

Are there too many old people in Congress?

Some smart types debate the issue following the death of one Senator - New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg -at 89. He was far from the oldest Senator by the way. That would be Strom Thurmond.

- One thinks we - and incumbents - should change our "norms about incumbency" and that more party members should be willing to make primary challenges, which discounts the advantage of seniority of seniority. There should be more turnover in the Senate says he.

- Another points out that a disadvantage of having elderly Senators is that they have no idea what problems face younger Americans, and if they are incapacitated their unelected staffs take over their duties. Is this a good idea? She aregues for more retirements in the Senate.

- The historian emeritus of the Senate reminds us that the word "senate" comes from the Latin "sen" meaning old or an elder - so the Senate is supposed to composed of indviduals with age and experience. The reason there are elderly people in the Senate is because constituents vote for them. Dealing with elderly Senators who are also infirmed can be tricky however.

- An ex-member of Congress thinks we have better things to worry about: . . . "term limits and age limits are antithetical to the power given to the voters. Furthermore, as Americans live longer and healthier lives the people who represent them should reflect the very makeup of the constituents they serve.:

Proposed term limits on statewide elected officials passes Texas Senate

The vote was overwhelming: 27-4. Now it goes to the House. From My SA:

Statewide elected officials, including the governor, would be limited to two consecutive terms in office under a proposed constitutional amendment approved 27-4 on Tuesday by the Texas Senate.

Gov. Rick Perry, Texas' longest-serving governor, and other current officeholders affected by the measure would be “grandfathered” and allowed to seek two more terms if it were enacted.

Senate Joint Resolution 13 by Sen. Kevin Eltife would require Texas House approval by a two-thirds vote before being put on a statewide ballot. If both chambers approved, the proposal would not require Perry's signature, only voter approval. If passed, it would apply only to officials in the state executive branch.

The bill's supporters claim it has nothing to do with Rick Perry's lenghty service as governor, but ....

Perry's long service is the undeniable elephant in the room when term limits are discussed.

“No Texas governor before Rick Perry ever served two full four-year terms consecutively, but Perry's threat to run for a fourth full term in 2014 opens the prospect of him serving as governor for eighteen years,” said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. “This has everybody, including Sen. Eltife, wondering whether this is a good idea and whether future governors should have this option.”

Jillson said two-thirds of states restrict statewide elected officials to two four-year terms. He said Texas is one of a dozen that have four-year terms with no limit.

Lobbyist and consultant Bill Miller said, “Regardless of whether you say it is not about Perry, he is the poster boy for the bill.”

Miller was critical of the measure, saying it “is a candidate talent killer and enhances immeasurably the power of staff who are beyond the reach of voters.”

Jillson and Rice University political scientist Mark Jones took note that after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president four times, Congress passed and states adopted the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential service.

“Just as FDR's unprecedented tenure in office helped generate support for a two-term limit for the U.S. president, Perry's equally unprecedented tenure has bolstered the efforts of term limits advocates in Texas,” Jones said.

Term Limits to be Extended in Houston? Not just yet.

Houston's city council voted down a measure that would have allowed the city's voters to extend term limits on council members and the mayor from six years to twelve, and the term lengths from 2 to 4 years. We discuss term limits in a few places in this class, primarily in the sections on democracy, legislatures and elections.
Term limits were promoted heavily in the 1980s and 90s as ways to reign in legislators who allegedly had grown too powerful and distant from their constituents. Other pointed out that if they had grown too distant from their constituents, they could easily be voted out and that term limits actually limited democracy more than anything else. There seems to be a small developing backlash against term limits though, and this effort may be indicative of this movement.

The proposal's chief advocate in Houston argues that limiting elected officials to three two year terms empowers lobbyists at the expense of rank and file constituents. It also makes long term decision making difficult. A 2 years election cycle makes governing difficult and places a priority on campaigning instead.

Whether or not he had a point, the proposal was handily defeated. I won't be surprised to see it brought up again.

Related stories:

- Longer term limits could go on fall ballot
- City Council panel nixes proposal to expand term limits
- Burks blasts opposition to longer Council terms

The most inexperienced Congress in decades?

That's what Politico says we are in store for come January when the 113th Congress is set to convene:

Between the historically large 2010 freshman class, 36 lawmaker retirements in 2012 and the expected election turnover this fall, the new Congress could have upward of 155 members with less than four years of experience. And the implications of a youthful Congress are significant: On the upside, the American voter will get even more fresh blood infused into the least popular Congress in modern history, bringing new ideas and vigor to the stodgy Capitol.

But there’s also a significant downside: The new breed — in both parties — is more partisan, less willing to compromise, not beholden to any leader, chairmen or customs, all of which can throw a wrench into the tradition of legislating.
|
In other words, the new Congress could be even worse in terms of gridlock and polarization, even as voters rebuke the legislative branch for being that way.

“There are chairmen of subcommittees who don’t know which end of the gavel to use, much less how to get a bill through Congress,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (D.-Tenn)
We discussed the pros and cons of short term length in 2302 today. We'll find out more soon enough.

A proposal for term limiting Supreme Court Justices

From the NYT:

In 2009 a politically diverse group of law professors, including me, proposed a system that would work around the need to amend the Constitution — an extremely unlikely possibility — yet still capture the benefits of term limits.

Here’s how our plan would work. Every two years the president would appoint a new justice to the court, but only the nine most junior justices, by years of service, would sit and decide every case.

The rest would then act as a sort of “bench” team, sitting on cases as needed because of the disability or disqualification of one of the junior justices. These senior justices might also help decide which of the thousands of petitions the court receives each year should be fully considered, vote on procedural rulemaking, and perhaps sit on occasional cases presented to lower circuit courts.

In short, our proposal would revise the job of a justice to a more human scale and perhaps make the court less likely to impose erratic political preferences on the citizens it governs. Because it would assure regular turnover, the court would experience fewer long-term ideological swings, enabling it to better do its original job of anchoring the legislative process to the Constitution.
This fits with our recent dicsussions in 2302, but 2301s - since we just discussed elections - should consider how this proposal might moderate the impact that the general population has on the Supreme Court.

Term Limits for the Supreme Court

We need to debate this in 2302.

Do term limits erode judicial independence or are they a necessary way to guard against judicial tyranny?