Utah repealed term-limit legislation. Some oppo-
nents of term limits also challenged the legislation
in federal courts, but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the California law restricting the term
of state legislators. By 2000, the following fifteen
states had term-limit legislation in place: Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana,
Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Michigan.
The first class of legislators who were “term-
limited” lost their seats in California and Maine in
- In 1998, term limits deprived legislators in
eleven states of their seats, including 49 of 100 mem-
bers of the Arkansas House of Representatives and
64 of 110 members of the Michigan House. Nine
states impose limits on consecutive years of service,
while six impose a lifetime ban, although they allow
additional years of service if a member is elected to
both the house and senate.
Advocates of term limits also wished to limit the
terms of members of Congress. The Republican
Contract with America in 1994 advocated term lim-
its for Congress. The 104th Congress twice intro-
duced a constitutional amendment, but it failed to
receive the necessary two-thirds majority to secure
passage in Congress. Some states also tried to restrict
the terms of members of Congress, but the Supreme
Court ruled in 1995 that such an approach was un-
constitutional. As the Republicans gained a majority
in Congress, talk of term limits diminished. Most of
the members of Congress who had promised sup-
port for term limits and who had agreed to volun-
tarily limit their terms did not stick to their earlier
promises, although a few did not seek reelection
based on their earlier promises.
Pros and Cons of Term Limits Supporters of term
limits had two stated goals as well as one unstated
goal. Many supporters harked back to the nine-
teenth century and argued that few people made a
career of legislative service in the past. Supporters
contended that turnover in a legislative body pro-
motes democracy as new people enter the body with
new ideas. Continual turnover meant that legislators
would be less likely to form alliances with special in-
terests, better serving the needs of the voters. This
argument is one essentially for an amateur legisla-
tive body composed of citizen-legislators.
Some supporters of term limits also contended
that legislative turnover would lead to more diverse
legislative bodies. In the past, state legislatures and
Congress tended to be dominated by white males.
Advocates of term limits argued that limiting the
tenure of these men would increase the opportunity
for women and minorities to be elected, as they
would not have to run against incumbents.
In some cases, including that of Congress, advo-
cates of term limits had another, partisan goal: that
of changing the political composition of the legisla-
tive body. In some states, one party had dominated
elections to the state legislature, as incumbents of-
ten won reelection. In spite of support for Republi-
can presidential candidates during the 1980’s, Dem-
ocrats maintained control of Congress for most of
the decade, in part because of the strength of incum-
bent Democratic candidates. One of the goals of the
Contract with America was to secure a Republican
majority in Congress. Republican strategists thought
that once the incumbency benefit was removed, Re-
publican candidates could secure election to Con-
gress more readily. Once Republicans gained con-
trol of Congress, however, the political fallacy of
term limits became apparent, as they would become
subject to losing their seats.
Opponents of term-limit legislation had counters
for the first two arguments rooted in democratic the-
ory. Opponents contended that a citizen legislature
composed of members with scant experience might
not lead to good government. As soon as legislators
become experienced, they would be deprived of
their office. Although amateur legislators may not
have time to forge alliances with special interests,
they may enter office beholden to them, as open-
seat races tend to be expensive to run and candi-
dates would seek funds from all sources. The oppo-
nents concluded that amateur legislators would not
be able to be the effective legislators that more expe-
rienced members were. In addition, opponents con-
tended that continual contested elections helped to
drive up the cost of securing political office, thwart-
ing a trend to a more democratic government.
Term-limit opponents conceded that term limits
might initially lead to the election of more women
and minorities to legislative bodies. However, they
pointed out that these members would themselves
be the subject of term limits, with no guarantee that
white males might not succeed them.
Opponents also pointed out that voters can al-
ways vote an incumbent out of office. Term limits
limited the choice of the voters in their view.844 Term limits The Nineties in America