S-N Editorial

The idea of congressional term limits has been a pie in the sky for both American voters and ambitious candidates for eons. Recent incidents from some of Washington’s most tenured lawmakers have sparked worthy debate about just how long our elected officials should be allowed to rule over us.

On Wednesday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) appeared to go completely blank for several seconds while answering reporters’ questions at the Capitol. The senator, 81, was whisked away by colleagues and staffers, later returning to the podium and stating he was “fine.” The incident was scary, hard to watch and had millions of people on both sides of the political aisle concerned for McConnell’s health.

On Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), had another concerning moment, albeit less frightening than McConnell’s. The 90-year-old lawmaker seemed confused during a committee roll-call vote, instead giving general remarks when all she needed to do was cast her vote. A nearby colleague was caught repeatedly telling Feinstein to “just say ‘Aye.’ ”

Of course, we can all get confused and we all have episodes of ill health; however, the fact that McConnell and Feinstein have a combined age of 171 has been an obvious focal point. It’s not just these two, either. The U.S. Senate’s roster includes four octogenarians and five more who will mark their 80th birthday in the next three years or less. Iowa’s own Chuck Grassley will pass 90 when he blows out his next set of candles.

While the sands of time eventually bury us all, it’s not exactly these lawmakers’ age that has feathers ruffled – it’s how long they’ve been in Washington. A brief civics primer will remind you there are no term limits on members of the Senate and House. When people like Grassley serve terms in both chambers during their careers, we can see tenures like his that span five decades – both a remarkable feat and concerning reality.

Calls for term limits have echoed through the hallowed halls of Congress countless times. The problem isn’t that there’s a lack of public support for such change; it’s that it would require a constitutional amendment. The process requires said amendment to be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The amendment would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states. Since there have only been 27 amendments to the Constitution in its existence, it’s clear the process is rather daunting.

Still, the term limit issue bears fervent discussion – even Grassley himself supports them and has voted for amendment proposals in the past. Suffice it to say, they’ve gone nowhere fast. When the people in charge are also in charge of ending their own careers, the odds are never going to be in the public’s favor.

The numbers say the public favors term limits in droves, too. A March 2023 poll by the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy found that 83 percent of registered voters supported passing a constitutional amendment to establish term limits in Congress. That’s astounding and shouldn’t be ignored.

Unfortunately, a term limit amendment is likely decades away from becoming reality, if that. America has a lot of issues on its plate and it’s extremely easy for lawmakers to put the end of their careers on the back burner. It’s equally unlikely episodes like those suffered by McConnell and Feinstein will spark a flame for change that is able to burn bright enough through the entire amendment process.

As Grassley likes to say ad nauseam during town hall meetings across the state, “Washington is an island surrounded by reality.” The issue of term limits proves that sentence tenfold.