Limiting terms for elected officials remains a popular item as a dysfunctional Congress — often mirrored at the state legislative level — tests voters’ patience. The U.S. Term Limits website even lists about 125 federal lawmakers as co-sponsors of legislation aimed at passing a constitutional amendment to limit terms in Congress.
The argument is simple: Lawmakers overstay their time, becoming distant from those they serve and sometimes corrupt in the bargain.
Yet the ultimate term limit is an election. In the March Texas primary, of the 86 Republicans in Texas’ 150-member House of Representatives, 10 didn’t run for reelection. Some of these representatives knew that Gov. Greg Abbott’s drive to fill the House with public education reform allies would make reelection difficult. For many who did run, it did. Of the 76 who stood for renomination, nine lost their primaries outright and eight were forced into runoffs, including the powerful speaker of the house. Thus, the 2024 turnover ranges from a low of 19 to a high of 27 of 86, assuming no surprises in November.
California’s Failed Example
In 1990, California voters passed a proposition with a narrow 52 percent majority that imposed term limits on state legislators, eliminated pensions for lawmakers, and transferred the responsibility for setting their pay to a governor-appointed commission.
The idea of limiting terms has roots in the early days of the American republic, but it wasn’t until the 1990s that the movement saw substantial legislative success. When California became one of the first
