Term Limits for the Federal Government

To promote accountability, long-term governance, and reduce the influence of money in politics, the following term limits are established:

1. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives shall serve a single, non-renewable term of 8 years.
2. Members of the U.S. Senate shall serve a single, non-renewable term of 12 years.
3. The President of the United States shall serve a single, non-renewable term of 8 years.
4. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States shall serve a single, non-renewable term of 18 years.

At the completion of their term, officials shall be ineligible for reelection or reappointment to the same office.

No-Confidence Removal by Citizen Initiative

1. Any federal elected official, including the President, may be subject to a citizen-initiated no-confidence vote.
2. A no-confidence vote shall be triggered if at least 15% of registered voters in the relevant jurisdiction (statewide for Senators, nationally for the President, district-wide for House members) sign a verified petition calling for removal.
3. If a no-confidence vote occurs, a supermajority (over 60%) of participating voters is required to remove the official from office.
4. If removed, a special election shall be held within 90 days to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. If a President is removed, the Vice President will serve as President until the special election takes place and a new President is elected and inaugurated.

For Supreme Court Justices:

• A national citizen initiative requiring 20% of registered voters to sign a petition can trigger a no-confidence vote.
• If a Justice is removed, the President shall nominate a replacement, subject to Senate confirmation, to serve the remainder of the 18-year term.

Application to Current Officeholders

1. House of Representatives:
   • Representatives elected before ratification may serve out their current terms.
   • In the first congressional election after ratification, all House seats shall transition to single 8-year terms with no reelection.
2. Senate:
   • Sitting Senators may complete their current terms.
   • Senators elected after ratification shall serve a single 12-year term with no reelection.
   • To prevent an imbalance in staggered terms, Senators with more than 6 years remaining at the time of ratification shall have their terms capped at 12 years from their last election date.
3. President:
   • If the sitting President has less than 4 years remaining, they may complete their term but shall be ineligible for reelection.
   • If the sitting President has more than 4 years remaining due to reelection, their term shall be capped at 8 years total.
4. Supreme Court Justices:
   • Justices appointed before ratification may continue serving.
   • Upon ratification, a one-time staggered transition plan shall be established:
     • The longest-serving Justice shall have their seat expire within 2 years.
     • The next longest-serving Justice shall have their seat expire within 4 years, and so on every 2 years until all Justices transition to the 18-year limit.
   • Future appointments shall be for single 18-year terms only.

No-Confidence Vote Transition

• The no-confidence vote provisions shall take effect immediately upon ratification and shall apply to all current officeholders.
• If a sitting official is removed via a no-confidence vote, their replacement shall serve only the remainder of the original term and will be subject to the new single-term rule.

Legislative and Electoral Adjustments

• Congress shall enact any necessary legislation to facilitate the amendment’s provisions, including adjustments to election schedules and the judicial appointment timeline.
• The Federal Election Commission and state election boards shall coordinate to implement no-confidence voting procedures and ensure voter petition accessibility.

Constitutional Supremacy & Finality

• This amendment shall supersede all previous constitutional provisions, laws, and regulations that conflict with its implementation.
• No legal challenges based on prior officeholding rules shall delay or overturn its provisions.

There are many crucial issues that can and should be fixed by amending the Constitution. Issues like term limits, gerrymandering, voting rights, and campaign finance reform are just some examples, but they all face the same fundamental obstacle: the current amendment process defined in Article V of the Constitution makes amending the Constitution too difficult and requires politicians who are the problem to do it. Any meaningful structural reform requires either a two-thirds vote in Congress (which politicians won’t support if it limits their power) or approval by 38 state legislatures (which are often controlled by entrenched political interests).

The United States has the most difficult-to-amend constitution in the world, which is why we are currently at risk of a Constitutional crisis. A citizen-led amendment process solves this problem by giving the people direct power to make constitutional changes. Once that happens, other amendments are suddenly possible, and the people become a legitimate check on the federal government.

We the American People, need to be the check on the government. The Citizen-Led Amendment Process isn’t just another reform—it’s the key that unlocks all other reforms. Once we pass The Citizen-Led Amendment Process, long-overdue reforms could finally happen—without waiting for Congress to act.

This amendment, the Term Limits amendment, is well worth reading and thinking about, but the Citizen-led Amendment Process has to be passed first.

This proposed amendment establishes fixed term limits for federal elected officials and Supreme Court Justices. House Representatives serve a single 8-year term, Senators serve a single 12-year term, Presidents serve a single 8-year term, and Supreme Court Justices serve a single 18-year term. There are no reelections. It also introduces a citizen-initiated no-confidence vote to remove officials if necessary.

Opponents of congressional term limits raise a number of concerns, but each of these arguments is either overstated or easily addressed in ways that do not require allowing career politicians to hold power indefinitely. Here’s why term limits are a net positive for democracy:

1. Wouldn’t term limits take power away from voters?

No. In fact, they restore power to the people by breaking the cycle of incumbency advantage. While in theory, voters can choose anyone, in practice, elections overwhelmingly favor incumbents due to name recognition, fundraising power, and gerrymandering. Term limits level the playing field by preventing politicians from entrenching themselves indefinitely.

Moreover, term limits do not prevent voters from choosing their representatives—they just ensure that no single person becomes permanently entrenched. Voters still get a choice; they just have to pick from new candidates rather than the same ones who have been in power for decades.

2. Wouldn’t term limits decrease congressional capacity and expertise?

No. The idea that only long-serving politicians can understand the complexities of governance ignores the reality that Congress is already dysfunctional despite its entrenched members. Fresh perspectives can actually improve problem-solving.

Moreover, expertise is not lost when an individual leaves office; Congress is supported by experienced staffers, researchers, and advisors who provide continuity. The U.S. military, Fortune 500 companies, and other large organizations thrive despite leadership changes because institutional knowledge is retained at multiple levels.

The argument that term limits would create a “new establishment” is also flawed—today’s system already allows a small number of career politicians to consolidate power. With term limits, power would be more evenly distributed among elected officials, reducing long-term entrenchment.

3. Wouldn’t term limits reduce incentives for members to develop policy expertise?

Quite the opposite—term limits would shift the focus from career preservation to effective governance. Right now, many lawmakers prioritize reelection over serious policy work. Term limits would encourage them to make a meaningful impact during their limited time in office rather than endlessly strategizing about the next election.

Additionally, concerns about special interests filling an “expertise void” ignore the reality that lobbyists already hold massive sway over long-serving politicians. New lawmakers, aware of their time limits, would be more likely to push for reforms that curb this influence, rather than relying on lobbyists to secure their long-term political careers.

4. Wouldn’t term limits force out effective lawmakers?

Yes, but that’s not a bad thing. No one is irreplaceable. In no other profession do people get to hold a powerful position indefinitely simply because they are good at it. Great leaders exist at all levels of society, and there is no shortage of capable individuals who can step up and serve effectively.

Many “effective” lawmakers have been in Congress for decades without addressing the country’s biggest challenges. If effectiveness means maintaining the status quo while benefiting from the perks of office, then perhaps it’s time for a fresh approach. Term limits would create more opportunities for new leaders with fresh ideas.

5. Wouldn’t term limits increase corruption and the revolving door?

No. The idea that term limits would make corruption worse is speculative and ignores the reality that long-term incumbents are already deeply entangled with special interests. Career politicians build networks of donors, lobbyists, and corporate backers who sustain them for decades.

Term limits would reduce the long-term entrenchment that allows corruption to thrive. While some former lawmakers may still transition into lobbying, the power of individual lobbyists would be diluted because they wouldn’t be able to build the same multi-decade relationships with entrenched politicians.

Additionally, Congress can pass stronger lobbying restrictions to prevent abuses, regardless of term limits. A well-designed system could ensure that former lawmakers cannot immediately cash in as lobbyists.

The arguments against term limits rely on the flawed assumption that the current system is working well. In reality, long-term incumbency has led to gridlock, entrenched corruption, and a Congress that is more focused on reelection than solving problems.

Term limits would inject fresh perspectives, reduce careerism, and ensure that lawmakers focus on serving the public rather than securing their next election victory. While no system is perfect, the benefits of term limits far outweigh the concerns, most of which can be addressed through other reforms.

By setting reasonable limits on how long members can serve, we ensure that Congress remains a place for public service, not lifetime political careers.

Reelections create incentives for politicians to focus on campaigning, fundraising, and catering to special interests instead of governing. By eliminating reelections, elected officials can prioritize long-term policies that benefit the country rather than short-term political gains.

If a significant portion of the population (such as a set percentage of registered voters) signs a petition for removal, a nationwide vote will be held to decide whether the official should be removed. This ensures accountability without waiting for the next election.

Instead of lifetime appointments, Justices will serve a single 18-year term. This ensures fresh perspectives on the Court while maintaining judicial independence. It also prevents strategic retirements that allow political parties to manipulate Supreme Court appointments.

Yes. A transition plan will phase in the new system. Current officeholders will finish their terms, after which the new term limits will apply. Those already in office beyond the new limits will be gradually replaced through scheduled elections.

With fixed terms, officials focus on governing instead of campaigning. They can make tough decisions without worrying about reelection consequences, leading to more thoughtful and long-term policy solutions.

Long-serving politicians often develop deep ties with lobbyists and special interests. By limiting terms, we reduce the opportunity for officials to build entrenched relationships that prioritize corporate donors over voters.

Not necessarily. New officials will bring fresh ideas and energy while relying on experienced staff, advisors, and institutions for continuity. Plus, political power will be more accessible to a broader range of candidates rather than career politicians.

Yes. Many democracies impose term limits or other restrictions on reelection to prevent political stagnation and corruption. For example, Mexico limits presidents to a single six-year term, and many U.S. states have term limits for governors and legislators.

While some experience is lost, term limits encourage lawmakers to focus on serving the public rather than maintaining power. Additionally, an influx of new legislators ensures fresh ideas and prevents complacency. Also, the proposed 8-year term for House members and 12-year term for Senators is extremely close to the current average time in office that House members and Senators currently have before losing their seat in an election. Essentially, the term limits keep the Congress members about the same length of time they already get without them needing to focus on reelections.

When elections aren’t dominated by incumbents, voters feel their votes have more impact. With fresh candidates regularly entering the political scene, elections become more competitive and engaging.

The amendment levels the playing field by preventing long-term incumbents from using their advantages (such as donor networks and name recognition) to stay in office indefinitely. It gives more people the opportunity to serve in government.

It prevents political stagnation, limits the influence of special interests, and ensures leaders remain accountable to the people rather than their reelection campaigns. It also allows for new leadership that reflects changing public needs.

No individual should hold power indefinitely, even if they are competent. A fresh perspective is always valuable in government, and good policies should outlast any single person. Plus, strong policies can continue through new leaders.

It prevents Justices from serving indefinitely, which can lead to outdated interpretations of the law. With staggered 18-year terms, each presidential term will include one or more appointments, reducing politically motivated retirements.

Current officials will finish their existing terms. A staggered system will then be implemented, where Senate and Supreme Court seats are gradually phased into the new term limits to prevent too many simultaneous changes.

This amendment applies only to federal offices. However, states can adopt similar measures for their legislatures, governors, and courts if they choose.

A petition signed by a threshold percentage of voters (such as 10% of registered voters in a jurisdiction) would initiate a recall vote. If a majority votes in favor, the official would be removed, and a replacement would be appointed or elected.

If a president is removed, the vice president assumes the presidency for the remainder of the term, as per the existing line of succession.

No. Since this would be a constitutional amendment, Congress cannot override or repeal it without another amendment being passed by Congress and ratified by the states.