Passage Is It Time for Term Limits?
Is It Time for Term Limits?
In 1799, when George Washington’s supporters asked him to consider serving a third term as president of the United States, he declared, “Prudence on my part must arrest any attempt at the well meant, but mistaken views of my friends, to introduce me again into the Chair of Government.” Even though some of his contemporaries advocated for a lifetime appointment for presidents, Washington thought that government officials should not seek to gain unfair power. Only one president has been elected to four terms: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was elected to a third term in 1940 and a fourth in 1944 due to the challenges of the Great Depression and World War II. This departure from the rule worried some, and on March 21, 1947, Congress passed the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, legally limiting the office of president to two four-year terms.
Presidential terms are clearly limited in the Constitution, but for people serving in Congress, this is not the case. Currently, members of the House of Representatives, who serve two-year terms, and Senators, who serve six-year terms, can run for reelection an unlimited number of times. Because of the possibility of unlimited reelections, many people are beginning to believe that limiting congressional terms would benefit our government. Modern surveys conducted by multiple firms consistently show that American citizens of a variety of backgrounds and political leanings approve of the idea of setting term limits for members of Congress.
American citizens are not the only supporters of term limits for Congress. Even some members of Congress themselves have spoken out in support of this change. Former Senator Joe Lieberman, upon his retirement, suggested that Congress “might be healthier and less partisan1 and less rigid if it turned over more often, and term limits are one way to do that.” Michael Olson and Jon Rogowski state in their article “Legislative Term Limits and Polarization” that “proponents of term limits argue that limiting the number of terms legislators can serve in office would reduce the level of partisan conflict, encourage compromise and cooperation, and improve the quality of representation.”
Experienced politicians certainly can build on years of knowledge, but term limit supporters point out that career politicians may base key decisions on their own personal long-term goals. In the article “Term Limitations and the Myth of the Citizen-Legislator,” author Elizabeth Garrett states that “under term limits, a careerist needs to move up the political opportunity structure to remain in elected office, but the probability of unimpeded upward movement decreases as the number of available positions that are perceived as advancements decline.”
While challenging the career politician’s path is seen as a benefit to term limit supporters, there is a possibility that a Congress mostly composed of newcomers could severely affect policy making. Experienced politicians have a deep knowledge of congressional processes, and in addition, politicians who have served together for extended periods have a chance to develop trusting relationships, even across party lines. Molly Reynolds, a congressional expert for the Brookings Institution, says that members who are restricted by term limits “have neither the time nor the incentive to develop the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs. If members don’t have that expertise themselves, they’re more likely to rely on outsiders, including lobbyists, to replace that expertise.”
In fact, first-time politicians’ susceptibilities to lobbyists, or groups seeking to influence legislators, have actually been put to the test on the state level. In 2006, the National Conference of State Legislatures Study revealed that term limits may increase the influence of lobbyists. In the 1990s, more than twenty states implemented term limits within their state governments. The inexperienced state lawmakers began depending on special-interest groups for their expertise on issues. In the end, many people believed that implementing term limits in the state legislature caused problems, and since then, six states have repealed the limits.
Additionally, those who oppose term limits maintain that the turnover rate in Congress is sufficient. Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, notes that every decade, new members replace at least half the members of the House and the Senate, due to retirement or elections. Still, the average length of time in office has mushroomed. For example, the 65th Congress (1917–1919) had an average service time of 5.3 years for members of the House of Representatives and 5.7 years for Senate members. The 114th Congress (2015–2017) had an average of 8.8 years for members of the House and 9.7 years for senators.
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment to institute congressional term limits? Perhaps one day people will have a chance to vote on the issue.
PERCENTAGE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS REELECTED
| House of Representatives Total seats: 435 | Year | Percentage Reelected |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 83.2 | |
| 1978 | 82.3 | |
| 1998 | 90.8 | |
| 2016 | 87.4 |
| Senate Total seats: 100 | Year | Percentage Reelected |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 68.8 | |
| 1978 | 60.0 | |
| 1998 | 89.7 | |
| 2016 | 93.1 |
1partisan: showing a strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular political party
Question
Which sentence from the passage supports the idea that congressional term limits would “benefit our government” (paragraph 2)?
- A“Currently, members of the House of Representatives, who serve two-year terms, and Senators, who serve six-year terms, can run for reelection an unlimited number of times.” (paragraph 2)
- B“Modern surveys conducted by multiple firms consistently show that American citizens of a variety of backgrounds and political leanings approve of the idea of setting term limits for members of Congress.” (paragraph 2)
- C“Former Senator Joe Lieberman, upon his retirement, suggested that Congress ‘might be healthier and less partisan and less rigid if it turned over more often, and term limits are one way to do that.’ ” (paragraph 3)
- D“Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, notes that every decade, new members replace at least half the members of the House and the Senate, due to retirement or elections.” (paragraph 7)
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks which sentence from the passage supports the idea that congressional term limits would “benefit our government” (paragraph 2).
A. Incorrect. The sentence from paragraph 2 states the fact that members of Congress can run for reelection an unlimited number of times; it does not suggest that this is unhealthy.
B. Incorrect. While the sentence from paragraph 2 shows that many Americans believe that term limits would be beneficial, it offers no actual evidence to support this idea.
C. CORRECT. Joe Lieberman’s comments in paragraph 3 strongly suggest that Congress is currently too partisan and rigid and that term limits would help correct this, thus benefiting our government.
D. Incorrect. The sentence from paragraph 7 offers a statistic regarding how frequently members of Congress are replaced. However, no suggestion is made as to whether the situation is good or bad or whether term limits would be healthy.
Question analysis
Paragraph 2 of “Is It Time for Term Limits?” reports that many people believe limiting congressional terms would “benefit our government.” In this textual evidence question, students look for the quoted sentence that supports that idea, and since the quotations come from three paragraphs and all concern Congress, each must be tested against the claim itself.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Judging whether evidence is relevant to a claim is a grade 7 standard for reading arguments. The four quotations are long and all accurate, and two come from the same paragraph as the claim, so each must be read for what it actually shows.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly evaluate
- What makes it hard
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Every choice must be checked minor
- Hard words minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 799 words; question and choices: about grade 14, 147 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Two of the quotations sit in the same paragraph as the claim, and one of them, the surveys, sounds like strong support because it shows how many Americans want limits. But approval shows that people believe term limits would help, not that they would; the claim needs a reason. Lieberman’s remark is hedged with “might,” yet it is the only line that names a way government would improve, which is what “benefit” requires.
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The key offers no fact, only Lieberman’s guess that Congress “might be healthier and less partisan and less rigid,” and students must see those three words as the benefits to government the claim promises. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer
The four quotations are long, come from paragraphs 2, 3 and 7, and all concern Congress, so each must be tested for whether it gives a reason to expect improvement rather than a fact or an opinion poll. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Hard words minor Understanding the question
The key rests on “partisan,” explained only in a footnote, and on the idea of a Congress that “turned over more often,” which students must grasp before the sentence reads as a benefit. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Restate the claim plainly, that term limits would make government work better, and keep only a quotation that offers grounds for expecting that improvement.
Traps
- Supports only part of the claim: In a question about evidence: a line that backs one half of the claim but not the other, or a related point rather than the claim itself.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
A True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Follows the paragraph’s own link, “Because of the possibility of unlimited reelections,” and takes the rule itself as support, though stating the current system gives no reason to expect limits to help.
B Supports only part of the claim (King et al., 2004; Thissen, Steinberg & Fitzpatrick, 1989)
Treats wide public approval as proof that term limits would help, but the surveys back a related point, that many people favor limits, not the claim that government would benefit.
D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks the expert’s statistic as if data were the strongest support, but paragraph 7 offers Mann’s turnover figure for the opponents, who say change in Congress is already sufficient.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for evidence. The claim is that term limits would “benefit our government,” or make it work better. You need the sentence that gives a reason to expect that. A fact about the rules does not show that limits would help. Neither does how popular an idea is.
Read Lieberman’s words in paragraph 3
Former Senator Joe Lieberman said Congress “might be healthier and less partisan and less rigid if it turned over more often, and term limits are one way to do that.” The footnote says partisan means sticking to one political party, sometimes blindly. Rigid means stiff and slow to change. To turn over means to bring in new members.
See how it supports the claim
Lieberman names ways Congress would get better: healthier, less partisan and less rigid. He says new members would bring these changes. Then he says term limits are one way to bring in new members. So his words give reasons why limits would benefit the government.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. It states a rule: members can run again and again. It gives no reason to think limits would help.
- B does not fit. It shows that many people like the idea. But an idea can be popular without being good.
- C fits. Lieberman explains how term limits could make Congress work better.
- D does not fit. Paragraph 7 gives this fact for the other side. People who oppose limits use it to say there is already enough change in Congress.
Choose the answer
Watch out: B is tempting because surveys sound like proof. But they show that people approve of term limits, not that limits would work. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer. The surveys show that citizens of many backgrounds “approve of the idea of setting term limits.” That tells you the idea is popular. It doesn’t tell you how limits would help. Lieberman gives reasons: a Congress that is “healthier and less partisan and less rigid.” That is C.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Is It Time for Term Limits?” as printed (pages 90–91)
