Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 94
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Congress
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-04-29: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-05-08T18:07:11Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 94) proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, aiming to prevent long-term incumbency and encourage turnover in legislative representation.
Key Provisions
- House of Representatives Limits: No person can be elected to the House after serving three terms. If someone fills a vacancy (a temporary replacement for an empty seat) for more than one year, it counts as a full term.
- Senate Limits: No person can be elected or appointed to the Senate after serving two terms. If someone fills a Senate vacancy for more than three years, it counts as a full term.
- Grandfather Clause: The limits do not apply to anyone currently serving in Congress when the amendment is ratified.
- Ratification Process: The amendment would become part of the Constitution if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years of submission.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
The U.S. Constitution currently has no term limits for members of Congress, allowing unlimited re-elections. This amendment would introduce strict caps—three terms (six years) for House members and two terms (12 years) for Senators—marking a fundamental shift from the current system of indefinite service based on voter approval.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies and Congress: Could lead to greater turnover in Congress, potentially increasing the influence of new members and reducing the power of long-serving leaders, which might affect legislative efficiency and institutional knowledge.
- On Citizens: Voters would have more opportunities to elect new representatives, possibly fostering fresh ideas and reducing entrenched interests, but it could also limit choices if experienced incumbents are barred from running.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts are outlined; the change is domestic and focused on U.S. legislative structure.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Members of Congress: Current and future representatives and senators, particularly long-serving ones who would face eligibility restrictions.
- Voters and Citizens: Individuals participating in elections, who would see altered candidate pools and potentially more competitive races.
- Political Parties and Campaigns: Organizations that recruit and support candidates, which might need to adapt to shorter career paths for politicians.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional Implications: As an amendment, it would require supermajority approval in Congress (two-thirds of both houses) and ratification by 38 states, bypassing ordinary legislation. The vacancy rules clarify how partial terms count, avoiding disputes over eligibility.
- Legal Implications: Could face challenges in courts regarding its application (e.g., defining "service" precisely), but once ratified, it would be binding as constitutional law.
- Political Implications: Likely to spark debate on balancing experience with renewal; supporters see it as curbing career politicians, while opponents argue it undermines voter choice and disrupts governance stability. The seven-year ratification window adds urgency to the process.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-04-29: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-04-29: Introduced in House
- 2025-04-29: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. — issued 2025-04-29 — PDF (2 pages)