Yet, despite this overwhelming public support, in May 1995, the Supreme Court declared in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that state-imposed term limits on federal lawmakers are unconstitutional. Thus, if federal term limits are to be enacted, the only remaining course appears to be adoption of a constitutional amendment such as S.J. Res. 21. The electoral tsunami of 1994 was due in no small part to public support for term limits, so the new majority in Congress has a special obligation to deliver on this issue. Indeed, ten of the 12 freshman senators already have announced their support for term limits. As public support continues to grow, long-term incumbents opposed to term limitsespecially those from states that already place term limits on their state and local officialsmust explain why they continue to ignore the public will.
Term limits create open seats, which lead to contested races.
Term limits will deprive the nation of talented legislators. It is sheer arrogance to maintain that only one person in a half-million is qualified to be in Congress. Furthermore, while term-limited Senators and Representatives could serve in different capacities, other talented individuals would be given opportunity for advancement. Moreover, experience at the state level suggests that term limits actually increase voter choice. In California, for instance, the imposition of state-level term limits in 1990 led to an increase of over 25 percent in campaign filings for the Senate and a similar increase of over 50 percent in filings for the Assembly by 1992.