Term limits are anti-democratic

The Cape Gazette recently ran an editorial in favor of term limits. They quote my soundbite, “We already have term limits; they are called elections,” which does not present a full argument. Thus, I would like to explain in more detail why I oppose term limits and consider them anti-democratic.

In January, Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly filed Senate Bill 222 that would amend the Delaware Constitution to impose term limits on state legislators and statewide officials. It would limit state representatives to 16 years in office and state senators to 20 years, which is not much of a limit. Indeed, many lawmakers would probably retire before clocking that many years. The bill would not limit those currently in the legislature nor would it have any impact on Congress.

I understand the desire for term limits. They aim to address the difficulty of unseating powerful incumbents and people’s impatience with extremely old lawmakers who refuse to retire, like the 24 congressional octogenarians, 13 of whom are running for re-election.

I have long opposed term limits. First, when experienced legislators are replaced with newbies, that empowers unelected staff and lobbyists, because newcomers will have to rely on them for guidance.

Second, term limits impose anti-democratic constraints on communities. If your elected official is doing a great job, I believe you should be able to re-elect that person as long as you want.

Imagine your favorite elected official who has had a long career advancing interests you support. Many Democrats greatly admire former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has served 40 years in the U.S. House. She had been in office 24 years before she oversaw the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and I would venture to say her experience helped her achieve that remarkable goal.

If you wish Pelosi had been term limited, perhaps you admire former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has served 41 years in the Senate. He had been in office 32 years when he torpedoed the appointment of Merrick Garland, greatly advancing the Republican cause.

And if you don’t like either of them, what about Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been in the Senate 19 years and is still leading the progressive movement?

On a more local level, consider Pete Schwartzkopf, who served 22 years in the Delaware House. Should he have been forced into retirement in 2020, before he was ready?

Third, if your representative is forced out, and there is no suitable alternative, what do you do then? Believe me, it is surprisingly hard to get people to run for office these days, especially young people who would be hard-pressed to support a family on the current legislative salary.

Fourth, our state does not need to pass SB 222 because, unlike in Washington, Delaware does not suffer from a cadre of powerful incumbents who cannot be removed from power. While incumbents do have a strong advantage, there are numerous examples of very powerful Delaware legislators stunningly defeated by political newcomers. In 2024, the speaker of the House lost her primary after serving 20 years. In 2022, the House majority whip lost his primary after 16 years. In 2020, the Senate president pro tem lost his primary after 40 years. In 2012, a previous Senate pro tem lost his primary after serving 15 years.

Clearly, in Delaware, extremely strong, powerful incumbents can be defeated by candidates who run strong grassroots campaigns with the support of their communities. And in places where that has not happened, either the communities are happy with their elected officials, or no one has put in the work of running against them.

In addition, members of the Delaware General Assembly are a bit younger than those in the U.S. Congress, and so presumably less out of touch. The average age in Congress is 61, compared to 39 in the U.S. overall, a 22-year spread. In contrast, the average age in the Delaware General Assembly is 57, compared to 42 overall, a spread of only 16 years.

When you consider these facts, SB 222 appears to be a solution in search of a problem.

In other words, I agree with the Cape Gazette editorial that “state government works best when leadership is periodically refreshed and power is not allowed to settle perpetually in the same hands.” But I do not believe we need term limits to accomplish that goal. Engaged citizens running grassroots campaigns can keep our political leaders fresh without undermining our democratic republic.

What we really need to help the refreshing process is campaign finance reform, so that large war chests have less impact on elections. That is why I will be supporting a package of campaign finance reform bills this year in Dover. Decreasing the power of big money will do more to empower newer, younger people to run for office than will a weak term-limit bill like SB 222.