Proposed constitutional amendment would increase House terms from two years to four
Should House members have the length of their terms doubled?
Context and what the proposal does
House of Representatives members are elected for two-year terms, compared to presidents who are elected for four years and senators who are elected for six years.
The constitutional amendment proposal H.J. Res. 26 would have House of Representatives members serve four-year terms, or double the status quo.
It was introduced on January 11 by Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA12). There have been other term limit proposals introduced in this Congress and the previous Congress as well, but no others GovTrack Insider could find that would increase the length of terms.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that longer House terms would allow members to escape the cycle of “perpetual campaigning,” like the lack of similar pressure among senators.
“Having served in Congress for the last eight years, I have seen what works and what contributes to the dysfunction that often gets associated with this institution,” Rep. Marino said in a press release. “By enabling members to serve longer terms, we can break the cycle of constant campaigning and focus more on issues that are important to our constituents.”
“While some may dismiss this resolution as more job security for Members of Congress, this effort is geared towards the sanctity of the legislative process and delivering for constituents.”
What opponents say
The Founders created two-year House terms in the first place as a halfway compromise between factions who wanted one-year and three-year terms. In Federalist №53, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison (it’s unclear which) defended against longer House terms.
They argued that two years was a good balance, long enough to allow first-term House members to attain knowledge and experience in office, while also short enough to allow them to be accountable to their constituents through frequent-enough elections.
“No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it.”
Odds of passage
Any constitutional amendment would need to be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, as well as three-quarters of the states’ legislatures. That’s an extremely tall order, having only been done once in the past 45 years and never in the past 25.
No constitutional amendment has passed since the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992. Current polarization makes any constitutional amendment seem unlikely, especially one that increases Congress members’ time in power amid a prevailing anti-establishment sentiment.
Since it would increase power for House members, the public may not stand for it. In fact, the most recent constitutional amendment — the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992 — limited Congress’s power, by restricting their ability to vote themselves pay raises.
H.J. Res. 26 currently has no House cosponsors, and awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee. Since Rep. Marino will be resigning from Congress on January 23, 2019, this bill’s odds of passage may be even lower than they otherwise would have been.
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work!
