This page shows questions in the Term Limits public release module at MSDE. American Government
"Term Limits"

Source A

“No man can be a competent [effective] 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 few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail [benefit] themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt [inclined] will they be to fall into the snares [traps] that may be laid for them.”

Source B

“A senator serving 40 years in office causes even the most resistant to re-evaluate the virtue and necessity of term limits. Incumbents¹ have huge structural advantages in elections, including name recognition, good will, fundraising ability and seniority. What many incumbents lack, though, is the good sense to not run when the time has come  . . . 

“The time for congressional term limits has come. If it’s good enough for the presidency, it’s good enough for Congress.  . . . 

“Early American practice followed the tradition and example of George Washington, who voluntarily retired after his second term. In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the first of four terms as president. He died  . . .  shortly after his fourth inauguration.

“Two years later, Republicans in Congress approved a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to two terms in office, and the states ratified the 22nd Amendment in 1951.

“ . . . Instead of focusing on legislating, individual senators and representatives are focused on keeping their jobs. And to keep their jobs, they need to raise money, curry favor² and promote special interests. They take years to qualify for coveted committee leadership positions, and once those positions of power are secured, they are hard to give up.

“Representatives and senators free from focusing on the next election, or the need to preserve a lifetime career, would be more independent, and more bold, with their voting decisions. . . . 

“And then, perhaps, Congress could get something done.”

Source C

“Some states began placing term limits on their legislatures in 1990  . . .  One of the more compelling [arguments] was that such limits would create a new breed [type] of citizen legislators more reflective of the public’s will. In turn, this would weaken the grip that special interest lobbyists had on lawmaking.

“ . . . [W]hile term limits have changed the way lobbyists do their business, they have actually increased their influence. The legislators elected after term limits were imposed often lack knowledge of the details of many complex policies and turn to lobbyists for information. These special interest groups actually report that they now work harder “educating” less knowledgeable legislators.

“Others argue that term limits would open new opportunities for underrepresented minority candidates. This idea assumes that [term limits] would dislodge incumbent¹ white males and allow others to take their place. After term limits were adopted, the number of women elected to state legislatures did increase, but this happened at the same rate as in states without such restrictions. Term limits provided no clear advantages for minority candidates either.

“Instead, state legislatures with term limits have experienced some unforeseen problems. Newly elected legislators tend to be more partisan and ideological than their more [experienced] colleagues. Long-serving lawmakers often become more understanding of the rival party and learn how to find workable compromises. [Inexperienced] legislators  . . .  often see the other party as an enemy. This can greatly inhibit the coalition-building² needed to pass budgets and meaningful laws  . . . 

Source D