Proposed Constitutional Amendment Caps Congressional Service at 12 Years for Both House and Senate

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would put a hard cap on how long members of Congress can serve. The big takeaway is simple: whether you’re in the House or the Senate, your time in Washington would be limited to a total of 12 years. This is a significant structural change aimed squarely at addressing the issue of career politicians and increasing turnover in the nation’s highest legislative body.

The 12-Year Rule: How the Clock Runs Out

The proposed limits are set slightly differently for each chamber, reflecting their different term lengths, but the result is the same 12-year maximum. For the House of Representatives, the limit is six two-year terms. For the Senate, the limit is two six-year terms. The text is clear on how they’d count partial terms: if a Representative serves more than one year of a two-year term, it counts as a full term against their six-term limit. Likewise, if a Senator serves more than three years of a six-year term, it counts as a full term against their two-term limit. This is the fine print that matters, ensuring that even if someone gets appointed to fill a vacancy, their time quickly starts counting down if they serve past the halfway point.

Grandfathered In: Who Gets a Pass?

Here’s the part that gets interesting for anyone currently serving or who has served recently: the amendment only applies to future service. Specifically, the resolution states that any service completed before the 118th Congress will not count against these new limits. Think of it like this: if you were already in Congress before this amendment was ratified, your prior experience is essentially “grandfathered in.” This means a long-serving politician who started before the 118th Congress could potentially serve another 12 years after the amendment is ratified, while a brand-new politician starting after ratification would be strictly limited to 12 years total. This provision is designed to protect the current political landscape while implementing reform for future generations of lawmakers, but it also means the immediate impact on institutional seniority will be minimal.

Real-World Impact: Fresh Faces vs. Institutional Knowledge

For the average person, this bill is about accountability and the idea that elected officials should eventually return to the communities they represent. Proponents of term limits believe this will force Congress to be more responsive, bringing in fresh perspectives and preventing the kind of entrenched power that can lead to stagnation. If this passes, your representative or senator wouldn't be able to serve for 30 or 40 years, potentially increasing the chances that candidates who understand modern challenges—like student loan debt, the gig economy, or the housing crisis—will cycle through the system.

However, there’s a flip side. When you cap service, you cap experience. Constituents often rely on the seniority of their representatives to secure key committee assignments and bring home resources. For example, a farmer whose district relies on a specific water policy might lose their most effective advocate just as that person reaches peak influence and expertise. This rule forces out institutional knowledge, potentially shifting power away from elected officials and toward unelected staff, lobbyists, and agency bureaucrats who don't have term limits. It’s a trade-off: you get more turnover, but you might lose some highly effective legislative talent and the benefits that come with long-term specialization.