What happened to term limits?

If democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people, then the people ought to be asking what happened to term limits.

The issue made a rare public appearance Feb. 2 on Capitol Hill, when Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced a “sense of the Senate” resolution that would have allowed his colleagues to express general support for passage of a term limits constitutional amendment.

It failed, 24-75. Arkansas’ two senators split on the issue, with Sen. John Boozman voting for it and Sen. Mark Pryor voting against it.

Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, noted the irony of the vote during an interview Friday. A Fox News poll in 2010 (and this is before last year’s ridiculous debt ceiling debacle) found that 78 percent of Americans supported limiting congressional terms. Those numbers were consistent across Republicans, Democrats and independents. As Blumel pointed out, that means that three-fourths of Americans approve of term limits while three-fourths of senators voted against them. “As a practical matter, it’s really more of a conflict between power and people rather than parties,” he said.

Members of Congress may have another chance to vote on the idea. DeMint also has introduced a resolution that would amend the Constitution by limiting members of the House to three two-year terms and members of the Senate to two six-year terms. A companion bill has been introduced in the House.

The issue has stuck its nose above water in Washington after percolating for a decade and a half at the state and local levels, where it almost always passes. According to Blumel, it was on the ballot in 35 jurisdictions in 2010 and won in 34.

You’ll recall that, in 1992, Arkansas joined 22 other states that were enacting limits to congressional longevity during that time period. Amendment 73, which was passed by 60 percent of the voters, said an incumbent’s name could not appear on the ballot after he or she had served three terms in the House and two in the Senate, though incumbents still could be elected as write-in candidates. A lawsuit followed, and it was an Arkansas-based case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, that the U.S. Supreme Court used to nullify the movement’s efforts at the federal level. (The “Thornton” was Rep. Ray Thornton, who represented Arkansas’ Second District.) The Court ruled 5-4 that states could not impose restrictions on federal offices beyond those imposed by the U.S. Constitution.

The problem is that, under the Constitution, the very officials whose power would be limited have the power to prevent that limitation. It’s hard to imagine members of Congress ever voting to limit their own terms. The Democrats have never been keen on the idea. The Republicans, back when they were a long-term minority, made it part of their “Contract with America” in 1994 under Newt Gingrich’s leadership. Then they became the majority and forgot about it, again under Gingrich’s leadership.

If the issue ever is to gain traction, now is the time. The latest Gallup poll finds Americans’ congressional job approval at an all-time low. Just 10 percent are happy with the institution, and if you are one of those people, please contact me and explain why in the world you think that way. I can usually understand and appreciate competing viewpoints, but that one escapes me.

Congress is the most democratic of the three branches at the federal level, and Americans have lost faith in it. Going back to 1974, the average annual congressional approval rating has been just 34 percent.

But 10 percent? That’s a scary number. If it’s temporary, then we’re due for some major reforms — if not term limits, then something. And if that 10 percent becomes permanent? Then we’ll undergo an interesting experiment in which we learn whether a democracy can survive if the voters stop believing in it.

• • •

Steve Brawner is an independent journalist in Arkansas. His blog — Independent Arkansas — is linked at Arkansasnews.com. His e-mail address is brawnersteve@mac.com.