Philip Blumel: Hello, I’m Philip Blumel. Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, the official podcast of the term limits movement. This episode is 285, published on May 25th, 2026. Happy Memorial Day. There was a shakeup in the GOP primary over the last few weeks, and it isn’t over yet. President Trump has endorsed and promoted challengers in primaries to punish incumbents he viewed as not sufficiently loyal. These moves created some high drama for partisan political junkies. But the question for us here at U.S. Term Limits is, how does this affect our effort to reform Congress? Let’s take a look. About 140 members of Congress have signed the U.S. Term Limits pledge. And that’s the pledge committing the politicians to co-sponsor and vote for the Congressional Term Limits Amendment, which is currently introduced in both houses, of three terms in the U.S. House and two terms in the U.S. Senate and no longer terms.
Philip Blumel: Turns out that Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and also Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Dan Crenshaw of Texas, are all signers of the pledge. And all three just lost their primaries and will be leaving Congress in November. Uh-oh. Does that mean that the congressional term limits movement is losing steam? Hardly. It is a testament to the ascendancy of congressional term limits as an issue that in all three cases, the winning candidates in these primaries are also signers of the pledge. Yep, Senator Bill Cassidy is out, but both Louisiana State Representative Julia Letlow and Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming are both signers. And in Texas, Dan Crenshaw is out. Stephen Toth is in. He’s a signer. In Kentucky, winner Ed Gallrein signed both the national term limits pledge, but also the state-level pledge committing him to co-sponsor, vote for, and defend the state-level application for a term limits convention. And all three won in the districts that are considered safe seats for Republicans. So don’t worry, be happy. Term limits are on the march.
Speaker 2: This is a public service announcement.
Philip Blumel: Financier and short-lived White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci posted a short video recently on his personal YouTube that makes the case for term limits. We thought it was worth sharing.
Speaker 3: Congress has a 14% or 15% approval rating. It’s slightly above Kim [0:02:51.0] ____, the North Korean dictator. However, you have a 95% re-incumbency rate. Just imagine you and I opening up a restaurant and our food is terrible, we’re getting one-star Yelp ratings, but we can never get the restaurant closed and we always stay as the two chefs in the restaurant. And so that’s what’s going on in Washington right now.
Philip Blumel: Next, every episode of No Uncertain Terms, we talk about the effort of states to call for an amendment-proposing convention limited to the subject of congressional term limits. So far, 14 states have officially made the call. These include Arizona and Kansas so far in 2026. Thus, we see the momentum for congressional term limits among the states, even as more and more federal representatives sign the U.S. Term Limits pledge to support a constitutional amendment. Now, you can see how these two projects work together. The Congress is under pressure from the voters to sign the pledge and commit to an amendment vote. Meanwhile, the states double up the pressure by telling Congress, “Hey, if you don’t propose an amendment, we’re gonna do it for you via an Article 5 convention.” And as regular listeners know, this strategy is working.
Philip Blumel: Now, this led one important ally of U.S. Term Limits to ask me the other day about the end game for all this. Whether an amendment is proposed by Congress, as traditionally done, or by the states via a convention, it still has to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. We never seem to talk about that. Ratification requires 38 states to approve the proposed amendment. It only takes 34 states to call for an amendment-proposing convention under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. And if Congress is going to preempt the states, as we expect they will, that would probably still take 30 or more states approving the convention before they do so. So superficially, it would appear that ratification is even more difficult than proposition because the approval by four more additional states is required. But the truth is, there are no theoretical nor historical reasons to believe that this is true. Ratification should be considerably simpler and definitely quicker than proposition. Only 33 amendments have ever been successfully proposed, and 27 of them have been ratified, and most of them within a year after their proposal. The few amendments that fail to be ratified are mostly polarizing ones, whereas term limits are definitely not. Proposing the amendments is definitely the hard part. About 12,000 amendments have been introduced to the U.S. Congress. 12,000 in the history of the country. But of those 12,000 introductions, only 33 were actually proposed. And all 33 were proposed by Congress. There’s never been a successful Article 5 convention proposal.
Philip Blumel: In other words, history shows ratification of an amendment that has already been approved by two-thirds of Congress and is popular with the public is historically not a long shot at all. And we expect this will be particularly true in our case, since ratification is not going to be decided by the body being term-limited by Congress, but rather by a constituency that would benefit personally from open seats in the U.S. Congress. Yes, because it’s state legislators that do the approval, not U.S. Congress members. The ratification process looks even more favorable to us because of the route we’ve chosen to try to get this amendment proposed. Think about it. Already 14 state legislatures have had votes on the idea of having a congressional term limits convention to propose an amendment. We think that when we hit 30 or so, then Congress will be pressured into having that vote themselves. Or if not, then it would require 34 states to force a convention. Well, that means that 30 to 34 states would have already had a vote to at least approve the idea of congressional term limits for the U.S. Congress. So bottom line, ratification, no slam dunk, of course, but we have historical reasons to believe that the wind will be at our back during ratification rather than in our face as during proposition. So, like I said before, don’t worry, be happy.
Philip Blumel: Next. In April, former New Mexico State Senator Siah Correa Hemphill agreed to serve as the New Mexico state chair for U.S. Term Limits. Welcome aboard, Siah. Thus, seeds are being planted to push the term limits convention bill in that state, one where recent polling suggests over 73% support for congressional term limits. Toward that end, Ms. Hemphill made her case in the pages of the Las Cruces Bulletin on May 7th under the headline, ‘New Mexico Can Lead on Term Limits and Restoring Trust.’ As a special guest on this week’s No Uncertain Terms, Siah shares her op-ed with us here. Take it away, Siah.
Siah Correa Hemphill: Trust in government is under real strain. Across New Mexico, from Silver City to Albuquerque to Las Cruces, I hear from families, small business owners, and working parents who want a system that feels more responsive, transparent, and accountable. Many feel that Washington can seem distant from day-to-day realities they face. It’s important to recognize this concern is not about any one party or about one group of leaders. In fact, New Mexico’s fortunate to have a congressional delegation that’s deeply engaged with their constituents and committed to public service. Still, many residents across the political spectrum share a broader concern about how Congress functions as an institution and whether it consistently reflects the evolving needs of the people. One reform that continues to draw attention across party lines is congressional term limits. Term limits are rooted in the simple principle that public service is strongest when it creates space for both experience and renewal. The idea is not to diminish the contributions of those who serve, but to ensure that opportunities exist for new voices, perspectives, and ideas to enter the process over time. We already apply this concept in other areas of government, including the presidency through the 22nd Amendment. Here in New Mexico, we have a long tradition of civic-minded leadership. Many people step forward to serve their communities and then pass the torch. Term limits reflect the same spirit. They’re about maintaining a healthy balance between continuity and change, helping institutions stay dynamic and closely connected to the people they represent. Some raise thoughtful concerns about preserving institutional knowledge in Congress, and that perspective deserves consideration because experience matters.
Siah Correa Hemphill: At the same time, many believe that structured turnover can complement experience by encouraging fresh thinking and reinforcing accountability. Term limits aim to strike that balance. Another reason term limits continue to resonate is their potential to strengthen public confidence. When people see a system that regularly opens doors to new leaders, it can reinforce the sense that government remains accessible and representative to not just a few, but to many. This is why the idea enjoys broad bipartisan support nationwide. At a time when consensus can be difficult to find, term limits stand out as an area where Americans often agree on the value of exploring reform. That brings us to the role that states can play. Under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, states have the authority to participate in proposing constitutional amendments. This process was designed to ensure that states have a meaningful voice in shaping the structure of our federal government, particularly when there’s a widespread desire to consider change. New Mexico has an opportunity to be part of that conversation. By considering a resolution related to a term limits convention, our state can join others in examining whether this reform is the right step forward. It’s a way to engage constructively in a national dialogue about how to strengthen trust and improve how government works.
Siah Correa Hemphill: This effort is not about criticism of any individual officeholder. It’s about looking ahead at how to reinforce accountability, encourage participation, and ensure that our institutions continue to serve the public effectively for generations to come. New Mexicans value independence, fairness, and practical solutions. Exploring congressional term limits is consistent with those values. It’s worth having the conversation. This is former Senator Siah Correa Hemphill.
Philip Blumel: Thank you, Siah. Now we’ll finish on a more alarming note, this from San Diego. On May 20th, county supervisors voted to place a question on the ballot in November in San Diego that would abolish the voter-initiated eight-year term limits law and replace it with a politician-initiated 12-year term limit. Now, the voters in San Diego collected nearly 80,000 signatures to put eight-year term limits on the ballot and approved the measure with 68.27% of the vote. This was back in 2010. Eight-year term limits, of course, are the most time-tested and popular term limits in America, from the president down to city mayors coast to coast. But apparently, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors believes they require a special dispensation. Maybe they feel they’re not as competent as other county commissioners around the country and need extra time. I don’t know. That may or may not be true, but of course, it’s not the real reason. It’s pretty clear what the reason is. They pretty much demonstrated it in a vote over an amendment. Because as part of the approval of this package, an amendment was voted down that would have required the current supervisors from personally benefiting from the longer terms. That is, the eight-year term limits that the voters proposed would still apply to them, whereas the new weaker term limits proposed by the politicians would only apply to future politicians.
Philip Blumel: Well, that would sort of defeat the whole point, as they’re pretty much admitting. It’s clear the purpose of the measure is to personally benefit from the longer terms. They want to stay in power longer. It’s an old, old story. So now, how do they expect to get away with this if the voters likely support term limits, probably in greater numbers than they did in 2010? Well, they’ll be looking around the country to see what other politicians have done, some with success, in order to get around the voters. They are surely going to provide ballot language that either buries the term limits change amongst other charter changes, which will be the only ones they talk about, or, as is so typical in these cases, the language will be deceitful and designed to imply to voters that a yes vote is the pro-term limits position. Since the voters are actually proposing a new term limit, their signage could say, “Vote yes for term limits.” This only works when there’s no opposition. You can bet there’ll be a battle over the ballot language. So don’t worry yet. Stay happy, enjoy the holiday with your families, and we’ll continue to follow this story on No Uncertain Terms.
Stacey Selleck: Like the show? You can help by subscribing and leaving a five-star review on both Apple and Spotify. It’s free.
Philip Blumel: Thanks for joining us for another episode of No Uncertain Terms. The term limits convention bills are moving through the state legislatures. This could be a breakthrough year for the term limits movement. To check on the status of the term limits convention resolution in your state, go to termlimits.com/takeaction. There, you will see if it has been introduced and where it stands in the committee process on its way to the floor vote. If there’s action to take, you’ll see a Take Action button by your state. Click it. This will give you the opportunity to send a message to the most relevant legislators, urging them to support the legislation. They have to know you are watching. That’s termlimits.com/takeaction. If your state has already passed the term limits convention resolution, or the bill’s not been introduced in your state, you can still help. Please consider making a contribution to U.S. Term Limits. It is our aim to hit the reset button on the U.S. Congress, and you can help. Go to termlimits.com/donate. Termlimits.com/donate. Thanks. We’ll be back next week.
Stacey Selleck: Find us on most social media at @ustermlimits. Like us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and now LinkedIn.
