Audio Player
Philip Blumel: Indiana. Boom. Eleven states have now officially called for congressional term limits. Hi, I’m Philip Blumel. Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, the official podcast of the term limits movement. This is episode number 260, published on March 24th, 2025.
Stacey Selleck: You’re a sanctuary from partisan politics.
Philip Blumel: Also since the last episode, landmark term limits legislation has advanced in Florida after a plot to abolish Florida’s voter approved eight year term limits was thwarted. So it’s been another big week. Let’s jump right in. On March 17th, the Indiana State House on a bipartisan basis passed an official application for an amendment proposing convention under Article V of the US Constitution limited to the subject of congressional term limits. The Indiana Senate had already done so a few weeks earlier. So Indiana is now the 11th state to officially make the call and the third one so far in 2025 to do so. We advise that we should not count our chickens before they’re hatched, wisely. But I will tell you, in the case of Indiana, we were so confident as the year started that Indiana was going to be one of our first winners. After all, the Term Limits convention bill had passed the House in Indiana last year, only to die barely in the Senate. But then November came. On that day, former US Senator Mike Brown and a genuine Term Limits advocate. He was elected governor of Indiana and even mentioned Congressional Term Limits in his acceptance speech as governor.
Philip Blumel: In addition, the US Tournament’s chair for the state of Indiana, Michael Beckwith, was elected as Lieutenant Governor. He had spent the previous couple years pushing for the tournament’s convention bill to the legislature and now he is in leadership. Beckwith was followed as US Tournament’s chair of the state by a former Indiana legislator, Mike Speedy. So with good data from last year’s near victory and some solid sponsors in each House, friends and leadership, it just seemed inevitable. I know, I know. You just… You can’t get cocky, right? But it is hard not to be so enthusiastic after winning three more states this year. After winning three last year, the momentum is palpable. We must keep our foot on the gas. Now we’ve lost in a couple of states so far this year too, notably in North Dakota and Kansas just last week. But we made new friends there and learned a lot that’ll help us win there next year. On the other hand, the Term Limits convention resolution was introduced in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the TLC, as we like to call it, passed an important Senate committee on its way to a floor vote in Arizona. The TLC has already passed the Arizona House.
Philip Blumel: So could Arizona be number 12? Well, we’re not taking it for granted. Our team and sponsors in the Senate and even House Speaker Steve Montenegro, who shepherded the bill through his chamber, are on the case. As you know, we need 2/3 of the states to force a convention on the subject of congressional term limits. That is 34 states. But whether we ever reach that magic number, we believe we are on the road to victory. So does Larry Lessig. Larry Lessig is the Royal Fuhrman professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former director of the Edmund J. Safra center for Ethics at Harvard. He is well known both as a scholar and a political activist, and one of his focuses is the history and benefits of Article V of the US Constitution. That’s the article that describes the two methods the founders gave us to propose amendments to the Constitution via 2/3 of the Congress and via 2/3 of the states calling a convention to make the proposition. In either case, proposals made by Congress or convention must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. In this clip, Professor Lessig lays out the most likely end game. Take it away, Larry.
Professor Lessig: So if you’ve heard anything about an Article V convention, you will have heard that it’s never happened in America and that the only way we’ve ever amended the Constitution is for Congress to propose amendments that then the states will ratify. But that fundamentally misstates our history, because if you look at the most important amendments in American history, three of them were proposed because we had a civil war. Nobody wants a civil war today. But every one of the other important amendments, including the Bill of Rights, as well as the amendments that made senators elected by the people in a state. And all of those amendments came because there was an Article V convention movement that got states around the country to say we want a convention to address whatever issue they want to address. And then when Congress saw the number of states calling for a convention was getting close to the number necessary to convene a convention, Congress was terrified. And so Congress then proposed the amendments the convention calls were demanding. That’s the strategy we need today. We need states to convene a call for conventions to address the critical issues that America faces.
Professor Lessig: And term limits, of course, is one of those critical issues. And if we get close to the number necessary to call a convention, I’m absolutely certain that Congress will then propose the amendment, if only to stop that convention movement. So we need to understand how constitutional change in America has happened, and the convention movements have been central to that transformation.
Philip Blumel: Thank you, Larry. So, yes, there is precedence for what we’re trying to do. Now, the Term Limits Convention resolution is still alive in 2025 in the following state legislatures all right, listen up. Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Now if I mentioned your state, please go to termlimits.com/takeaction there you can send a quick message to the legislators to move the legislation forward. It will only take a few minutes. Every email and every call counts. That’s termlimits.com/takeaction.
Philip Blumel: Next. The day following the victory in Indiana, we got some good news out of Florida. In the last episode, I told you about two pieces of significant pro Term Limits legislation that are being considered by the Florida Senate Ethics and Elections Committee. Both of these pieces of legislation are sponsored by Senator Blaise Ingoglia. SJR 536 proposes tightening the existing term limits applicable to state representatives and state Senators. Currently, the Term Limits are eight year consecutive limits, but this bill, which passed Ethics in elections with a favorable vote of 6 to 2 would make them lifetime limits. This tweak is deemed necessary by some due to politicians who have turned consecutive Term Limits into a loophole that is serving a partial term and then claiming this resets the clock for them.
Philip Blumel: Games like that. Second, SJR 802 proposes establishing term limits for members of school boards and county commissions that don’t already have them. This bill also received a favorable vote of 6 to 2 from the committee. Both bills were initially scheduled for consideration on March 10th, but were temporarily postponed by a plot by Senator Erin Grall to add an amendment to both bills that would abolish the voter approved 8-year term limits and replace them with a 12-year limit per chamber replacement which permitted a 24-year overall limit. But in spite of the machinations of Senator Grall, both of these pieces of legislation will now move forward in the legislative process. If passed by the Florida Legislature, these constitutional amendments will be placed on the ballot for Florida voters to decide in the next general election. Next. Let’s go back to the project to impose Term Limits on the US Congress. We are up to 11 states calling for a convention and also we have over 150 members of Congress who have signed pledges to co-sponsor and vote for a traditional Congressional term limits Amendment proposed by 2/3 of Congress. Now you can see how these strategies could work together.
Philip Blumel: When a convention gets close. The table is already set for Congress to take the lead to pass the amendment. But how did we get here? Why is this strategy working so well and why right now? To finish up this episode, let’s hear from Scott Tillman. Scott is the COO of US Term Limits and one of the team members who is executing this strategy on a full time, day to day basis. He appeared on the Overton Window podcast published by the Mackinac Center, a Michigan based think tank. Scott lives in Michigan and he was given time to go into depth about the synergistic tournament strategies by Mackinac center analyst who offered knowledgeable insights of his own. It’s a great discussion. It’s a bit lengthy, but I believe it’s valuable enough to warrant it. The podcast episode is titled You Gotta Get It In Writing, Take it away.
James: Have you noticed that politicians struggle to enact the things they run on that regardless of who wins elections, lawmakers cannot pass whatever legislation they like. They find themselves bound by what is popular, or at least their sense of it. They can only act within a narrow set of ideas and that range is called the Overton Window. And on the Overton Window podcast we look at issues around the country and talk to the people who change what is politically possible. Now what do you do when your elected officials refuse to touch an issue? Well, in many parts of the country you can turn to your neighbors. Citizens have direct ballot access and our guest today has helped people use it. And so we are joined by Scott Tillman, the chief operating officer at US term limits. Scott, welcome.
Scott Tillman: Thanks for having me, James.
James: Tell us, what do you do?
Scott Tillman: Well, with US Term Limits, we’re trying to first and foremost put term limits on US Congress. It’s supported by over 80% of people across the country. Bipartisan support, it’s, you know, when you get into independence it’s even higher. But among both parties it’s 75 to 85%. It’s just huge numbers. Congressmen will go out there and talk in favor of it. You would think, how could we not have this? It’s got such overwhelming support. But then when it gets to the rubber hits the road, they find excuses. They don’t like this term, they don’t like that term. They find every reason in the world not to do it. And that’s because of all the reasons we need it. It’s a very cushy position that gives a lot of prestige and a lot of opportunities to enrich yourself and enrich your friends and enrich your context. Power. They don’t want to give up that power. So we’re working on term limiting them. And to do that, there’s two different ways to amend the Constitution. And that’s our big project is term limiting Congress. And we have several different ways that we’re Bringing the leverage to Congress, trying to move that Overton window so the Congress will be receptive to the idea where right now we know the public is. But getting that window moved for Congress is a huge step, and there’s ways that we go about attacking it.
James: So changing the US Constitution is a huge policy proposal. I mean, it is massive. It has only happened a couple of times. It’s been a very long time since the United States has changed its Constitution. So what does it entail? What’s your strategy?
Scott Tillman: Well, to change the Constitution, you have to get a constitutional amendment proposed. And there’s two ways in Article V of the US Constitution, there’s two ways to do it. Congress can suggest out an Amendment. It requires 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, which is a big lift. It’s like super majority.
James: And that’s really tough in this case because this is the example that, or this is an institution where our elected officials have political reasons not to do this, political and personal reasons not to do this, even when it’s, even if it’s popular. So that’s a tough…
Scott Tillman: Very big lift. And the second way is for states to say, we want this. And then what… The way it’s written into the Constitution is that when 2/3 of the states ask for an amendment convention, then Congress is bound to call it. But the way that has historically worked is when the number of states asking for a specific thing get up there, Congress all of a sudden realizes that, oh, this will be taken from us and we won’t have control over this situation unless we jump out in front and do it ourselves. So we anticipate Congress preempting that. We call it preemption. They’ve done it in many ways. You know, when the direct election of senators, the 17th amendment, the repeal of Prohibition, you know, states were moving this way and Congress is like, well, it’s in our interest to get in front of this. So we anticipate, as we get close to 30, 32 is the or, 34 is the number that’s required as we get close to 30 or 32 states passing resolutions that Congress will say, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is such a great idea. What we’re going to do is we’re going to grandfather everybody here so that we all wouldn’t have to.
Scott Tillman: But everybody who comes after us, they’ll have to have term limits, which we’re fine with. We just, we need to get the ball rolling on it. So we’re working around. We passed nine states, we passed four States last year, nine states have passed these resolutions to call for a term limits amendment. And then we also have another program that we work on where if you go to a congressman and ask them, hey, jump on for term limits, Very, very, very, very difficult to get them. But if you go to a candidate who’s running for Congress, either against a seated congressman or in most cases an open seat, you say, hey, term limits for Congress right off the bat. Most of them are regular people or close enough to regular people that they will sign on. But a lot of them, when you show them, hey, look, this is an 80% issue across the board. Both sides want this. You can go out there, it’s popular, bring it up at some of your events, and you’re gonna see that it gets an applause line every single time. Then we get them to sign our pledge.
Scott Tillman: The pledge is for a very specific amendment because we a situation back in 1995 where Newt Gingrich and the Republicans with the Contract With America, they pulled a fast one. They said they were going to have a vote on term limits, and they did have a vote on term limits, but they did it in an underhanded way where they actually had three votes on term limits with different amounts, so that they knew that none of them would actually get to the 2/3 required. So now we have a very specific thing. We’re increasing our number of Congress members who are signers on that pledge every cycle. Last cycle we had at the end of session, there was 111 co-sponsors in the house and 21 sponsors and co-sponsors in the Senate. This year we’ve got about 10% more in the House and in the Senate who will be on. Although we’re right at the start, you know, things were just introduced last week. So we don’t, we obviously have to whip them up and make sure that they get on the bill. So they’re not, we’re not up to that number yet, but We’ve got over 150 members in both houses that are pledged to support our term limits amendment.
James: So I think, I want to make explicit something that I think is a clever part of your strategy, which is you’ve stated that once you’re in office, there are zero incentives to pass term limits. It is all cost and no benefit. And so it’s really tough to get the people who are already elected to do anything about term limits. And with this kind of proposal that you’ve got, you can either do it through Congress. You can do it through states and even for, well, I guess through state legislators anyway, that’s kind of a separate thing. But to get Congress to try and pass it, to get them more conducive, you actually have to talk to them when they’re candidates where there are benefits, where there are political benefits to endorsing term limits. And then you also have to bind them to something so you have an actual pledge that says no. This is exactly what you said. When push comes to shove, if we get enough people, you’ve got to be on the side. Otherwise, you have misled your own voters. So I think that’s a clever strategy and it’s a way of leveraging political incentives around this issue.
Scott Tillman: Yeah, you really do have to lock them down on it. You got to get it in writing. You got to get them committed on it. Social media has really allowed a lot of opportunities where once we get them in writing, once we get them, you know, on the record on it, then you can go out there and not so much, although we do go after them when they break their pledges or do bad things. But if you’re out there in front of it and you’re praising them for the good thing and you’re giving them attention on being in favor of the good thing, it makes it a lot harder for them to backpedal and to weasel out of it, which people, when you talk about weasel out of things. Politicians, they come to mind. You know, that’s a lot of stuff they do, is weaseling out of things that they’ve said in the past, are coming up with excuses why they can’t produce it.
James: And it’s just also basic political calculus. It’s like you have to give them benefits, too. There are people like everyone else, they’re responding to rewards and demerits like everyone else. And so it’s smart to try and figure out ways to make sure that they benefit from endorsing your policy proposals.
Scott Tillman: But if you want fair elections, those three issues, gerrymandering, incumbent advantage in money in politics, the solutions to each don’t solve the other two issues. If you fix gerrymandering, it does nothing for money in politics, it does nothing for incumbent advantage. If you solve the money in politics issue, it does nothing about gerrymandering and does nothing about incumbent advantage. If you put in term limits, it won’t solve the other two. So we’re working on one specific leg of that stool. It’s a very important leg. And for the most part, any solutions to these three problems, almost any good solutions that are real solutions rather than just politicians shoring up their own power, have to come through the citizen initiative process. And this is where voters can… And it’s not applicable in every state, but there’s a few states or, well, about half the states where you have some level of you can go out and do things independent of your legislature. You can introduce legislation, draft things by taking around petitions, get people to sign the petition, other voters like you, and then it will appear on the ballot. And I’ve been very involved with this because I was involved in term limits. And then I’ve helped a lot of people out through this and been very involved with it over the years.
James: I want to talk about the opposition to term limits because it seems like the biggest opposition is not people arguing that House members or congressmen should have open terms. It’s simply apathy. This issue goes away if we don’t talk about it. No one can force us to take a vote on it. And so that’s why the initiative process seems like it’s the appropriate strategy. Because in the initiative and referendum or citizen acts, ballot mean that our lawmakers who have an incentive not to touch this issue, cannot avoid it anymore.
Scott Tillman: Yeah, that’s exactly right. We tried using the citizen initiative back in the ’90s. There was 22 states that tried to limit their own congressional delegation. And it was very, very popular. And then there was a Supreme court case in 1995, US term Limits v. Thornton, Thornton being a congressman from Arkansas. And the Supreme Court had a 5-4 decision that said it has to apply to everybody. You can’t go state by state and limit. And that really took a lot of wind out of the sails of the term limits movement. And that’s why now we’ve decided about 14 years ago to come back and start pushing in state legislatures as using that as another way around. State legislators are also kind of self interested and they think, you know, and they see that if we can put turbulence on Congress, that will open up opportunities for us to move up into more prestigious seats in Congress.
James: How’d you get nine states?
Scott Tillman: So we started… It was a, you know, Florida has always been like the core. Not always, but in the last 20 years has been like the core of where we have our biggest support and a lot of it is because our president and a lot of our board members reside in Florida. And Florida has just been very, very vocal on term limits and done a lot. We have several congressmen from Florida, so we were able to… The first state we passed was Florida. So we put that, we got Florida passed and then we started going from there. And we anticipated that if we went into state legislatures, worked with some lobbyists that maybe we could just put these, get these passed. But it turns out that state legislators have a bristle. They don’t like the idea of term limits either. And you have to break through that. And our first approach there to just go in and lobby and get it passed did not work. So I hear a lot from people who oppose term limits. Well, term limits give the lobbyist power. And the lobbyists would love to have term limits.
James: No, the lobbyists are right there with the politicians that are opposing us on this. And when we go in any state and work on term limits, it’s always the lobbyists and the politicians that are working against us. What we ended up, what we’re having success with is we go state by state. We approach people who are candidates. We approach them when they’re candidates and when they’re running for office, we get them to pledge support. That’s really important, getting them to put it down in writing. And then we go out there and we let people know far and wide all about how they’re in favor of this. And then we’re able to get in show leadership, the people who are allowing bills to come to be heard and things like that. Look at, here’s our list because you got all these pledgers. Here’s our list of people who are on the whip list, people who are going to co-sponsor this. This can pass. You can be in front of it. It can look really good for you, and you’re giving something to the people that they want. And we started putting wins up on the board by going through like that and going in and doing the networking, getting the pledges and then going on the ground, getting activists to help.
Scott Tillman: And then, you know, we have our own team that goes around and does lobbying in the states and work to pass these things. And it’s been a slog. Now, we’re hitting… You know, we passed four last year. I mean, it was from one 12 or 13 years ago to, and we had, I think it was four years before we passed the next run in Alabama. And then it’s been a few years. And then now they’re getting where they’re coming quicker.
James: So I assume that getting people to sign those pledges while they’re running for office is probably the key because at that point, it just takes time for the people who are already in office to get out of office. The people who are coming in office, who you’ve approached to sign these pledges to get in before you get a majority, two of them, so that you can enact this type of legislation.
Scott Tillman: Yeah. With politicians, you got to get it in writing. And what that flesh does is get it in writing. And if you’re out there and you have a movement for something talk to candidates and get them to, a pledge is great. And they get advised not to take, not to do pledges. But if you’re a candidate, you put something down in writing and your opponent’s not willing to, then you can point to that and it will separate you from the others. And that resonates with people. There’s a lot of people who think, oh, a politician’s lips are moving, he’s lying, and there’s a reason for that. I mean, they’ve got a reputation. But if you put things in writing, it matters to people, and being able to see that and point to that and for you as a candidate, as well as for people to say, look, this is the guy that I support. Why should I support him? He’s actually putting it in writing and making a promise to do what he’s saying. He’s not just going up there and giving a campaign speech where he talks fluff about this or fluff about that.
James: So I wanted to summarize this term limits issue and see if I got it, because I think there’s some major strategic, important points that they’re worth making explicit for our audience. Term limits is a thing that Congress is never going to pass. There’s just zero political incentives. It’s all cost, no benefits. So in order to get something, there has to be a statewide effort. There’s the way to convince states to do this is because they face the same political advantages. But when you’re running for office as a fresh candidate, endorsing term limits has some political benefits. You’re trying to emphasize those, you’re trying to deliver those. Get them to sign pledges so they can’t back away from this, so that when they’re in office, you go state by state, get a majority of them to endorse this, so that you can… So that the states can pass these requirements. And once you get enough states, then Congress is going to be forced to act. So it’s a way around a tricky situation where Congress is simply not going to act.
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 commissioning 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 has not been introduced in your state, you can still help. Please consider making a contribution to US Term Limits. It is our aim to hit the reset button on the US 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 US term limits. Like us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and now LinkedIn.
Philip Blumel: US TL.