New Mexicans disagree about plenty of things politically. But one frustration that crosses party lines and reaches from Albuquerque and Santa Fe to Las Cruces, Farmington, Roswell and our rural communities is that Washington is not working as well as Americans expect it to.
Congress moves from one crisis to another. Major problems linger for years without solutions, while partisan conflict consumes much of the national conversation. At the same time, members of Congress can remain in office for decades, accumulating seniority and influence within an institution that has few incentives to change itself.
Congressional term limits will not solve every problem in Washington. Nor are long-serving members of Congress individually responsible for its dysfunction. Many have served their states honorably and effectively. But it raises a question many of us have: Is it healthy for a representative government to allow political power to become concentrated in the same hands for 30, 40 or even 50 years?
I believe public office should be a temporary public trust rather than a lifetime career. That is why New Mexico should consider joining other states calling for an amendment convention for the purpose of proposing congressional term limits.
The Constitution gives states a role in the amendment process. Article V provides two paths for proposing constitutional amendments. Congress can propose an amendment with two-thirds support in both chambers, or two-thirds of state legislatures can require Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. Under either path, an amendment becomes part of the Constitution only after ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The state route is important because Congress has an inherent institutional conflict when it comes to limiting the tenure of its own members. Even lawmakers who support term limits are operating within a system in which seniority brings influence, committee leadership and institutional power.
The states can change that political calculation.
History provides an instructive example. For decades, reformers sought direct election of U.S. senators. The House approved proposals while the Senate resisted. At the same time, states pursued reforms of their own and began submitting Article V applications calling for a convention.
As those applications accumulated and moved toward the constitutional threshold, Congress ultimately proposed what became the 17th Amendment, providing for the direct election of senators.
That history does not prove that Congress will respond to term-limit applications in precisely the same way. But it demonstrates something important: organized action by the states can create pressure for constitutional change even when Congress initially resists it.
That is the strategy behind the current term-limits movement.
Every additional state that adopts an Article V application increases the possibility that the constitutional threshold could eventually be reached. Congress would then have to decide whether to continue opposing congressional term limits or propose an amendment itself and allow the states to decide whether to ratify it.
There are legitimate questions about using the Article V convention process. Some people worry about whether a convention could expand beyond its intended subject or whether states would be able to control its scope. Those concerns deserve serious discussion rather than dismissal.
But the Constitution deliberately gives the states an independent role in proposing amendments. The Article V process was designed so that Congress would not possess exclusive control over changes to the constitutional structure.
The 22nd Amendment offers another useful principle. After Franklin Roosevelt was elected president four times, Congress proposed an amendment limiting future presidents to two elections. The states ratified it.
The 22nd Amendment therefore establishes the principle that electoral success alone does not guarantee unlimited tenure in one of our most powerful federal offices. The question is whether a similar principle should apply to Congress.
My own experience in elected office shaped how I think about this issue. Serving in public office is both an honor and a responsibility, but no elected position belongs to the person who occupies it. The office belongs to the public. Regular turnover can bring new perspectives and new leaders while reinforcing the idea that elected service is ultimately temporary.
There are arguments on the other side. Experience and institutional knowledge have value, and critics of term limits argue that limiting legislators' tenure could increase the influence of congressional staff, lobbyists or other unelected participants who remain in Washington after elected officials leave.
Those concerns should be part of the debate. But they should be weighed against the consequences of a system in which individual members can accumulate congressional power and seniority over several decades.
For New Mexico, this is ultimately not about criticizing our current congressional delegation or any particular member of Congress. It is about deciding what rules should govern the institution itself, and these are rules that would apply equally to Republicans, Democrats and independents, now and in the future.
New Mexico is a geographically large and diverse state with rural, tribal, border and urban communities. We understand that political power should remain accountable to the people it serves.
An Article V application does not by itself impose congressional term limits. It is one step in a constitutional process that ultimately requires extraordinary agreement among the states. Any proposed amendment would still require ratification by three-fourths of them.
New Mexico legislators therefore have an opportunity to participate in a national constitutional debate about how long members of Congress should be permitted to remain in office and about the role states should play when Congress is reluctant to change the rules governing itself.
Washington has had decades to consider congressional term limits. The states do not have to wait indefinitely for Congress to initiate that conversation.
New Mexico can help move it forward.
