Term limits and legal standing

On July 5th I wrote to both of Utah's Senators and all four of the Representatives. Jim Matheson and Orrin Hatch were the only two who responded to me.

Here is my original letter:

I would like to propose two amendments, one on term limits and the other on standing.

First amendment:

A member of the House of Representatives shall be limited to 6 two-year terms, not to exceed 12 years. If any member will reach the maximum time before their term is over, they shall immediately resign on the day they reach 12 years in office. Any member who has already exceeded the limit at the time this amendment is ratified shall be allowed to complete their current term but are ineligible for any additional terms in the House.

A member of the Senate shall be limited to 3 six year terms, not to exceed 18 years. If a Senator reaches the maximum time before their term is over, they shall immediately resign on the day they reach 18 years in office. Any Senator who has already exceeded the limit at the time this amendment is ratified shall be allowed to complete their current term but are ineligible for any additional terms in the Senate.

A judge on the United States Supreme Court and a judge on any of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals shall be limited to one term of 24 years. Any applicable judge who has already served in excess of 24 years at the time this amendment is ratified will be allowed to remain in their position.

Second amendment:

If a federal law is challenged in court via a lawsuit and the United States Attorney General refuses to defend the law, a Senator may be given the power of standing to defend the law. If more than one Senator supports the law, then the person with the higher seniority (based on years served) shall be given the case.

If a state law is challenged in court via a lawsuit and the state’s Attorney General refuses to defend the law, a member of the state Senate may be given the power of standing to defend the law. If more than one state Senator supports the law, then the person with the higher seniority (based on years served) shall be given the case.

The first response came from Orrin Hatch. The letter was dated August 5th, but I didn’t receive it until August 25th:

“Thank you for writing to share your ideas for new Constitutional Amendments. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

First, you expressed support for term limits for Members of Congress. I believe that our constitutional system provides for term limits through the ballot box. I have always believed that the American people should be trusted to pick their own leaders, and, if they believe those leaders are not serving their interests, they should be free to vote them out. This is fundamental to our system, and I believe it has served us well thus far. The American people are the most reliable way to determine how long their representatives remain in office.

I also believe it is valuable to our nation to have members of Congress who have benefitted from years of experienced service. I have observed that, in almost every field or professional venue, new ideas and energy are important, but experience leadership is necessary to yield positive results. This is also true in the Congress. We often benefit from having “new blood” with fresh and different ideas, but experience senators and representatives can ensure – through knowledge of rules, procedure, and history – that a particular state or district’s interests is being served in policy-making. In addition, over time, members of Congress become better equipped to help their constituents deal with the burdensome federal bureaucracy. I take pride in my office’s ability to help Utahns cut through the red tape of the IRS, Social Security Administration, Veterans Affairs, and many other departments and agencies; it is my many years of experience with these entities that helps make my office effective.
That being said, I am not categorically opposed to the overall idea of term limits, so long as they are universally applied. It wouldn’t make much sense for one state, like Utah, for example, to impose term limits on its federal representatives only to see the rest of the country continue under the existing rules. This would put those states with term limits at a serious disadvantage relative to the rest of the country vis-à-vis committee and other leadership opportunities within the Congress.

During my Senate service, I have always maintained that I would serve as long as I can effectively represent Utahns and make a real difference for our great state. I believe my legislative and constituent service track record attests to the fact that I have done and continue to do that.
Next, you discussed your support for term limits for federal judges. The Declaration of Independence lists as one of the reasons we broke from Great Britain was that the king “has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” In response to that, our Constitution guarantees that Congress may not reduce the pay of judges and sets no time limit for judicial service. This institutional independence is critical to the system of government the Founders created. I believe the problem we have is not how long judges serve, but rather that we are appointing the wrong judges.

Finally, you proposed a constitutional amendment to the legal doctrine of standing. Standing confines the power of judges in our system of separated powers. It is an element of the “cases” or “controversies” to which Article III limits judicial power. The plaintiff is not simply someone carrying an issue to court, but someone whose own legal rights are at issue.

I agree that it is frustrating when the executive branch refuses to carry out its duty to defend the constitutionality of the legislative branch’s enactments. However, the problem is not with the doctrine of standing, but rather with those refusing to fulfill their Constitutional duties. We must have people willing to put principle ahead of politics.

As always, your comments are appreciated and help to ensure that I make educated decisions in the Senate. If you would to have regular updates on my work in the U.S. Senate, I encourage you to subscribe to my E-newsletter, visit my Facebook page, and follow me on Twitter.”

The second response came from Jim Matheson. The letter was dated November 21, and I received it on the 26th:

“Thank you for your recent comments concerning term limits. I appreciate your interest in the issues facing our country and our state, and I am glad for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By contacting me on issues important to you, I am better able to represent Utah in Congress.

I do not support explicit term limits. In this country, the American system of government allows citizens to elect federal representatives every two years in the House of Representatives and every six years in the Senate. Under this system, voters have the ability to change their elected officials on a periodic basis based on their service and fitness as a representative.

In this sense, I believe the election calendar establishes a set of term limits for Members of Congress. Further, regular elections motivate elected representatives to maintain communication with their constituents and ensure that they are responsive to those who elect them.

Many times, proponents of term limits believe that these guidelines will foster a more competitive election environment. While I do not agree this is the case, I do share the sentiment that we need to create a more level playing field for federal elections.

Again, thank you for your letter. Hearing for you is very important to me. If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.”