Senate’s lack of term limits a major disservice

Giselle Rodriguez/Staff Writer

Current U.S. law dictates that senators and representatives in Congress can serve an unlimited number of terms.  After stepping down, they can turn around and campaign, be reelected and serve for three-fourths of their lives with no one thinking it is strange.

This lack of term limits, however, allows for a monopoly of the Senate, not necessarily by a particular party, but by certain decision makers. The point of our bicameral system is to ensure that there is an intrinsic system of checks and balances within the legislative branch of the government.  It is a little difficult to argue we have balance if what we actually have is senators and representatives keeping their seats for an unlimited number of terms.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd served as a representative and a senator, a party whip, majority leader, minority leader and the president pro-tempore. The only reason he stepped down was because he died in office.  As of June 28, 2010, the top 25 longest-serving senators have served over 33 years in office.  Our current senators range between 39 and 86 years of age.  Only 10 of our current senators are under the age of 50.

This practice also serves to block minorities and younger generations from having a voice in the nation’s policies. Since its inception, the Senate has only hosted six African-American senators, five Asian-Americans, seven Hispanic-Americans and three Native-Americans.  There have only been 39 female senators in the Senate’s history.  For a country that supposedly prides itself on being a melting pot, the numbers seem to point out the hypocrisy.

By not limiting the number of terms senators can serve, we, the people, are not being accurately represented.  In Fla. and Calif., where a considerable amount of the population is Hispanic, we cannot be fully represented if barely any Hispanic-Americans are voted into the task of legislating. An entire generation of potential senators is being kept from assuming power by the plain fact that out of 100 seats, most are held by senators who are being allowed to die in office because voters keep putting them there.

The appeal to voting for older, more experienced senators is obvious: they have already been through a lot and are, therefore, more likely to be prepared for any eventuality. They have the benefit of years, and voters already know how they are likely to represent them. In this case, however, the benefits seem to outweigh the cons. There is something to be said for experience, yes, but there is also something to be said for a fresh approach.

In addition, adding term limits will prevent these senators from being re-elected, but they are not being kicked off the Hill. Nothing stops them from serving as advisors or counselors. More diverse senators will allow Congress to function to its true potential as a representative body.

In our country, considering the factors that amount to distress, we cannot afford to have the same people who have been there for 40 years sitting in office. The world has changed and continues to change exponentially.  We need to change our senators with it.