By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
January 27, 2025
Indiana senators are scheduled to vote Monday on a joint resolution adding the state to a national push for an Article V Convention to propose amending the U.S. Constitution to place term limits on members of Congress.
Authored by state Republican Sens. Andy Zay, of Huntington, and Michael Young, of Indianapolis, Senate Joint Resolution 21 calls for a constitutional convention expressly to set a limit on the number of terms an individual may serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The exact number of terms is not specified.
Indiana is not alone in its quest to restrict how long representatives and senators can serve on Capitol Hill. Other states have passed similar resolutions or bills, as national groups have convinced Statehouses across the country to use Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that Congress convene a constitutional convention whenever two-thirds of the states call for it, to propose amendments to America’s founding document.
“We just simply want to have Indiana in the list to put the pressure on Washington, D.C., to limit (the terms in Congress), because, I don’t know about you guys, but I just don’t feel they’re going to do it themselves,” Zay said during his testimony before the Senate Elections Committee. “After what we’ve seen the last many years and the tenure of some of the folks, it’s hard to believe that they can keep up with the change in technology, the change in history of our country, and be adept at the issues that are before us as a nation.”
However, opponents of the joint resolution warn that if such a convention does take place, the delegates could go rogue.
Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, told the Senate committee that Article V does not provide any rules or guidelines for controlling any constitutional convention that occurs. In fact, she said, “it is widely understood” that once a convention is called, the delegates would not be constrained and could consider any amendments. The unknowns of holding such a convention include how the delegates to the convention would be selected, what issues could be raised, what happens in the event of a legal dispute, and how would the influence of special interests be controlled.
“Because there is no way to limit a convention’s focus, any constitutional issue could be brought up, including freedom of speech, civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, privacy rights, among others,” Vaughn said. “An Article V constitutional convention would take us into uncharted waters and despite the good intentions of resolutions focused on terms limits, (it) could result in a wholesale, real rewrite of the document that has guided our country for more than two centuries.”
The joint resolution passed the Senate Elections Committee, 7-2 and is awaiting full vote in the Indiana Senate.
Sen. J.D. Ford, D-Indianapolis, proposed an amendment during the resolution’s second reading Thursday that would have expanded Indiana’s agenda for the constitutional convention to also include setting redistricting standards to prevent gerrymandered congressional districts.
Before the amendment was defeated, 10-39, Ford said the legislature apparently is not willing to take its own medicine.
“I find it to be a little self-aggrandizing that we’re pointing our finger to Washington and say, ‘You must have term limits,’ but we haven’t even started that conversation in our own body,” Ford said.
A 2023 study by the Congressional Research Service found that in the 118th Congress, the average length of service for congressional members was 8.5 years in the U.S. House and 11.2 years in the U.S. Senate.
Also, a Pew Research Center analysis found the new 119th Congress, which convened on Jan. 3, 2025, is younger than its recent predecessors. The median age of voting members in the House is 57.5 years, slightly down from the 57.9 years at the start of the 118th Congress and 58.9 years in the 117th Congress. In the Senate, the median age is 64.7 years, a small decline from 65.3 years at the start of the 118th Congress and the 64.8 years in the 117th Congress.
Yet, with a majority of the representatives and senators belonging to the Baby Boom generation and some long-serving congressional leaders suffering visible health declines, the electorate may have the impression that people are staying on Capitol Hill much longer than they should.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has served just over 44 years in the U.S. Senate, the longest of any sitting senator, and at 89 is the oldest member of the upper chamber. The late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, served more than three decades in the Senate and died in office in 2024 at the age of 90, after having become visibly frail and sometimes appearing confused when speaking publicly. Also, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has served more than 40 years and has faced numerous questions about his health, after he froze at two news conferences in 2023 and, most recently, fell in December 2024 following a Senate luncheon.
Former state Rep. Mike Speedy, a Republican, returned to the Statehouse to encourage lawmakers to pass SJR 21. He told the Senate Elections Committee that he had been skeptical of term limits when he served in the Statehouse, but his perspective changed after he mounted an unsuccessful run for the sixth congressional district in 2024, losing in the May primary.
“It would reconnect those elected officials, those representatives back to the electorate, make them more responsive, to create a sense of urgency for them to bring a government back into the box of our U.S. Constitution,” Speedy testified during the committee hearing. “As the power of our federal government has grown, so has the money that has flowed to the incumbents, making that system imbalanced and essentially functionally broke.”
This is not the first time the General Assembly has advocated for a constitutional convention.
Just three sessions ago, Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo, tried unsuccessfully to pass a joint resolution which called for an Article V Convention to craft an amendment setting the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices.
In 2016, the legislature passed – with some Republican opposition – SJR 14 which called for an Article V Convention to do three things: impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit congressional members’ terms.
Also, in 2016, former Rep. Curt Nisly sought an Article V Convention to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of U.S. senators. House Joint Resolution 5 was never brought up for a vote.
In 2013, former Senate President Pro Tem David Long introduced two bills and a resolution to convene an Article V Convention to reign in federal government spending. Senate Bill 224, which outlined the duties of the convention and Senate Bill 225, which covered the appointment of delegates to the convention, were passed by the General Assembly and signed into law in May 2013 by then Gov. Mike Pence.
Despite the persistent push for an Article V Convention, much uncertainty surrounds the process. A 2016 report by the Congressional Research Service notes Congress would face a series of policy questions if a constitutional convention became imminent. The questions would include what constitutes a legitimate call for an Article V Convention; does Congress have discretion or must it convene a convention if two-thirds of the states call for one; and could the convention be limited to specific issues or would the delegates be free to draft any amendments they wanted?
However, Les Chamblee, regional director for the group, U.S. Term Limits, told the Senate Elections Committee that the process questions might not have to be answered because the pressure from the Indiana Statehouse could induce Congress to act. He said the past threats from the states for an Article V Convention pushed Congress to offer amendments that gave women the right to vote, imposed presidential term limits, and repealed Prohibition.
“Congress will never let state legislatures decide what their term limits are,” Chamblee said. “This just gives them the push they need to get it done.”
Barbara Tully, representing both the Indiana League of Women Voters and Indiana Vote by Mail, opposed the holding of an Article V Convention. She said such a gathering could overreach beyond its stated goals and encroach upon privates lives “in ways that we can’t begin to fathom.” Core freedoms and values, such as the freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and the right to privacy, could be stripped away, she said.
“These very rights and freedoms we take for granted could very well be irretrievably altered by an Article V Convention,” Tully said during the Senate Elections Committee hearing. “And maybe that’s your goal for people who don’t look like you, live like you, love like you, talk like you, worship like you, until those rights and freedoms are so stripped away and manage to touch you. And that could very well happen in an Article V Convention.”
Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org.