Kentucky House Bill HJR66

Kentucky 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/24
• Refer: 1/31/24

Caption

A JOINT RESOLUTION applying for an Article V Convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set a limit on the number of terms of office for members of Congress.

Impact

The passage of HJR66 would signal a significant movement towards national term limits for congressional officials, which would necessitate a constitutional amendment. If successful, this initiative would amend the U.S. Constitution, establishing concrete limits on how long individuals may serve in Congress. This change could potentially alter incumbent advantages in elections, thereby increasing competition and possibly enhancing voter engagement and accountability in federal representative elections.

Summary

HJR66 is a joint resolution applying for a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution to propose an amendment to limit the number of terms for members of Congress. The resolution stems from a desire among certain state legislators to address perceived issues with incumbency and the longevity of congressional tenures, which some argue undermine democratic principles and the representational efficacy of elected officials. Advocates for term limits believe that implementing such restrictions would foster a more equitable political landscape, promoting fresh ideas and perspectives in Congress.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HJR66 appears to be cautiously optimistic among its proponents, who generally view it as a necessary reform to promote democratic accountability and effectiveness in governance. However, there is also skepticism, particularly from those concerned that such measures may infringe upon the political rights of voters to re-elect their chosen representatives. Critics often warn that term limits could lead to a loss of experienced lawmakers, potentially destabilizing legislative effectiveness during transitional periods.

Contention

Debates surrounding HJR66 highlight key points of contention, especially regarding the balance of power between states and federal governance. Supporters argue that enabling states to collectively call for a convention emphasizes state sovereignty in addressing federal legislative inefficiencies. Conversely, opponents raise concerns about the implications of a convention, fearing unintended consequences or further erosion of legislative authority at the federal level, wherein the proposed amendment could also introduce proposals that counteract existing rights or protections.