ABSTRACT
Term Limits offered the Court an opportunity to affirm and strengthen the democratic process at one of its most fundamental levels. Presented with the question of whether
the states, through their voters, may appropriately choose who will represent them in Congress, and in so doing respond to the growing belief that entrenched incumbencies damage the integrity of the electoral system, the Court ruled in the negative. Relying on silent, if not ambiguous, text and inconsistent historical materials, the Court opted to ignore the substantive issue before it – the efficacy of term limits for congressional members – in favor of engaging in a battle with the dissent over federalism. The Court’s indifference to the significant concerns expressly addressed by the proposed term limits and its willingness to silence the voices of the voting public through an unnecessary interpretation of constitutional text indicates a troubling willingness on the part of the Court to assume for itself the power to speak on behalf of voters.
