Philip Blumel: The Associated Press headline says it all. North Dakota voters banned lawmakers from seeking term limit changes. They did it anyway. Hi, I’m Philip Blumel. Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, the official podcast of the Term Limits Movement. This is episode 267, published on July 14th, 2025.
Stacey Selleck: Your sanctuary from partisan politics.
Philip Blumel: Happy Bastille Day. No kings. And speaking of Bastille Day, someone needs to remind politicians in North Dakota that we live in a constitutional republic and not a monarchy. In 2022, over 63% of North Dakota voters approved eight-year term limits on their state legislature. As another state, citizens collected the requisite number of signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and it passed with a solid majority. Recognizing that legislators have a conflict of interest on this issue, the citizens added a novel twist to their term limits amendment. The amendment says explicitly that the legislature, “Shall not have authority to propose an amendment to this constitution to alter or repeal the term limitations established in this article.” Clear as day, right? Citizens retain the right to make changes in the term limits law. But due to a pretty obvious conflict of interest, legislators can’t.
Philip Blumel: Nonetheless, in April, legislators did just that. They approved a new ballot question that would permit a state representative or a state senator to serve for 16 years in the seat, double the length of time that the voters approved. Talk about a conflict of interest. That’s double the length of the most common term limits in America, eight years, the one most imposed on legislators, city councils, county commissions, governors, and even the president of the United States. Republican Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, who supports the measure, said that he hasn’t formed a firm opinion on whether the legislature’s move is legal. Well, legislators will make the taxpayers, the same voters who approved the term limits by over 63%, pay for the unavoidable litigation. What are these politicians thinking? In the Associated Press write-up, they quote Representative Steve Vetter, who asked the obvious question, “Do you really honestly think that the people that voted 60-some percent for this measure, that they’re going to now all of a sudden turn around and go, yeah, I’d like to give you guys an extra eight years to stick around?” Nothing indicates that would happen. Two years after passing the eight-year term limits, new polling showed that the state-level term limits remained as popular as ever, and in fact, in 2024, voters approved another amendment adding an age limit of 81 on its congressional delegation.
Philip Blumel: Yeah, the politicians North Dakota can send to Washington. That same polling showed that 74% of North Dakotans support an Article V convention so that the states, including North Dakota, could propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on congressional term limits. Looks to me that voters want more term limits, not less. In fact, voters sent the leader of the North Dakota term limits movement to the legislature as a new representative in 2024. I’m not sensing any buyer’s remorse. Well, if the politicians can somehow get this on the ballot, there’s only one way they will get this to pass, deceptive ballot language. Surely this means even more litigation for the taxpayers to pay for, but it’ll be worth it for the politicians. And now a word from Jay Feeley, who is running for the U.S. Congress in Arizona’s 5th District. Naturally, we at U.S. Term Limits do not endorse candidates, but we can wholeheartedly endorse his position on, you-know-what?
Jay Feely: For far too long, career politicians have ruled Washington, D.C. People like 85-year-old Nancy Pelosi, who’s been in Congress since 1987. That’s 35 years. And during her time there, she’s somehow become worth a quarter of a billion dollars on a fixed government salary. Politicians like Mitch McConnell, who’ve been a fixture of the swamp since 1985, making him the 10th longest-serving senator in United States history. Or Joe Biden, who was first elected to federal office in 1973. That’s before I was even born. Like every career politician, they have served their own special interest over putting the American people first. They’ve abused their authority and wasted billions in taxpayer dollars. That’s why I’m running for Congress. As a husband, a dad, and a longtime East Valley resident, I know the challenges that everyday Arizonans face. Therefore, today I’m signing the U.S. Term Limits Pledge, committing to co-sponsor and vote for a term limit amendment. We deserve leaders in Washington who are committed to serving the people rather than themselves and their special interests.
Philip Blumel: Speaking of deceptive ballot language, we have good news out of Missouri. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has signed a pledge vowing to, “Write ballot language that accurately reflects any measure to lengthen term limits, ensuring voters are fully informed without the use of misleading terms like reducing or establishing term limits.” This is a shot across the bow of Missouri legislators who want to overturn Missouri’s popular eight-year term limits law, which voters approved in 1992 with over 75% of the vote. The latest attack on the law came from State Representative Peggy McGaw, a Republican from Carroll County. She introduced legislation this year to double the term limit from eight years per house to 16, just like in North Dakota. The bill was approved by a couple of committees but didn’t make it to the floor this year. There was no Senate companion, so it’s dead, but maybe next year. Now, as a constitutional amendment, overturning term limits in Missouri, as in North Dakota, would require a popular vote, not just votes by self-interested politicians. So how are they going to pull that off? After all, in 2004, Missouri voters shot down an earlier attempt to weaken the term limits.
Philip Blumel: And then in 2020, Missouri voters, with over 70% of the vote, approved eight-year term limits on the state executive officials, including the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state. In the last polling I’ve seen on Missouri’s eight-year term limits law is 79% support. And that’s a higher percentage of support than who approved the bill back in 1992. So just as in North Dakota, the politicians will only have one recourse to get an anti-term limits measure by the voters. Again, deceptive ballot language. What do I mean by that? Well, often politicians will create a ballot title or ballot language that attempts to trick a pro-term limits voter into casting an anti-term limits vote. For instance, we’ve seen measures that have the title, in big letters, term limits for state legislators. Oh, that sounds good. But then when you read into it, you realize that the state or county or whatever already has term limits and this measure would actually weaken them. For instance, the ballot language might say that the proposed amendment will establish 12-year term limits, without mentioning that the state already has eight-year term limits. And then the politicians go around promoting the measure with messaging like, vote yes for term limits. Get it?
Philip Blumel: We’ve seen this work when there isn’t organized opposition of the citizens to expose the scam. It’s attempted all the time everywhere in the country. So this is why Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ pledge is so important. He’s announcing in advance that he’s not going to play any such games. The ballot language will be clear that any weakening of the term limit will be described as a weakening of the term limit. Then voters can decide if that’s what they want. As term limit supporters, we’re not afraid of that. Now, this announcement is not too surprising given the source. Secretary Hoskins has been a consistent champion of term limits throughout his public service career, first as a legislator and now as Missouri’s top election official. In fact, while serving in Missouri General Assembly, he sponsored multiple measures to defend and strengthen term limits. Thank you very much, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins. Next, Elon Musk is so frustrated with his foray into politics that he’s threatened to launch a new political party. But Florida Governor DeSantis has a better idea for him. Let’s hear it.
Gov. Ron DeSantis: The final thing I’ll say is, I’ve been getting asked about this idea of this Elon Musk political party. And I just want to say, I think Elon Musk has been one of the most innovative entrepreneurs, not just in our country’s history, but probably in world history. And I think he’s done a lot. I think he’s got a lot more left in the tank. Obviously, I appreciated him, his efforts in the 2024 election. And I’ve been a big supporter of the idea of the Doge because the federal government spending way too much money. We we’ve adopted that in Florida, even though we have a budget surplus and are paying down debt. And we have the second lowest spending per capita of all 50 states. But yet we’re still doing it in Florida because you always want to do better. But when Elon was in the Doge, there were grants that had been done that we rejected in Florida. We would call Elon. They would cancel it immediately. We sent over almost a billion dollars to where they were able to recover. There were DEI. There were stuff we’re not doing. And so there was a lot that was done that was very, very positive.
Gov. Ron DeSantis: And so I think I’ve been a big fan of what he’s done. The problem is when you do another party, especially if you’re running on some of the issues that he talks about, that would end up if he funds Senate candidates and House candidates and competitive races, that would likely end up meaning the Democrats would win all the competitive Senate and House races. And so, look, I’m a Republican, I don’t want to see that happen. I think if you want to get involved and hold accountable, we do have a problem in the Republican Party with these DC congressmen. They always run saying there’s out of control spending and they’re going to spend less and they never do it. And so there’s a gap between the campaign rhetoric and then the performance. Elon was doing Doge and a lot of Congress didn’t want anything to do with actually adopting the Doge cuts, just like they haven’t wanted to adopt the Trump executive orders on immigration and all these other things which I think you have to adopt in law if you want them to have staying power.
Gov. Ron DeSantis: So I think there is a lot of frustration with the gap between the rhetoric in their district and the performance once they get into D.C. But the way you do that is expose that in a primary and show that there’s another way forward. Honestly, if you’re concerned about the debt, I wouldn’t even worry about that because I don’t think just electing a few better people is going to change your trajectory. We need the incentives in Washington are going to lead to these outcomes really regardless of the outcome of elections at this point. So you need to do a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution and you can do that through the states, you can do it through Article 5. We’ve got 28 states that have approved this, there’s another four or five that are on the docket. Once you hit 34, then you write an amendment and then the states are able to ratify that. You need three quarters. If Elon wanted to weigh in on that and work on those state ledges, I mean, he would have a monumental impact on doing this. And we also need term limits for members of Congress. And so you can do both of those things.
Philip Blumel: Note the governor’s audience enthusiasm for the term limits amendment in particular. Think about it. The term limits convention resolution has been approved by 12 states, including three so far in 25, after three approving in 2024. With or without a big name like Elon Musk, this is happening. If Elon Musk is looking to make real reform that will change the incentives in Washington, D.C., he can help make some history. Elon, please go to termlimits.com for more information. Next. Didn’t we just do an entire episode on the momentum of the term limits movement in Pennsylvania? Yes, in our last episode. Someone needs to forward a link to U.S. Representative Dan Muser of Pennsylvania’s 9th Congressional District. As we reported, there is a move in the legislature to designate April 29th as 22nd Amendment Day led by Representative Ben Waxman. Plus, with big high-profile bipartisan endorsements from former Governor Ed Rendell and U.S. Senator Pat Toomey and others, the term limits convention resolution, HCR 111, is advancing through the legislature there. Now, Representative Dan Muser knows this, of course. That’s why, when campaigning for office, he signed the U.S. Term Limits Congressional Term Limits Pledge. This is the one where the signer is pledging to co-sponsor and vote for the congressional term limits amendment as a member of Congress.
Philip Blumel: I’m sure he appreciated the good press and the applause he received by signing on. But, now that he’s in office, Representative Muser is thumbing his nose at the voters who elected him by refusing to sign on the bill as a co-sponsor, as he promised. So, to raise awareness, we launched a billboard at East 3rd Street across from TJ Maxx Plaza in the Loyal Sock Township of Pennsylvania. It’s already visible now, and it’ll continue at least through July 27th. It says, Representative Dan Muser is breaking his term limits pledge. And then we include the termlimits.com website. That’s it. Now, just so you don’t get confused, I’m talking now about the Congressional Term Limits Amendment legislation introduced in both Houses of Congress. In the House, Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina introduced House Joint Resolution 12, which has garnered support from 90 co-sponsors.
Philip Blumel: In the Senate, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas introduced Senate Joint Resolution 1, backed by 18 co-sponsors. So, this is distinct from the effort in the states to advance the term limits convention. As you know, 12 states so far have officially called for an amendment-writing convention limited to the issue of congressional term limits. These are two separate efforts that are being pursued simultaneously, but they’re related in one important way. As more and more states call for the term limits convention to propose such an amendment, this puts more pressure on Congress to act itself. The bills in the U.S. Congress make sure that the table is always set for Congress to preempt the convention, which would be fine with us. In fact, history suggests that that’s exactly what will happen. Without help from Representative Dan Muser, apparently. The irony is that it is dishonest careers like Dan Muser that make term limits necessary.
Stacey Selleck: Like the show? You can help by subscribing and leaving a five-star review on both Apple and Spotify. It’s free!
Philip Blumel: Thanks for joining us for another episode of “No Uncertain Terms.” The term limits convention bills are moving through the state legislatures. This could be a breakthrough year for the term limits movement. To check on the status of the term limits convention resolution in your state, go to termlimits.com/takeaction. There, you will see if it has been introduced and where it stands in the committee process on its way to the floor vote. If there’s action to take, you’ll see a take action button by your state. Click it. This will give you the opportunity to send a message to the most relevant legislators urging them to support the legislation. They have to know you’re watching. That’s termlimits.com/takeaction. If your state has already passed the term limits convention resolution or the bills have not been introduced in your state, you can still help. Please consider making a contribution to U.S. term limits. It is our aim to hit the reset button on the U.S. Congress, and you can help. Go to termlimits.com/donate, termlimits.com/donate. Thanks. We’ll be back next week.
Stacey Selleck: Find us on most social media at US Term Limits. Like us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and now LinkedIn.