Dana Hess writes for South Dakota Searchlight, an online news organization.

It only stands to reason that a bunch of elected officials who are term-limited would believe that terms limits are good for everyone. That’s the case in the South Dakota Legislature, where both chambers endorsed House Joint Resolution 5002. It calls for a national constitutional convention to create an amendment that imposes term limits on members of the U.S. Congress.

HJR 5002 was approved by votes of 42-24 in the House and 25-10 in the Senate. Joint resolutions don’t require the signature of the governor. The Legislature’s action did earn praise from U.S. Term Limits, an organization pushing for a constitutional amendment determining how long members of Congress can serve.

It takes 34 states to call for a constitutional convention. Now South Dakota is one of 10 states that has endorsed USTL’s version of the amendment. Nineteen other states have endorsed congressional term limits, but their language has to be made to conform with USTL’s or the entire effort will just become a jobs program for lawyers.

USTL would like to see members of the U.S. House limited to three two-year terms and members of the U.S. Senate limited to two six-year terms. That’s quite a change for an institution that has some members who make a career out of getting reelected.

“Term limits provide fresh faces with fresh ideas to elected office,” USTL says on its website. “They reduce lobbyist and special interest influence and make room in Congress for the citizen legislator.”

The citizen legislators in South Dakota’s Legislature are limited to four two-year terms in each house, though they are allowed to try to jump to the other chamber after eight years. Legislators here became subject to term limits with the passage of an initiated constitutional amendment in 1992. Many of the faces in both chambers have changed due to term limits. However, many of the same lobbyists are still hanging in there, ready to offer their brand of guidance, expertise and institutional memory to each group of newbie lawmakers.

Chances are that congressional term limits would make lobbyists more important rather than less powerful, as claimed by USTL. Term limits would also place more emphasis on the expertise of government bureaucrats. After all, co-President Musk and DOGE can’t fire them all.

The prospect of congressional term limits is worrisome for a small state like South Dakota. This is particularly true in the U.S. Senate, where longevity leads to power. If term limits were already the law of the land in Washington, D.C., there’s likely no way that Sen. John Thune would rise to be the Senate majority leader.

Granted, Thune’s tenure so far hasn’t exactly been a profile in courage as the Senate confirmed a group of Fox News has-beens and conspiracy theorists to serve in President Trump’s Cabinet. Still, it will be good to have someone from South Dakota in a position of authority to look out for the state’s interests when Congress tackles the next farm bill.

The battle cry for term limits is usually based on the power of incumbents and how tough it is to kick the bums out of office. Some of the same South Dakota legislators who embraced HJR 5002 proved last year that incumbency is not all that it’s cracked up to be.

The ditches of South Dakota roads are littered with Republican incumbents, tossed aside by voters in last year’s GOP primary. All the new faces in this year’s Legislature prove that, as they always have, voters hold the true key to term limits.

By design, amending the U.S. Constitution takes time. With just 10 states signed on for its version of the term limits amendments, USTL has a long way to go. For small states it may be best if USTL never reaches its goal. Through the years, South Dakota has enjoyed the Senate leadership of Tom Daschle and now John Thune. It’s hard to see how our small state could be in that position of power if the U.S. Capitol were to install a revolving door.