Politics of the United States

The county is the administrative subdivision of the state, authorized by state constitutions and statutes. The county equivalents in Louisiana are called parishes, while those in Alaska are called boroughs.

The specific governmental powers of counties vary widely between the states. In some states, mainly in New England, they are primarily used as judicial districts. In other states, counties have broad powers in housing, education, transportation and recreation. County government has been eliminated throughout Connecticut, Rhode Island, and in parts of Massachusetts; while the Unorganized Borough area of Alaska (which makes up about a half of the area of the state) does not operated under a county-level government at all. In areas that do not have any county governmental function and are simply a division of land, services are provided either by lower level townships or municipalities, or the state.

Counties may contain a number of cities, towns, villages, or hamlets. Some cities -- including Philadelphia, Honolulu, San Francisco, Nashville, and Denver -- are consolidated city-counties, where the municipality and the county have been merged into a unified, coterminous jurisdiction—that is to say, these counties consist in their entirety of a single municipality whose city government also operates as the county government. Some counties, such as Arlington County, Virginia, do not have any additional subdivisions. Some states contain independent cities that are not part of any county; although it may still function as if it was a consolidated city-county, an independent city was legally separated from any county. Some municipalities are in multiple counties; New York City is uniquely partitioned into five boroughs that are each coterminous with a county.

In most U.S. counties, one town or city is designated as the county seat, and this is where the county government offices are located and where the board of commissioners or supervisors meets. In small counties, boards are chosen by the county; in the larger ones, supervisors represent separate districts or townships. The board collects taxes for state and local governments; borrows and appropriates money; fixes the salaries of county employees; supervises elections; builds and maintains highways and bridges; and administers national, state, and county welfare programs. In very small counties, the executive and legislative power may lie entirely with a sole commissioner, who is assisted by boards to supervise taxes and elections.

Town or township governments are organized local governments authorized in the state constitutions and statutes of 20 Northeastern and Midwestern states,[6] established as minor civil divisions to provide general government for a geographic subdivision of a county where there is no municipality. In New York, Wisconsin and New England, these county subdivisions are called towns.

In many other states, the term town does not have any specific meaning; it is simply an informal term applied to populated places (both incorporated and unincorporated municipalities). Moreover, in some states, the term town is equivalent to how civil townships are used in other states.

Like counties, the specific responsibilities to townships vary based on each state. Many states grant townships some governmental powers, making them civil townships, either independently or as a part of the county government. In others, survey townships are non-governmental. Towns in the six New England states and townships in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are included in this category by the Census Bureau, despite the fact that they are legally municipal corporations, since their structure has no necessary relation to concentration of population,[6] which is typical of municipalities elsewhere in the United States. In particular, towns in New England have considerably more power than most townships elsewhere and often function as legally equivalent to cities, typically exercising the full range of powers that are divided between counties, townships, and cities in other states.[9]

Township functions are generally overseen by a governing board, whose name also varies from state to state.

Municipal governments are organized local governments authorized in state constitutions and statutes, established to provide general government for a defined area, generally corresponding to a population center rather than one of a set of areas into which a county is divided. The category includes those governments designated as cities, boroughs (except in Alaska), towns (except in Minnesota and Wisconsin), and villages.[10] This concept corresponds roughly to the "incorporated places" that are recognized in by the U.S. Census Bureau, although the Census Bureau excludes New England towns from their statistics for this category, and the count of municipal governments excludes places that are governmentally inactive.

About 28 percent of Americans live in cities of 100,000 or more population. Types of city governments vary widely across the nation. However, almost all have a central council, elected by the voters, and an executive officer, assisted by various department heads, to manage the city's affairs. Cities in the West and South usually have nonpartisan local politics.

There are three general types of municipal government: the mayor-council, the commission, and the council-manager. These are the pure forms; many cities have developed a combination of two or three of them.

The seat of the mayor of Boston is Boston City Hall. Boston has a mayor–council government.

This is the oldest form of city government in the United States and, until the beginning of the 20th century, was used by nearly all American cities. Its structure is like that of the state and national governments, with an elected mayor as chief of the executive branch and an elected council that represents the various neighborhoods forming the legislative branch. The mayor appoints heads of city departments and other officials (sometimes with the approval of the council), has the power of veto over ordinances (the laws of the city), and often is responsible for preparing the city's budget. The council passes city ordinances, sets the tax rate on property, and apportions money among the various city departments. As cities have grown, council seats have usually come to represent more than a single neighborhood.

This combines both the legislative and executive functions in one group of officials, usually three or more in number, elected city-wide. Each commissioner supervises the work of one or more city departments. Commissioners also set policies and rules by which the city is operated. One is named chairperson of the body and is often called the mayor, although their power is equivalent to that of the other commissioners.[11]

The city manager is a response to the increasing complexity of urban problems that need management ability not often possessed by elected public officials. The answer has been to entrust most of the executive powers, including law enforcement and provision of services, to a highly trained and experienced professional city manager.

The council-manager plan has been adopted by a large number of cities. Under this plan, a small, elected council makes the city ordinances and sets policy, but hires a paid administrator, also called a city manager, to carry out its decisions. The manager draws up the city budget and supervises most of the departments. Usually, there is no set term; the manager serves as long as the council is satisfied with their work.

Some states contain unincorporated areas, which are areas of land not governed by any local authorities below that at the county level. Residents of unincorporated areas only need to pay taxes to the county, state and federal governments as opposed to the municipal government as well. A notable example of this is Paradise, Nevada, an unincorporated area where many of the casinos commonly associated with Las Vegas are situated.[12]

In addition to general-purpose government entities legislating at the state, county, and city level, special-purpose areas may exist as well, provide one or more specific services that are not being supplied by other existing governments.[13] School districts are organized local entities providing public elementary and secondary education which, under state law, have sufficient administrative and fiscal autonomy to qualify as separate governments.

Special districts are authorized by state law to provide designated functions as established in the district's charter or other founding document, and with sufficient administrative and fiscal autonomy to qualify as separate governments;[14] known by a variety of titles, including districts, authorities, boards, commissions, etc., as specified in the enabling state legislation.

Suffrage is nearly universal for citizens 18 years of age and older. Voting rights are sometimes restricted as a result of felony conviction, but such laws vary widely by state.[21]

The District, and other U.S. holdings like Puerto Rico and Guam, do not have the right to choose any political figure outside their respective areas and can only elect a non-voting delegate to serve in the House of Representatives. All states and the District of Columbia contribute to the electoral vote for president.

Successful participation, especially in federal elections, often requires large amounts of money, especially for television advertising.[22] This money can be very difficult to raise by appeals to a mass base,[23] although appeals for small donations over the Internet have been successful.[24] Both parties generally depend on wealthy donors and organizations - traditionally organized labor helping the Democrats and business donations the Republicans. . Since 1984, however, the Democrats' business donations have surpassed those from labor organizations. This dependency on donors snd the political influence it can give them is controversial, and has led to laws limiting spending on political campaigns being enacted (see campaign finance reform). Opponents of campaign finance laws alledge they interfer with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Even when laws are upheld, the complication of compliance with the First Amendment requires careful and cautious drafting of legislation, leading to laws that are still fairly limited in scope, especially in comparison to those of other countries such as the United Kingdom, France or Canada.

The 2017 Women's March in Washington, D.C., protested the 2016 election of President Donald Trump

Background

The United States Constitution never formally addressed the issue of political parties, primarily because the Founding Fathers opposed them, nonetheless the two-party system has been a fundamental part of American politics since shortly after George Washington's presidency.

In partisan elections, candidates are nominated by a political party or seek public office as an independent. Each state has significant discretion in deciding how candidates are nominated, and thus eligible to appear on the election ballot. Typically, major party candidates are formally chosen in a party primary or convention, whereas minor party and Independents are required to complete a petitioning process.

The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system with the parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856. From time to time, several other third parties have achieved relatively minor representation at the national and state levels.

Since the Great Depression and the New Deal, and increasingly since the 1969s, Democratic Party has generally positioned itself as center-left in American politics and featured policies of American liberalism in its platform and legislation, while the Republican Party has generally positioned itself as center-right and supports an American conservatism platform.

Unlike in many other countries, the major political parties in America have no strong central organization that determines party positions and policies, rewards loyal members and officials or expels rebels.  A party committee or convention may endorse a candidate for office, but the determination of  who will be the party's candidate in the general election is  usually done in primaries open to voters who register as Democrats or Republicans.

Parties has state or federal committees that act as hubs for fundraising and campaigning, (See, Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee) and separate campaign committees which work to elect candidates at a specific level, but do not direct candidates or their campaigns. In presidential elections, the party's candidate serves as the defacto party leader helping or hindering candidates further down the ballot. Midterm election are usually regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's performance.[25][26]

"Third" political parties have appeared from time to time in American history but seldom lasted more than a decade. They have sometimes been the vehicle of an individual (Theodore Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" party, Ross Perot's Reform Party); had considerable strength in particular regions (Socialist Party, the Farmer-Labor Party, Wisconsin Progressive Party, Conservative Party of New York State,[note 2] and the Populist Party); or continued to run candidates for office despite seldom winning even local elections (Libertarian Party, Natural Law Party, Peace and Freedom Party).

Factors reinforcing the two party system include:

• The traditional American electoral format of single-member districts where the candidate with the most votes wins ("first-past-the-post" system), which according to Duverger's law favors the two-party system. This is in contrast to multi-seat electoral districts[note 3] and proportional representation found in some other democracies.
• the 19th century innovation of printing "party tickets" to pass out to prospective voters to cast in ballot boxes (originally, voters went to the polls and publicly stated which candidate they supported), "consolidated the power of the major parties".[27]
• Printed party "tickets" (ballots) were eventually replaced by uniform ballots provided by the state, when states began to adopt the Australian Secret Ballot Method. This gave state legislatures -- dominated by Democrats and Republicans -- the opportunity to handicap new rising parties with ballot access laws requiring a large number of petition signatures from citizens and giving the petitioners a short length of time to gather the signatures.

One factor that weakens parties in America is that

• Unlike in many countries, elected officials who fail to "toe the party line" because of constituent opposition to it, and "cross the aisle" to vote with the opposition, have (relatively) little to fear from their party.

Some (Nelson W. Polsby writing before 1997) have argued that the lack of central control of the parties in America means they have become as much "labels" to mobilize voters as political organizations, and that "variations (sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant) in the 50 political cultures of the states yield considerable differences", suggesting that "the American two-party system" actually masks "something more like a hundred-party system."[28]

Others (Lee Drutman, Daniel J. Hopkins writing before 2018) argue that in the 21st century, along with becoming overly partisan, America politics has become overly focused on national issues and "nationalized".[29][30]

moving

K Street in Washington, D.C., has become a metonym for the American lobbying industry.

Special interest groups advocate the cause of their specific constituency. Business organizations will favor low corporate taxes and restrictions of the right to strike, whereas labor unions will support minimum wage legislation and protection for collective bargaining. Other private interest groups, such as churches and ethnic groups, are more concerned about broader issues of policy that can affect their organizations or their beliefs.

One type of private interest group that has grown in number and influence in recent years is the political action committee or PAC. These are independent groups, organized around a single issue or set of issues, which contribute money to political campaigns for United States Congress or the presidency. PACs are limited in the amounts they can contribute directly to candidates in federal elections. There are no restrictions, however, on the amounts PACs can spend independently to advocate a point of view or to urge the election of candidates to office. As of 2008, there were 4,292 PACs operating in the US.[31]

"The number of interest groups has mushroomed, with more and more of them operating offices in Washington, D.C., and representing themselves directly to Congress and federal agencies. Many organizations that keep an eye on Washington seek financial and moral support from ordinary citizens. Since many of them focus on a narrow set of concerns or even on a single issue, and often a single issue of enormous emotional weight, they compete with the parties for citizens' dollars, time, and passion."[32]

The amount of money spent by these special interests continues to grow, as campaigns become increasingly expensive. Many Americans have the feeling that these wealthy interests, whether corporations, unions or PACs, are so powerful that ordinary citizens can do little to counteract their influences.

A survey of members of the American Economic Association (i.e. the association of professional economists) found the vast majority -- regardless of political affiliation -- felt the prevalence and influence of special interest groups in the political process led to benefit for the special interest groups and politicians at the expense of society as a whole.[33]

Despite the constitution's First Amendment Establish Clause, ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."), religious groups and churches have often become political pressure groups and parts of political coalitions, primarily Christian groups for historical reasons,[34] and in recent decades, particularly conservative evangelical Protestants within the broader Republican Party.[34] (However, some scholars have argued that this coalition may be starting to split, as of 2008.)[34] This influence has often translated into the passing of laws related to morality and personal conduct.[35] State alcohol and gambling laws, for example, have been found to be more restrictive in states with a higher percentage of conservative Protestant Christians.[35]

The American political culture is rooted in the colonial experience and the American Revolution. The colonies were unique within the European world for their (relatively) widespread suffrage provided to white male property owners, and the relative power and activity of the elected bodies they could vote for.[36] These dealt with land grants, commercial subsidies, taxation, the oversight of roads, poor relief, taverns, and schools. courts, (private lawsuits were very common) also provided Americans with experience in public affairs and law,[37] and gave interest groups such as merchants, landlords, petty farmers, artisans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Quakers, Germans, Scotch Irish, Yankees, Yorkers, etc. control over matters left to the royal court, aristocratic families and the established church in Great Britain. Finally, Americans were interested in the political values of Republicanism, which celebrated equal rights, civic virtue, and abhorred corruption, luxury, and aristocracy.[38]

The Statue of Liberty, a symbol of American freedom and openness to immigration

Two pivotal political ideas in the establishment of the United States were Republicanism and classical liberalism. Central documents of American thought include: the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Constitution (1787), the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (1787-1790s), the Bill of Rights (1791), and Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" (1863).

Among the core tenets were:

• Civic duty/"Positive liberty"/"republican virtue”: the responsibility to understand and support the government, participate in elections, pay taxes, oppose political corruption, and perform military service.[39]
• Democracy: government answerable to citizens, who may change who represents them through elections.
• Equality before the law: laws that attach no special privilege to any citizen and hold government officials subject just as any other person.[40]
• Freedom of religion: government that neither supports nor suppresses any or all religion.
• Freedom of speech: government that restricts neither through law nor action the non-violent speech of a citizen; a marketplace of ideas.

At the time of the United States' founding, the economy was predominantly one of agriculture and small private businesses, and state governments left welfare issues to private or local initiative. As in the UK and other industrialized countries, laissez-faire ideology was largely discredited during the Great Depression. Between the 1930s and 1970s, fiscal policy was characterized by the Keynesian consensus.[41][42] After the "Reagan revolution" in the early 1980s, however, laissez-faire ideology once more became a powerful force in American politics.[43] While the American welfare state expanded more than threefold after WWII, it held at 20% of GDP from the late 1970s to late 1980s.[44][45] In the 21st century, modern American liberalism, and modern American conservatism are engaged in a continuous political battle, characterized by what The Economist describes as "greater divisiveness [and] close, but bitterly fought elections."[46] Since 2016, the United States has been recognized as a flawed democracy in the Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit, partially due to increased political polarization.[47][48]

In foreign affairs, the United States generally pursued a noninterventionist policy of "avoiding foreign entanglements" before World War II. After the war, when America became a superpower, for many decades the country embraced internationalism, seeking allies to contain Communism and foster economic cooperation.

According to at least some academics, authoritarian values have strengthened in the 21st century in the U.S. and elsewhere, with long-run economic changes from globalization having a negative impact on the social identity of historically dominant groups. This increases the incentive for these groups to use authoritarianism to force minority groups to conform to social norms.[49]

The United States Constitution never formally addressed the issue of political parties, primarily because the Founding Fathers -- Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,[50] George Washington -- opposed them as domestic political factions leading to domestic conflict [51] and stagnation.[52]

Nevertheless, the beginnings of the American two-party system emerged from his immediate circle of advisers, including Hamilton and Madison and by the 1790s, different views of the new country's proper course had already developed, and those holding the same views banding together. The followers of Alexander Hamilton (the "Federalist") favored a strong central government that would support the interests of commerce and industry. The followers of Thomas Jefferson, ("Democratic-Republicans") preferred a decentralized agrarian republic in which the federal government had limited power.

By 1828, the Federalists had disappeared as an organization, replaced by the National Republican Party and then the Whigs, while the Democratic Republicans evolved into the Democrats led by Andrew Jackson. The two-party system, still in existence today, was born.

In the 1850s, it was the Whigs turn to disappear, undone by the issue of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into the country's new territories in the West. The Whigs were eventually replaced by the Republican Party who opposed slavery expansion and whose first successful candidate for the presidency was Abraham Lincoln.

In the 150+ years since the Democratic and Republican parties have been America's two major parties, though their policies, base of support and relative strength have evolved considerably.

The early Jacksonian Democratic Party was "basically conservative and agrarian-oriented"; it stood for individual rights and state rights, opposed banks and high tariffs, and styled itself as the party of the "common man". Some eras in American politics include:

• Reconstruction era and Gilded era

After the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, it celebrated "state's rights", a principle dear to the "Solid South" (i.e. solidly Democratic) where "repressive legislation and physical intimidation" of Jim Crow prevented the "newly enfranchised African Americans from voting". It opposed the interests of big business; and favored cheap-money policies[53][54] favored by small farmers in the west. Another element in its coalition were mostly urban Catholics. After the defeat of the Confederacy, the Republican Party, associated with the successful military defense of the Union and often known as "the Grand Old Party", became the dominant party in America.[55]

• the Progressive Era. Its programs -- municipal reforms, civil service reform, corrupt practices acts, and presidential primaries to replace the power of politicians at national conventions -- strove to clean up politics.

• The New Deal. These programs of Democrat president Franklin D. Roosevelt -- raising of the minimum wage, the establishment of the Social Security and other federal services -- were designed to deal with the disruption and suffering of the Great Depression. They created a dramatic political shift whereby Roosevelt "forged a broad coalition—including small farmers, Northern city dwellers, organized labor, European immigrants, liberals, intellectuals, and reformers", making the Democratic party the dominant party — retaining the presidency until 1952 and controlling both houses of Congress for most of the period from the 1930s to the mid-1990s.[53]

• the Break up of New Deal coalition. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 — driven by Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson -- began the breaking off of the white segregationist Solid South from the Democratic party. Richard M. Nixon's "Southern strategy", began the process of winning white Southerners away to the G.O.P. and within a few decades creating a solidly Republican south. Republican conservatives became victorious with the 1980 victory of Ronald Reagan.

Over the coming decades the blurred ideological character of American political parties -- where Democrats had a number of important elected office holders (mostly in the South) who were considerably more conservative than many important Republican senators and governors (for example Nelson Rockefeller) -- dissipated. In time, not only did conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans retire, switch parties, or lose elections, so did centrists (Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Richard Riordan and Arnold Schwarzenegger). Not only did white southerners leave the Democratic party but eventually a large majority of rural and working class whites nationwide became the base of the Republican Party.[56] Whereas for decades the college-educated voters skewed heavily towards the Republican party, eventually high educational attainment was a marker of Democratic support, (leading Donald Trump to proclaim to supporters, "I love the poorly educated!")

Ronald Reagan

In, 1980 conservative Republican Ronald Reagan defeated an incumbent democratic president (Jimmy Carter)[57] on a theme of smaller government, sunny optimism that free trade and tax cuts would stimulate economic growth which would then "trickle down" to the middle and lower classes (who might not benefit initially from these policies). The Republican party was now said to rest on "three legs" of Christian right/Social conservatism (particularly the anti-abortion movement), fiscal conservatism/small government (particularly supporters of tax cuts), and strong anti-communist military policy (with increased willingness to intervene abroad).

Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove

In 1995, after 40 years of uninterrupted dominance by the Democratic Party, Republican gained 54 seats to take control of the House of Representatives, (it also took control of the Senate). This was in part because the South turned Republican,[58] and in part because of the leadership of Newt Gingrich and his "Republican Revolution". Gingrich introduced a change in norms that continued with Donald Trump of eliminating the idea that Democrats were opponents in elections but later colleagues to negotiate and compromise with in the interest of good legislation. Instead they were the enemy to be attacked and defeated, to be denounced as "traitors ..liars, ... cheaters".[57]

Karl Rove, the political strategist of George W. Bush (president 2001 to 2009), also eliminated norms of behavior between the parties (such as not questioning the patriotism of the other side, seeking bipartisan cooperation),[57] which were often very effective though they increased polarization. Rove emphasized elections are won by energizing the party base of support, not reaching out to the persuadable or swing voter in the middle; attacking opponents strong points (for example implying decorated veterans were treasonous, accusing Max Cleland who had lost three limbs in combat of being sympathetic to terrorism, Silver and Bronze Star wearing John Kerry of being a traitor to his country).[57] Conspiracy theories also began to become mainstream during this time (accusing Hillary Clinton of ordering the military to not protect Americans at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, that the Clintons ordered the murder of Bill's childhood friend Vince Foster), which remained energizing for the base no matter how many times they were investigated and debunked.[57]

• Presidency of Donald Trump

After decades of dominance, "Reagan Revolution" rhetoric and policy, began to be replaced by new themes Reaganism had not emphasized. Cultural/attitudinal conservatism (opposition to gay marriage, transgender rights, and especially abortion) or that it supported; (economic globalization, immigration from non-European countries). Historically the Republican Party always had strong bases in the business community both small local and big national or international. But now not only had conservative (white) blue collar workers migrated to the Republican Party, but a business class that had been part of the Republican Party since the post-Civil War Gilded Age began moving left. Ross Douthat explains the shift:[59]

The Republican Party in the Trump era remained a mostly pro-business party in its policies but its constituencies and rhetoric have tilted more working class and populist, ... much of corporate America has swung culturally into liberalism’s camp. ... accelerated by anti-Trump backlash, the more left-leaning commitments of big business’s younger customers and (especially) younger employees, ... As a consequence, today’s G.O.P. is most clearly now the party of local capitalism — the small-business gentry, the family firms.... Much of the party elite wish to continue doing business with big business as before. But the party’s base regards corporate institutions — especially in Silicon Valley, but extending to more traditional capitalist powers — as cultural enemies ...

In pre-colonial and post-revolutionary American times, voters went to the polls and publicly stated which candidate they supported, rather than voting secretly, which was considered "cowardly" and "underhanded".[27] Originally, state laws required voters to be property owners, but "by the time Andrew Jackson was elected President, in 1828, nearly all white men could vote".[27]

Later in the 19th century, voting was done by written paper ballot. A broadened franchise where many voters were illiterate or misspelling disqualified a vote, led to the use of printed ballots. Each political party would create its own ballot -- preprinted “party tickets" -- give them to supporters, and who would publicly put the party's ballot into the voting box, or hand them to election judges through a window.[27] The tickets indicated a vote for all of that party's slate of candidates, preventing "ticket splitting".[27] (As of 1859 "nowhere in the United States ... did election officials provide ballots", i.e. they all came from political parties.) In cities voters often had to make their way through a throng of partisans who would try to prevent supporters of the opposing party from voting, a practice generally allowed unless it "clearly" appeared "that there was such a display of force as ought to have intimidated men of ordinary firmness.”[27] The practice was dangerous enough that in "the middle decades of the nineteenth century," several dozen (89) were killed in Election Day riots.[27]

It was not until the late nineteenth century that states began to adopt the Australian Secret Ballot Method (despite fears it “would make any nation a nation of scoundrels"),[27] and it eventually became the national standard. The secret ballot method ensured that the privacy of voters would be protected (hence government jobs could no longer be awarded to loyal voters), and each state would be responsible for creating one official ballot.

U.S. presidential election popular vote totals as a percentage of the total U.S. population grew from 1-2% in the first American elections to over 40% by the 21st century. Note the surge in 1828 (extension of suffrage to non-property-owning white men), the drop from 1890 to 1910 (when Southern states disenfranchised most African Americans and many poor whites), and another surge in 1920 (extension of suffrage to women).

Some key events of suffrage expansion are:

• 1792–1856:. Abolition of property qualifications for white men were abolished.[60]
• 1868: Citizenship was guaranteed to all persons born or naturalized in the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, although Jim Crow laws prevented most African Americans from voting.
• 1920: Women are guaranteed the right to vote in all US States by the Nineteenth Amendment.
• 1964-66: Civil Rights laws and Supreme Court rulings eliminate tax payment and wealth requirements and protect voter registration and voting for racial minorities.
• 1971: Adults aged 18 through 20 are granted the right to vote by the Twenty-sixth Amendment.

Observations of historical trends and current governmental demographics have raised concerns about the equity of political representation in the United States. In particular, scholars have noted that levels of descriptive representation—which refers to when political representatives share demographic backgrounds or characteristics with their constituents—do not match the racial and gender makeup of the US.[63] Descriptive representation is noted to be beneficial because of its symbolic representative benefits as a source of emotional identification with one's representatives.[64] Furthermore, descriptive representation can lead to more substantive and functional representation, as well as greater institutional power, which can result in minority constituents having both representatives with matching policy views and power in the political system.[63][65] Serving as a congressional committee chair is considered to be a good example of this relationship, as chairs control which issues are addressed by committees, especially through hearings that bring substantial attention to certain issues.[63] Though minorities like African Americans and Latinos have rarely served as committee chairs, studies have shown that their presence has directly led to significantly higher likelihoods of minority issues being addressed.[63] Given that racial and ethnic minorities of all backgrounds have historically been marginalized from participating in the US political system, their political representation and access to policymaking has been limited.[63] Similarly, women lack proportional representation in the United States, bringing into question the extent to which women's issues are adequately addressed.[66] Other minority groups, such as the LGBTQ community, have also been disadvantaged by an absence of equitable representation—especially since scholars have noted their gradual shift from originally being perceived as more of a moral political issue to being considered an actual constituency.[67]

Political representation is also an essential part of making sure that citizens have faith that representatives, political institutions, and democracy take their interests into account.[64] For women and minorities, this issue can occur even in the levels of government that are meant to be closest to constituents, such as among members of Congress in the House of Representatives. Scholars have noted that in positions such as these, even close proximity to constituents does not necessarily translate to an understanding of their needs or experiences and that constituents can still feel unrepresented.[64] In a democracy, a lack of faith in one's representatives can cause them to search for less-democratic alternative forms of representation, like unelected individuals or interest groups.[64] For racial and ethnic minorities, the risk of seeking alternative representation is especially acute, as lived experiences often lead to different political perspectives that can be difficult for white representatives to fully understand or adequately address.[63] Moreover, studies have begun to increasingly show that people of all races and genders tend to prefer having members of Congress who share their race or gender, which can also lead to more engagement between constituents and their representatives, as well as higher likelihoods of contacting or having faith in their congressperson.[64] In addition to making it more likely that constituents will trust their representatives, having descriptive representation can help sustain an individual's positive perceptions of government. When considering women in particular, it has been suggested that broader economic and social equality could result from first working toward ensuring more equitable political representation for women, which would also help promote increased faith between women and their representatives.[68]

Although African Americans have begun to continually win more elected positions and increase their overall political representation, they still lack proportional representation across a variety of different levels of government.[69] Some estimates indicate that most gains for African Americans—and other minorities in general—have not occurred at higher levels of government, but rather at sub-levels in federal and state governments.[69] Additionally, congressional data from 2017 revealed that 35.7% of African Americans nationwide had a congressperson of the same race, while the majority of black Americans were represented by members of Congress of a different race.[64] Scholars have partially explained this discrepancy by focusing on the obstacles that black candidates face. Factors like election type, campaign costs, district demographics, and historical barriers, such as voter suppression, can all hinder the likelihood of a black candidate winning an election or even choosing to enter into an election process.[69] Demographics, in particular, are noted to have a large influence on black candidate success, as research has shown that the ratio of white-to-black voters can have a significant impact on a black candidate's chance of winning an election and that large black populations tend to increase the resources available to African American candidates.[69] Despite the variety of obstacles that have contributed to the lack of proportional representation for African Americans, other factors have been found to increase the likelihood of a black candidate winning an election. Based on data from a study in Louisiana, prior black incumbency, as well as running for an office that other black candidates had pursued in the past, increased the likelihood of African Americans entering into races and winning elections.[69]

As the most populous minority demographic identified in the 2010 US Census, Hispanic and Latino Americans have become an increasingly important constituency that is spread throughout the United States.[70] Despite also constituting 15% of the population in at least a quarter of House districts, Latino representation in Congress has not correspondingly increased.[70] Furthermore, in 2017, Latino members of Congress only represented about one-quarter of the total Latino population in the US.[64] While there are many potential explanations for this disparity, including issues related to voter suppression, surveys of Latino voters have identified trends unique to their demographic—though survey data has still indicated that descriptive representation is important to Hispanic and Latino voters.[70] While descriptive representation may be considered important, an analysis of a 2004 national survey of Latinos revealed that political participation and substantive representation were strongly associated with each other, possibly indicating that voters mobilize more on behalf of candidates whose policy views reflect their own, rather than for those who share their ethnic background.[65] Moreover, a breakdown of the rationale for emphasizing descriptive representation reveals additional factors behind supporting Latino candidates, such as the view that they may have a greater respect and appreciation for Spanish or a belief that Latinos are "linked" together, indicating the significance of shared cultural experiences and values.[70] Although the reasons behind choosing to vote for Latino candidates are not monolithic, the election of Latinos to Congress has been identified as resulting in benefits for minorities overall. While it has been argued that unique district-related issues can take equal or greater precedence than Latino interests for Hispanic and Latino members of Congress, studies have also shown that Latinos are more likely to support African American members of Congress—and vice versa—beyond just what is expected from shared party membership.[65]

Similar to other minority groups, Native Americans often lack representation due to electoral policies. Gerrymandering, in particular, is noted as a method of concentrating Native voters in a limited number of districts to reduce their ability to influence multiple elections.[71] Despite structural efforts to limit their political representation, some states with large Native American populations have higher levels of representation. South Dakota has a Native population of about 9% with multiple federally recognized tribal nations, and it has been used as a case study of representation.[71] A 2017 study that conducted interviews of former state elected officials in South Dakota revealed that even though many felt that they were only able to implement a limited number of significant changes for tribal communities, they still considered it to be "absolutely essential" that Native Americans had at least some descriptive representation to prevent complete exclusion from the political process.[71] Moreover, formerly elected state and local government officials asserted that ensuring that the issues and concerns of tribal nations were addressed and understood depended on politicians with Native backgrounds.[71] Historically-backed suspicion and skepticism of the predominantly white US government was also considered to be an important reason for having representatives that reflect the histories and views of Native Americans.[71]

Relative to other, larger minority demographics in the United States, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) face different challenges related to political representation. Few congressional districts have a population that includes over 50% Asian Americans, which can elevate the likelihood of being represented by someone of a different race or ethnicity.[64] As with other minorities, this can result in people feeling unrepresented by their member of Congress.[64]

There are 122 women members of the US House (blue) and 319 men (gray).

There are 24 women members of the US Senate (blue) and 76 men (gray).

Women have made continual socioeconomic progress in many key areas of society, such as in employment and education, and in comparison to men, women have voted at higher rates for over forty years—making their lack of more proportional representation in the political system surprising.[66][68] Some scholars have partially attributed this discrepancy to the electoral system in the United States, as it does not provide a mechanism for the types of gender quotas seen in other countries.[68] Additionally, even though gerrymandering and concentrated political representation can essentially ensure at least some representation for minority racial and ethnic groups, women—who are relatively evenly spread throughout the United States—do not receive similar benefits from this practice.[64] Among individuals, however, identifying the source of unequal gender representation can be predicted along party and ideological lines. A survey of attitudes toward women candidates revealed that Democrats are more likely to attribute systemic issues to gender inequalities in political representation, while Republicans are less likely to hold this perspective.[66] While identifying an exact source of inequality may ultimately prove unlikely, some recent studies have suggested that the political ambitions of women may be influenced by the wide variety of proposed factors attributed to the underrepresentation of women.[66] In contrast to attributing specific reasons to unequal representation, political party has also been identified as a way of predicting if a woman running for office is more likely to receive support, as women candidates are more likely to receive votes from members of their party and Independents.[66]

Social inequality and sexism have been noted by scholars as influencing the electoral process for women. In a survey of attitudes toward women candidates, women respondents were far more likely to view the process of running for office as "hostile" to women than men, especially when considering public hesitancy to support women candidates, media coverage, and public discrimination.[66] Political fundraising for candidates is also an area of inequality, as men donate at a higher rate than women—which is compounded by gender and racial inequalities related to income and employment.[68] However, recent increases in women-focused fundraising groups have started to alter this imbalance.[68] Given that disproportionate levels of household labor often become the responsibility of women, discrimination within households has also been identified as a major influence on the capability of women to run for office.[68] For women in the LGBTQ community, some scholars have raised concern about the unequal attention paid to the needs of lesbians compared to transgender, bisexual, and queer women, with lesbian civil rights described as receiving more of a focus from politicians.[67]

Social pressures are another influence on women who run for office, often coinciding with sexism and discrimination. Some scholars have argued that views of discrimination have prompted a decrease in the supply of women willing to run for office, though this has been partially countered by those who argue that women are actually just more "strategic" when trying to identify an election with favorable conditions.[68] Other factors, like the overrepresentation of men, have been described as influencing perceptions of men as somehow inherently more effective as politicians or leaders, which some scholars argue could pressure women to stay out of elections.[68] However, others contend that the overrepresentation of men can actually result in "political momentum" for women, such as during the Year of the Woman.[68] Within some racial and ethnic groups, social influences can also shape political engagement. Among Latinos, Latinas are more likely to partake in non-electoral activities, like community organizing, when compared to men.[70] Despite differences in political activity and social pressures, elected women from both political parties have voiced their support for electing more women to Congress to increase the acceptance of their voices and experiences.[68] Furthermore, studies have found that increasing the descriptive representation of women can provide positive social influences for democracy as a whole, such as improved perceptions of an individual's political efficacy and government's responsiveness to the needs of people.[64] When women can vote for a woman candidate of the same party, studies have also found that these influences can be magnified.[64]

The White House illuminated in the colors of the rainbow flag after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalized same-sex marriage nationally

Although some scholars have disputed the benefits of descriptive representation, only a small number have argued that this form of representation actually has negative impacts on the group it represents.[72] Studies of bills relating to LGBT rights in state legislatures have provided a more nuanced analysis. Pro-LGBT bills tend to be introduced in higher numbers when more LGBT representatives are elected to state legislatures, which may also indicate an increased likelihood of substantive representation.[72] Increases in openly LGBT state lawmakers have also been hypothesized to inadvertently result in more anti-LGBT legislation, potentially as the result of backlash to their presence.[72] Despite the risk of negative consequences, at least one study has concluded that the LGBT community receives net-benefits from increased openly LGBT representation.[72] On the federal level, the presence of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus has been identified as improving the ability of Congress to address the intersectional issues faced by the LGBT community, as well as provide a source of pressure other than constituency on members of Congress to address LGBT issues.[67] Additionally, non-LGBT members of the caucus have been criticized for not sponsoring enough legislation, emphasizing the value of openly LGBT members of Congress.[67] While descriptive representation has provided benefits overall, scholars have noted that some groups in the community, such as transgender and bisexual people, tend to receive less focus than gays and lesbians.[67]

While American political institutions have had more political representation of older heterosexual well-to-do white men since their founding, complaints about an increase in political polarization and decline in political norms are more recent. At least three "well-regarded" global democracy indexes — Freedom House,[73] Varieties of Democracy,[74] and the Economist Intelligence Unit[75] — "show an erosion of American democracy since 2016".[76]

A disconnect between "the power to set government policy" and political opinions of the general public has been noted by commentators and scholars (such as David Leonhardt).[77] The United States “far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world,” according to Steven Levitsky.[78]

Before the 2000 election, only three candidates for president won "while losing the popular vote (John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison), and each served only a single term", while as of 2022 "two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote"[77] -- Donald Trump winning in 2016 election while trailing Hillary Clinton by 2.87 million votes.[79]

Leonhardt points out that in one branch of the federal government -- the Supreme Court -- conservative legal decisions "both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular" were delivered in 2022, what is likely the beginning of a reshaping of "American politics for years, if not decades" to come by the court's "Republican appointees". This is despite the fact that the president appoints the nominees, and that presidential candidates of the Democratic Party have won the popular vote in seven out of eight last elections (from 1992-2020).[77]

In the 2020 U.S. Senate, "50 Democratic senators effectively represent 186 million Americans, while the 50 Republican senators effectively represent 145 million".[77]

Explanations include

• geographical sorting by ideology. "Parts of the country granted outsize power by the Constitution" (i.e. less populated states), formerly voted more or less similarly to the large states and urban areas that were granted less power. Thus "the small-state bonus" giving disproportionate power in "the Senate and Electoral College had only a limited effect on national results". This is no longer the case. Rural areas are more uniformly conservative and urban areas liberal.[77] More important is "the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College" (all states except Maine and Nebraska), which gives greater bias to Republicans.[77]
• faster population growth of large (population) states than small states.[77] The state with the largest population in 1790 was Virginia with approximately 13 times as many residents as the smallest (Delaware). Today, "California, which consistently votes for liberal candidates statewide, "has 68 times as many residents as Wyoming; 53 times as many as Alaska; and at least 20 times as many as another 11 states". When a candidate wins a statewide election in California (or New York) by a landslide, these large numbers of popular votes mean nothing in the tally of Electoral College votes or Senate seats.[77]
• while the House of Representatives would seem to have "a more equitable system for allocating political power" -- dividing the country "into 435 districts, each with a broadly similar number of people" (760,000 as of 2022) -- Leonhardt argues two features distort his equity:
  • gerrymandering, i.e. the drawing of district boundaries by State legislatures for partisan advantage, something Republicans have been "more forceful" about in recent years.[77]
  • the phenomenon of "wasted votes", whereby the increasing concentration of Democratic voters in large metro areas means Democrats often win elections in these districts by "landslides", leading to the overall nationwide proportion of votes for Democrats significantly less than the proportion of seats for Democrats in the House.[77]

Some views suggest that the political structure of the United States is in many respects an oligarchy, where a small economic elite overwhelmingly dominate policy and law.[61] Some academic researchers suggest a drift toward oligarchy has been occurring by way of the influence of corporations, wealthy, and other special interest groups, leaving individual citizens with less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups in the political process.[62][80][81][82]

A study by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University) released in April 2014, concluded that the U.S. government doesn't represent the interests of the majority of its citizens but instead is "ruled by those of the rich and powerful". The researchers after analysing nearly 1,800 U.S. policies between 1981 and 2002, stated that government policies tend to favour special interests and lobbying organizations, and that whenever a majority of citizens disagrees with the economic elites, the elites tend to prevail in getting their way.[62] While not characterizing the United States as an "oligarchy" or "plutocracy" outright, Gilens and Page give weight to the idea of a "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey A. Winters, saying, "Winters has posited a comparative theory of 'Oligarchy,' in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a 'civil oligarchy' like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection." In their study, Gilens and Page reached these conclusions:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. ... [T]he preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.[83]

E.J. Dionne Jr. described what he considers the effects of ideological and oligarchical interests on the judiciary. The journalist, columnist, and scholar interprets recent Supreme Court decisions as ones that allow wealthy elites to use economic power to influence political outcomes in their favor. In speaking about the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC decisions, Dionne wrote: "Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot."[84]

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote:

The stark reality is that we have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. This threatens to make us a democracy in name only.[85]

Gerrymandering is the practice of shaping the boundaries of electoral districts for partisan advantage -- those boundaries being reviewed and usually changed after every United States census, i.e. every ten years. Gerrymandering involves what’s commonly called “cracking and packing”.

• "Cracking" is the process of moving the boundaries of districts to spreads opposition voters thinly enough across many districts so that they constitute a safe margin below 50%. most districts dilute their power. are moved to of voters by moving the . Cracking spreads opposition voters thinly across many districts to dilute their power.
• "Packing" is the process of concentrating opposition voters in one or more (but always a minority of) districts, to "waste" opposition votes.[58]

Used almost since the founding of the United States (the term was coined in 1810 after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a salamander),[58] in the 21st century it has "become a much more effective tool".[58] Since 2010, detailed maps and high-speed computing have facilitated gerrymandering by political parties in the redistricting process, in order to gain control of state legislation and congressional representation and potentially to maintain that control over several decades, even against shifting political changes in a state's population. It allows the drawing of districts "with surgical precision".[58] According to Julia Kirschenbaum and Michael Li of the Brennan Center

In 2010, Republicans — in an effort to control the drawing of congressional maps — forged a campaign to win majorities in as many state legislatures as possible. It was wildly successful, giving them control over the drawing of 213 congressional districts. The redrawing of maps that followed produced some of the most extreme gerrymanders in history. In battleground Pennsylvania, for example, the congressional map gave Republicans a virtual lock on 13 of the state’s 18 congressional districts, even in elections where Democrats won the majority of the statewide congressional vote.[86]

Attempts to appeal to the Supreme Court to disallow gerrymandering in cases such as Vieth v. Jubelirer in 2004 and its passing up of "numerous opportunities" in 2017 and 2018 "to decide upon the constitutional legality or illegality of gerrymandering" has "emboldened ever more partisan gerrymandering".[58]

In addition to giving one party power beyond its popular support, gerrymandering has been criticized for weakening the political power of minority voters by concentrated them into district(s) (though this process can also help ensure the election of a representative of the same race).[71]

Since the 1970s, the United States has grown more polarized, with rapid increases in polarization during the 2000s onwards.[87] The polarization has been both ideological (differences between the policy positions) and affective (i.e. a dislike and distrust of opposing political groups), than comparable democracies.[88][89]

Polarization among U.S. legislators is asymmetric, as it has primarily been driven by a substantial rightward shift among congressional Republicans, alongside a much smaller leftward shift among congressional Democrats.[90][91][92][93][94][95] New Democrats advocated for neoliberal policies including financial deregulation and free trade, which is seen to have shifted the Democratic Party rightwards on economic issues.[96][97][98][99] However, since the early 2010s, the party has shifted significantly to the left on social, cultural, and religious issues.[100] According to the Pew Research Center, members of both parties who have unfavorable opinions of the opposing party have doubled since 1994,[101] while those who have very unfavorable opinions of the opposing party are at record highs as of 2022.[102]

Signs reading "Stop the Steal" and "Off with their heads", photographed on the day of the January 6 attack

Many commentators and scholars (such as David Leonhardt) have expressed alarm at the "growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election".[77][103][104] In a survey by journalists (of the Washington Post) less than two months before the 2022 congressional election, a "majority of Republicans" in "important battleground" election campaigns, refused "to say they will accept the November election outcome".[105] Six key Senate and gubernatorial Republican party nominees refused to commit to accepting the results of the November election: Blake Masters in Arizona, J.D. Vance in Ohio, Rep. Ted Budd in North Carolina, Kelly Tshibaka in Alaska, Tudor Dixon in Michigan and Geoff Diehl in Massachusetts.[106]

While the claim by a losing candidate that they won "despite clear evidence he lost", may have start with Donald Trump after his loss in 2020, during primaries leading up to the November 2022 general election, "candidates across the country have refused to concede — even in races that are not remotely close".[107]

The trend has been manifest in the violent January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol to prevent the certification of Joseph Biden as president, the hundreds of elected Republican officials throughout the United States that the 2020 presidential election was "rigged", some of whom "are running for statewide offices that would oversee future elections, potentially putting them in position to overturn an election in 2024 or beyond".[77] According to Yascha Mounk, “There is the possibility, for the first time in American history, that a legitimately elected president will not be able to take office”.[77]

In part the phenomenon is international, democracies are struggling in other parts of the world led by the forces of "digital media, cultural change and economic stagnation in affluent countries".[77] Leonhardt states that "many experts point out that it is still not clear how the country will escape a larger crisis, such as an overturned election, at some point in the coming decade."[77]

In the 2022 elections observers have noted lack of participation in debates between candidates, and in the "retail politicking" that has been a political "cliché ... for generations" in American politics: pressing the flesh at "diners and state fairs ... town-hall-style meetings ... where citizens get to question their elected leaders and those running to replace them".[108] Replacing these are "safer spaces" for candidates, "partisan news outlets, fund-raisers with supporters, friendly local crowds," as the number of competitive House of Representative districts and "swing voters" grows smaller, and candidates concentrate on mobilizing the party loyalists rather than appealing to undecided voters (appeals touching on compromise and bipartisanship angering party hardliners).

Observers see a danger in candidates

Avoiding those tougher interactions cuts down on the opportunities for candidates’ characters and limitations to be revealed, and for elected officials to be held accountable to those who elected them. For the politicians, it creates an artificial environment where their positions appear uniformly popular and opposing views are angrily denounced, making compromise seem risky.[108]

Under the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump, observers (such as political scientist Brendan Nyhan) noted some erosion of political norms and ethics

• acceptable background for high level officials. (Jeff Sessions was rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1986 for a federal judgeship because his history on racial issues was considered to be disqualifying, but served as U.S. Attorney General from February 9, 2017 – November 7, 2018.[109]
• intolerance of criticism.[109] "Trump Threatens White House Protesters With ‘Vicious Dogs’ and ‘Ominous Weapons’"[110]
• tolerance for conflicts of interest in government. Public officials who are also a businessmen (Donald Trump) accepting money for their business (Trump hotel in Washington) from foreign governments with interests before the United States. ("The Trump hotel in Washington is pitching foreign diplomats on its services, which might violate a clause of the U.S. Constitution that is supposed to ensure that foreign governments can’t buy favor with federal officials.")[109]
• partisan abuse of power. After a Democratic candidate for governor won, Republican majorities in the legislatures of North Carolina, and Wisconsin voted in 2018 to "strip the legitimate powers of newly elected Democratic governors" while the "defeated or outgoing Republican incumbents are still around to sign the bills".[111]
• Applying the rule of ‘Because we can’. Announce on February 13, 2016, you will not allow hearings on a Democratic nominee (Merrick Garland) for the Supreme Court (Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell),[112][113] maintaining it was too close to the November 8, 2016 election (almost nine months away), and would deny the American people a “voice” in the selection of the next justice. Four years later, with a Republican now president, hold a ceremony for the nomination of a conservative justice for Supreme Court (Amy Coney Barrett) on September 26, 2020, a little more than one month (38 days) before Election Day, now claiming "I think it's very important that we have nine Justices" (Mitch McConnell).[112][114]

With an implementation of term limits and holding elections for Supreme Court Justices the United States could simply solve the contentious battle for when Supreme Court members unexpectedly die. Packing the Supreme Court proposals would fade away if an election was going to decide the outcome. 33 States already elect their State Supreme Courts. William Watkins Jr. a Constitutional scholar from the Independent Institute on National Public Radio stated his proposal for 8 to 10 year one time term limits, he also said justices are suppose to be like umpires calling balls and strikes in the game but are acting more like coaches tinkering with starting lineups, and calling hit and runs. Local District attorneys and County Sheriffs are elected[115] and so could Supreme Court Justices. The United States Senate use to be appointed by State legislatures before the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913 for them to be elected. A Second Constitutional Convention of the States to Amend the Constitution could be a way for this reform to proceed. [116][117] [118] [119] [120]

Average Age of Congress

Percentage of Congress over the age of 70

Term limits for members of Congress was a movement that gained a lot of traction in the early 1990s. 23 State Governments passed legislation that term limited US Congress representatives from each respective state. A Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton in 1995 invalidated those 23 States term limits for their US Representatives. Newt Gingrich's Contract with America promised legislation in the first 100 days for a Constitution Amendment for term limits. The Term Limits Constitutional Amendment bill did not pass the 2/3 majority to move the bill forward and only passed with a simple majority of 227-204. It would have limited the House and Senate to 12 years total, six terms in the House, and two terms in the Senate. [121] [122] [123] [124]