Term-Limit Design Case Library
A curated set of real-world examples suitable for evaluation using the Framework for Evaluating Term-Limit Design. Each entry includes a public source link and a neutral description designed for testing with the Structural Rotation Integrity Test and the Normative Evaluation Test, or for general reference.
How to use this library
This page is designed to support structured analysis, not to advance any position. The Framework distinguishes between two complementary forms of evaluation:
The Structural Rotation Integrity Test examines whether a design functions coherently as a mechanical system (e.g., aggregation, eligibility, incentives, enforceability).
The Normative Evaluation Test examines how a design aligns with stated values (e.g., fairness, legitimacy, proportionality, accountability).
Examples may be used in several ways:
• Test an example using the Framework — Copy either (a) the neutral description on this page or (b) relevant text from the linked source, and evaluate it using the Structural Rotation Integrity Test or the Normative Evaluation Test.
• Evaluate proposed or enacted text — Apply the Framework to the text of ordinances, statutes, ballot measures, or constitutional amendments, not only to news descriptions.
• Compare structures across jurisdictions — Read across examples to observe recurring design patterns, tradeoffs, and structural features.
• Practice neutral analysis — Use the descriptions as exercises in distinguishing descriptive facts from evaluative conclusions.
• Track developments over time — New examples may be added as relevant cases arise.
The examples are intentionally selective rather than comprehensive. Inclusion reflects analytical usefulness, not importance or endorsement.
Example 1 — United States: Presidential Term Limit (Twenty-Second Amendment, 1951)
Source: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xxii
The Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes an eligibility limit on the presidency. Ratified in 1951, it provides that no person may be elected to the office of President more than twice, and that a person who has served more than two years of a term to which another person was elected may be elected only once. The Amendment includes a transitional provision stating that it does not apply to the individual holding the presidency at the time the Amendment was proposed by Congress, thereby creating a one-time exemption for the sitting President but not an ongoing exempt class.
The text functions as a formal constitutional rule governing eligibility for office. It is included here as a real-world example of an enacted term-limit structure suitable for direct evaluation using the Framework, including application of the Structural Rotation Integrity Test to the operative language itself.
Example 2 — Lake Forest, CA: Term-Limit Rollback Discussion (2026)
Source: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2026-01-11/lake-forest-term-limits
In Lake Forest, California, voters approved a 2018 ballot measure limiting city councilmembers to two consecutive four-year terms, with approximately 82.5% support. In late 2025, a sitting councilmember requested that the city attorney prepare options for reconsidering or revising those limits, citing that other cities were revisiting their own term-limit rules. Another councilmember suggested discussion of extending limits to three consecutive terms. The issue is expected to return to the council agenda in 2026. Public comments reported in coverage have included both support for and opposition to any extension.
Example 3 — Indiana: Proposed Legislative Term Limits (2026)
Source: https://www.indianahousedemocrats.org/news/yqkw6dgstgjzffl5kai1jl4pz4ftbz
In Indiana’s 2026 legislative session, a proposal was introduced to establish term limits for state legislators. The proposal would cap eligibility for service in the General Assembly at a combined total of 20 years of legislative service or until a legislator reaches 70 years of age, whichever occurs first. Indiana currently has no term limits for state legislators. The proposal would represent a shift from the existing structure by introducing both a service-based and age-based eligibility constraint.
Example 4 — South Dakota: Term Limits Return to Agenda (2026)
Reporting on the opening of South Dakota’s 2026 legislative session notes that term limits are once again among the recurring issues likely to receive attention. While the article does not present finalized legislative text, it identifies term limits as part of the ongoing policy landscape and legislative agenda. The coverage illustrates how eligibility rules governing officeholders remain subject to periodic reconsideration within the legislative process.
Example 5 — Missouri: Constitutional Structure Proposals (2026)
Source: https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2026/01/06/lawmakers-change-missouri-constitution-2026/
Missouri lawmakers pre-filed a large number of proposed constitutional changes ahead of the 2026 legislative session, including proposals addressing institutional structure, legislative process, and governance mechanisms. While the article is not limited to term limits, it reflects a broader environment in which structural rules governing political offices are being actively reconsidered. The context illustrates how constitutional architecture questions frequently arise within ordinary legislative cycles.
Example 6 — Malaysia: Prime Minister Tenure Cap Debate (2026)
Source: https://thesun.my/news/malaysia-news/politics/pm-tenure-cap-reflects-modern-politics/
In early 2026, public and political discussion in Malaysia emerged regarding whether the Prime Minister’s tenure should be formally capped. Commentary reflects differing views on whether term limits would strengthen democratic accountability or constrain political flexibility. The article highlights how debates over tenure limits are not confined to the United States and often involve similar tensions between stability, experience, and rotation.
Example 7 — North Dakota: Override Effort After Voter-Adopted Limits (2025–2026)
Source (paywalled article referenced): https://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/government-politics/article_ffa385e7-a966-490b-a447-d5d3430815cb.html
In 2022, North Dakota voters approved constitutional term limits for state legislators that included an anti-tampering provision stating that the Legislature could not amend or repeal the limits. In 2025–2026, members of the Legislature initiated efforts to revisit the limits, including proposals to study the effects of the amendment and to place before voters a new constitutional amendment that would modify the structure of the original limits and remove or override the anti-tampering provision. Public reporting describes significant disagreement over these efforts, including debate about legislative authority, voter intent, and the durability of voter-adopted eligibility constraints.
Last updated: January 2026