NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE I t looks as if House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is about to make a very avoidable blunder on term limits, an issue supported by more than three-fourths of Americans and an even greater share of Republicans. Indeed, every significant GOP presidential candidate except former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson supports the concept.

McCarthy — and Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan — will attempt to keep the promise they made to Freedom Caucus members who agreed to support McCarthy for Speaker only after he agreed he would hold a floor vote on term limits. A vote this summer would honor that pledge — but only in theory.

The problem? The bill that McCarthy is likely to bring to the House floor is a term limit of twelve years in the House and twelve years in the Senate (so one politician could serve a total of 24 years) — longer than Americans want, according to polls.

That’s reflected in the fact that nearly half of McCarthy’s GOP caucus — 105 out of 222 members — have pledged not to support any limit longer than six years in the House. These members signed the U.S. Term Limits pledge, publicly declaring they would never support a House limit in excess of three terms. So, if they vote for the McCarthy-Jordan plan, they’ll be breaking their word to constituents.

If they keep their pledges and vote against the 24-year toothless limit, future opponents will mischaracterize their opposition and torment them for voting against term limits. It would be a lose–lose political outcome in the truest sense.

To illustrate the dilemma here: Several incumbents have already caught flack for retreating from their pledge on term limits. Representatives Derrick Van Orden (R., Wis.), Young Kim (R., Calif.), and Claudia Tenney (R., N.Y.) — who have all flirted with longer limits — have been met with billboards and TV ads attacking them as potential pledge-breakers. Tenney, for example, has been criticized in attack ads and negative op-eds funded by U.S. Term Limits itself or Term Limits Action, a super PAC.

While it would be easy to dismiss these groups as term-limit fanatics, their positions supporting shorter term limits resonate with people outside the Washington Beltway bubble. According to a poll by McLaughlin and Associates, 79 percent of Americans favor congressional term limits. Of that group, 67 percent say the House limit should be three terms or fewer. Partisanship isn’t a factor in this debate; 70 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats agree that shorter term limits are best.

The logic behind the pledge is also easy to grasp. Term limits will happen only via a constitutional amendment, meaning its supporters get only one bite at the apple. If the chosen limit is too long, it will fail to curb the seniority system, which has resulted in our era of notably elderly leaders.

Without term limits, the doors of Congress will not open to serious, goal-oriented citizens who don’t view themselves as career politicians. Insisting that members unify around one proposal makes all the sense in the world. It is a necessary precaution to ensure that term limits won’t fail because of fractured support, as happened under Newt Gingrich’s GOP.

Fortunately, Speaker McCarthy still has plenty of time to avoid putting his members’ credibility in jeopardy. Surely he would also want to avoid a primary challenge in his very conservative California district. It cannot be too far from his mind that Tom Foley — the only House Speaker to lose reelection since Galusha Grow, in 1862 — was defeated in 1994 for standing in the path of the term-limits movement.

Remember, even if by some miracle the House is able to pass a term-limits amendment by the required two-thirds majority, it will still be dead on arrival in the Democratic Senate. No current House member is actually in danger of losing his or her seat to a strict term limit. Since this is largely a show vote, why not showcase the most popular proposal available? It would also rob Democrats of political cover. Democratic leaders, of course, oppose any and all term limits, even on committee chairs in Congress.

All McCarthy needs to do is ask Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to pass through committee a three-term bill. This way, the 105 pledge-signers could keep their promise to constituents while still having legislation to champion.

Alternatively, the six-term bill could pass with a structured rule, allowing pledge-signers to express their support for a floor amendment for a limit of three House terms. The amendment would probably fail, but it would still get those who pledged for shorter term limits on record for them.