Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to change how new States are admitted, requiring two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate. After passage by Congress, it must be sent to the states and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures to become part of the Constitution. The proposal includes a seven-year deadline for that state ratification, and it has no legal effect until the required state approvals occur. Constitutional amendment proposals are not sent to the President.
Constitutional amendments require approval by both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states; this resolution includes a seven-year deadline for state ratification and would not be presented to the President.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of both the House and Senate for Congress to admit new States into the Union.
It preserves current prohibitions on forming new States within existing States without consent.
The amendment includes a seven-year ratification deadline and would take effect if ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Constitutional amendments rarely achieve required congressional supermajorities and three-fourths state ratification; subject is divisive.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused constitutional amendment that is clearly and precisely drafted to alter the congressional threshold for admitting new States. It specifies the operative rule change, incorporates relevant existing clause language, and provides a standard ratification deadline.
Progressives emphasize territory self-determination and blocked statehood.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize territory self-determination and blocked statehood.
Likely opposed.
The amendment raises the bar for admitting new States, making statehood for places like D.C. or Puerto Rico much harder.
It will be viewed as a procedural barrier that entrenches the current congressional balance.
Mixed reaction.
The amendment promotes broader consensus for major changes, but constitutionalizing a supermajority requirement risks gridlock and may be perceived as partisan.
Support hinges on neutral intent and clear criteria.
Generally supportive.
The amendment protects the federal balance and prevents partisan maneuvers to expand Senate representation.
Raising the threshold aligns with conservative preferences for limited, deliberate constitutional change.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments rarely achieve required congressional supermajorities and three-fourths state ratification; subject is divisive.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize territory self-determination and blocked statehood.
Constitutional amendments rarely achieve required congressional supermajorities and three-fourths state ratification; subject is divisive.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused constitutional amendment that is clearly and precisely drafted to alter the congressional threshold for admitting new States. It specifies the o…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.