Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would guarantee a right to vote for every citizen of legal voting age in the jurisdiction where they reside. If the House and Senate each approve the proposal by the required supermajority and then three-fourths of state legislatures ratify it, the text becomes part of the Constitution. The proposed amendment would bar denial of the vote except for narrowly tailored rules to protect election integrity, require Congress-set election performance standards for states, require same-day registration and voting opportunities, and give Congress power to enforce the amendment. Constitutional amendment proposals are not sent to the President for signature or veto.
A constitutional amendment proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; the President has no role in ratification.
The resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing each U.S. citizen of legal voting age the right to vote in public elections where they reside.
It bars denial or abridgment of that right by government or private actors except for narrowly tailored integrity requirements, requires Congress to set election performance standards, mandates that states offer eligible voters the opportunity to register and vote on any election day, and grants Congress enforcement authority.
Constitutional amendment altering election rules faces high partisan friction, requires broad bipartisan support and many state ratifications; historically rare and difficult.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a broad constitutional right and corresponding state duties but relies heavily on future congressional legislation for operational detail. The amendment articulates its core rules but omits many implementation specifics, fiscal considerations, and explicit interactions with existing law.
Federal standards vs. state control over election administration
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Federal standards vs. state control over election administration
Likely to view the amendment positively as a strong expansion and constitutional protection of voting access.
Emphasis will be on the explicit right to vote, prohibition on private interference, and required same-day registration and voting opportunities.
Mixed support: welcomes stronger voting protections and clearer national standards, but worries about federal overreach, costs to states, and ambiguous language that could spawn litigation.
Seeks pragmatic fixes and funding assurances.
Likely to oppose or be skeptical, seeing the amendment as a federal takeover of elections that erodes state authority and may weaken election integrity.
Concerns center on preemption of state laws and new federal standards.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendment altering election rules faces high partisan friction, requires broad bipartisan support and many state ratifications; historically rare and difficult.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Federal standards vs. state control over election administration
Constitutional amendment altering election rules faces high partisan friction, requires broad bipartisan support and many state ratificatio…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a broad constitutional right and corresponding state duties but relies heavily on future congressional legislation for operational detail. The ame…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.