Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
This resolution creates a new House Select Committee on Electoral Reform and sets its membership, co-chairs, duties, and operating rules. The committee is charged with studying how members of Congress are elected and evaluating alternative systems like proportional representation, ranked-choice voting, open primaries, and redistricting commissions. It must hold hearings, gather expert testimony, and issue a final report with recommendations to Congress and the President within one year of its first meeting. The committee has no power to report or enact legislation and will terminate 30 days after filing its final report.
This is a House simple resolution that only requires passage in the House; it does not become law, is not sent to the Senate or the President, and only governs House organization and rules. The resolution specifies certain exceptions to normal House committee rules, membership limits, and funding procedures for the Select Committee.
This resolution establishes a 14-member bipartisan Select Committee on Electoral Reform in the House to study how Americans elect Members of Congress.
The committee will examine alternatives such as multi-member districts with proportional representation, changes to House size, ranked-choice and cumulative voting, open primaries, fusion voting, and independent redistricting commissions.
It may hold hearings, review federal statutory barriers (including the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act), and must issue a final report with recommendations within one year.
Procedural, limited-cost study with bipartisan features raises odds of House adoption; controversial findings could slow follow-on action.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-formed select-committee resolution that clearly defines purpose, membership, scope of inquiry, procedural authorities, reporting requirements, and termination. It integrates with House rules and identifies specific laws to be examined.
Liberals emphasize proportionality and reducing gerrymanders
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize proportionality and reducing gerrymanders
Likely broadly supportive because the committee explicitly studies reforms progressives typically favor, such as proportional representation, ranked-choice voting, and independent commissions.
They will view the committee as a necessary step toward making representation more proportional and reducing partisan gerrymandering.
They may be cautious that the committee only studies and cannot itself legislate.
Generally supportive of a fact-finding committee that studies electoral alternatives in a bipartisan format, while remaining cautious about costs, timelines, and political motives.
Will value evidence-based analysis, balanced witnesses, and clear assessments of tradeoffs.
Concerned that recommendations could be politicized or lack feasibility.
Skeptical or opposed, viewing the committee as a vehicle to promote reforms that could weaken single-member districts and the two-party system.
Concerned about federal encroachment on state election design, expanding House size, and reforms that may advantage Democrats.
Might accept study in theory but distrusts likely outcomes.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Procedural, limited-cost study with bipartisan features raises odds of House adoption; controversial findings could slow follow-on action.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize proportionality and reducing gerrymanders
Procedural, limited-cost study with bipartisan features raises odds of House adoption; controversial findings could slow follow-on action.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-formed select-committee resolution that clearly defines purpose, membership, scope of inquiry, procedural authorities, reporting requirements, and terminati…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.