Johnny Olszewski(D-MD)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to a national referendum process.
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the United States Constitution to create a national referendum process. Under this process, the people would gain the right to enact laws or repeal existing laws by petition and a national vote. To start this process, a petition must be submitted to congressional officers with enough valid signatures gathered across multiple states within an 18-month period. If certified, the proposal goes on the ballot in the next qualifying election. If the measure receives at least 60 percent of the votes cast by qualified voters, it becomes law without needing the President's signature or approval.
Yes· 3 of 35
- Scored +8
Does this make elections run better?
The bill creates an entirely new mechanism for direct democracy through national ballot referendums.
- Scored +7
Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice?
The joint resolution establishes a national referendum process that allows citizens to directly enact or repeal laws via the ballot box.
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The legislation introduces a formalized public petition and certification process overseen by congressional officers.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The resolution establishes a nationwide electoral and legislative process administered by congressional officers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Direct Lawmaking Power: According to Section 1, the people are given the right to enact any law that Congress has the authority to pass, which allows citizens to directly participate in creating legislation.
-
Power to Repeal Laws: According to Section 2, the people can submit a petition to repeal a provision of law, giving individuals a direct way to remove existing laws they disagree with.
-
Protection Against Quick Congressional Overhaul: According to Section 3, Congress is restricted from repealing or amending a law enacted by the people—or reenacting a repealed law—for a two-year period unless they get a two-thirds affirmative vote in each House, which protects the people's successful ballot measures from immediate interference by elected officials.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Exclusion of Major Decisions: According to Section 1, the people are explicitly denied the right to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, make rules concerning captures on land and water, call forth the militia, allocate appropriations, or enact constitutional amendments, meaning citizens cannot use referendums for these specific actions.
-
Strict Signature Requirements: According to Section 2, a petition requires signatures from at least 5 percent of the voters from the most recent presidential election in each of at least 25 different states, alongside a total national signature count of at least 5 percent, all collected within an 18-month period, which could be a difficult burden for citizens to organize and meet.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — African American citizens gain an additional avenue of direct political participation to pass laws or repeal statutes.Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian American citizens are empowered with direct lawmaking and repeal capabilities via public petitions.Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers and rural residents participate in the nationwide petition and voting framework for enacting or repealing laws.Would gun owners be better off under this? — Gun owners can utilize the national referendum process to pursue or repeal laws concerning firearms.Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic Americans benefit from expanded direct democracy through national ballot referendums.Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The LGBTQ community gains an additional mechanism to pursue legislative goals directly through public petitions and voting.Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households gain a direct mechanism to propose and enact laws without relying solely on traditional congressional representation.Would men be better off under this? — Men are granted the same direct legislative capabilities provided by the proposed constitutional amendment.Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged citizens gain direct access to petition for new legislation or repeal existing laws through national voting.Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class citizens benefit from having direct legislative authority to enact or repeal federal statutes.Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Native Americans share in the constitutional expansion of direct voting rights on federal legislative proposals.Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with disabilities gain direct access to the legislative process through nationwide ballot measures.Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees gain direct legislative power to enact or repeal laws through the proposed referendum framework.Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents participate in the multi-state petition structure required to place initiatives on the national ballot.Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are granted direct participatory tools to influence federal laws via the ballot box.Would students be better off under this? — Students of voting age benefit from increased civic engagement opportunities through national referendums.Would workers who earn tips be better off under this? — Tipped workers are empowered to use national referendums to advance policy changes directly.Would union members be better off under this? — Union members gain a powerful direct tool to advocate for legislation outside of standard congressional channels.Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents share in the broad expansion of direct voting rights and petition processes.Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans benefit from the expanded ability of citizens to propose and pass federal legislation directly.Would white Americans be better off under this? — White Americans gain the same direct participatory tools to influence federal policy through national referendums.Would women be better off under this? — Women receive direct authority to participate in national ballot referendums to enact or repeal federal laws.Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The direct lawmaking power gives younger demographics an alternative channel to enact policy priorities outside of traditional legislative lobbying.Would billionaires be better off under this? — Billionaires are part of the citizenry that gains the ability to use national referendums to enact or repeal laws.Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners are included in the electorate empowered to propose and pass laws or repeal existing provisions.Would children be better off under this? — The national referendum process empowers citizens of voting age to pass laws that could broadly benefit families and children.Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income households can utilize the national referendum process alongside other citizens to shape federal policy.Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — High-net-worth individuals participate in the broader electorate granted new direct lawmaking authorities.Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants who are qualified electors gain access to the new direct lawmaking process established by the resolution.Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Ultra-high-net-worth individuals share in the constitutional right of the people to initiate national ballot measures.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make elections run better? — The bill creates an entirely new mechanism for direct democracy through national ballot referendums.Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — The measure protects and expands political speech by allowing citizens to circulate petitions and vote on national laws.Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation introduces a formalized public petition and certification process overseen by congressional officers.Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The resolution mandates that state chief executive officers place citizen-initiated referendum measures on state ballots.Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution establishes a nationwide electoral and legislative process administered by congressional officers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice? — The joint resolution establishes a national referendum process that allows citizens to directly enact or repeal laws via the ballot box.
- 10/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House