Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would require Members of Congress to demonstrate competence in United States government by passing a civics exam administered by Congress. If Congress approves the amendment and three-fourths of the states ratify it, the amendment would become part of the Constitution. The amendment directs Congress to create and publish the exam every ten years, provide free testing and certificates, and allow newly elected or appointed Members an opportunity to demonstrate competence. It also says Congress may pass enforcement laws that would take effect without needing the President's approval.
A proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the states; such proposals are not sent to the President.
This proposed constitutional amendment would require Members of Congress to demonstrate competence in American civics via an examination established by Congress every ten years tied to the census cycle.
Each House would publish the exam questions and answers in its Journal, provide free administration and certificates, and allow newly elected or appointed members a post-election opportunity to demonstrate competence.
No person could serve as Representative or Senator without demonstrating competence under the exam in effect at their election or appointment.
Altering qualifications and curtailing presidential approval are constitutionally significant and require broad bipartisan consensus unlikely for such structural change.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill plainly establishes a new constitutional qualification—requiring Members of Congress to demonstrate civics competence—and prescribes a recurring exam framework together with publication and certification obligations. The text supplies some high-level administrative assignments but leaves numerous critical implementation, fiscal, legal-integration, and safeguards unspecified.
Left sees disenfranchisement and politicization risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left sees disenfranchisement and politicization risks
Liberal observers would be skeptical or opposed, viewing the amendment as a potential barrier to democratic representation.
They would acknowledge goals of civic knowledge but worry about discriminatory application, politicization, and unequal impacts on marginalized candidates.
Centrists would weigh the principle of competent representation against practical and legal risks.
They would see merit in setting a civic baseline but want objective standards, clear procedures, and protections against politicization.
Mainstream conservatives would generally support raising civic standards for lawmakers and protecting the Constitution, while favoring limited testing scope.
Some would warn against expanding federal bureaucracy or burdensome procedures, but many would welcome greater civic fidelity.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Altering qualifications and curtailing presidential approval are constitutionally significant and require broad bipartisan consensus unlikely for such structural change.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left sees disenfranchisement and politicization risks
Altering qualifications and curtailing presidential approval are constitutionally significant and require broad bipartisan consensus unlike…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill plainly establishes a new constitutional qualification—requiring Members of Congress to demonstrate civics competence—and prescribes a recurring exam framework togeth…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.