Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to a national referendum process.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 22, 2026
Bottom line
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to introduce direct democracy at the federal level for most legislative matters, fundamentally altering the balance of power between citizens, Congress, and the President.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to establish a national referendum process, enabling citizens to directly enact or repeal federal laws. It outlines a petition process requiring broad multi-state support and a 60% popular vote threshold for enactment, bypassing presidential approval and temporarily restricting congressional modification.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this amendment would empower citizens, increase government accountability, and bypass legislative gridlock, ensuring that popular will can directly translate into law, making the federal government more responsive to the people.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this amendment would undermine representative democracy, lead to impulsive or poorly considered laws, and potentially allow well-funded special interests to manipulate the referendum process, bypassing the deliberative process of Congress.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core proposal.
Article --, Section 1
Direct Legislative Power for Citizens
This section grants citizens the power to directly enact any law that Congress could pass, with specific exceptions. These exceptions prevent direct referendums on declaring war, issuing letters of marque, making rules for captures, calling forth the militia, allocating appropriations, or amending the Constitution.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this empowers the citizenry, making government more directly accountable and responsive to public sentiment, bypassing legislative inertia.
Critics contend
Critics contend this undermines the principle of representative democracy, potentially leading to laws enacted by popular passion rather than careful deliberation and expert consideration.
Tradeoffs
Balances direct democratic participation against the deliberative process and expertise of a representative legislature, and the need for stability in governance.
Article --, Section 2
National Referendum Petition Requirements
This section outlines the rigorous requirements for initiating a national referendum. A petition must be signed by at least 5% of the presidential election voters in at least 25 states, and the total number of signatures nationwide must also be at least 5% of the total presidential election voters. Signatures must be collected within an 18-month period and validated by congressional officers within 90 days.
Article --, Section 3
Referendum Enactment and Congressional Review
For a proposed law or repeal to pass via referendum, it must receive at least 60% of the votes cast by qualified voters. Such a law takes effect without presidential signature or veto. Congress is then prohibited from repealing or amending the enacted law, or reenacting a repealed law, for a two-year period, unless they do so with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.
The bill refers to "an officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and an officer of the U.S. Senate" and "officers designated by Congress" for petition submission, validation, and certification, but does not specify who these officers are.
Article --, Section 2
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for constitutional amendments, which typically set broad principles and leave implementing details to subsequent legislation. It avoids bogging down the amendment with specific administrative roles.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this flexibility allows Congress to adapt the administrative process over time without needing another constitutional amendment, ensuring the process remains efficient and relevant.
Case against: Critics might argue that leaving these critical roles undefined creates ambiguity and potential for partisan manipulation in the selection of officers responsible for validating petitions, which could be a bottleneck for direct democracy.
Estimated impact: Could significantly impact the practical feasibility and fairness of the referendum process, depending on how Congress defines these roles.
While granting the people the right to enact any law Congress has authority to pass, Section 1 explicitly excludes the power 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.
Article --, Section 1
Why it matters:These are critical limitations on the scope of direct democracy, reflecting areas traditionally reserved for the deliberative and often swift action of the representative body, particularly in matters of national security and fundamental law.
Case for: Proponents would argue these exclusions are necessary to protect core governmental functions (like national defense and constitutional integrity) from potentially impulsive or uninformed popular votes, preserving the stability of the state.
Case against: Opponents might argue that excluding appropriations, for example, limits the people's ability to influence fundamental government spending priorities, which are often a major source of public discontent.
Estimated impact: Significantly limits the scope of direct democracy, particularly in fiscal and national security matters.