Composition and Election of the Senate

1. The United States Senate shall consist of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for a single term of twelve (12) years.
2. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than once. A former Senator shall be ineligible for reelection to the Senate.
3. Senate elections shall be staggered so that one-third of the Senate is elected every four (4) years.
4. If a vacancy occurs, the governor of the state shall appoint a temporary Senator to serve until the next regularly scheduled federal election, at which time a special election shall be held to fill the remainder of the term.

Legislative Procedure and the Filibuster

1. The filibuster, or any rule requiring a supermajority for general legislation, is hereby abolished.
2. The Senate shall operate under simple majority rule for all legislative matters, except as follows:
   • Any law that restricts voting rights, civil rights, reproductive rights, or free speech must receive at least 60 votes in the Senate to pass.
   • Any law that grants new executive powers or expands presidential authority must receive at least 55 votes in the Senate and pass the House of Representatives.

Proportional Representation in the Senat

1. This provision shall take effect at the beginning of the first Senate term following the next regularly scheduled federal election after ratification of this amendment.
2. Each state shall continue to elect two Senators to the United States Senate, as provided by the Constitution.
3. Each Senator shall cast a vote weighted in proportion to the population of the state they represent, based on the most recent decennial census.
4. The weight of each Senator’s vote shall be determined using the same apportionment formula as the House of Representatives, ensuring that the total voting power of a state’s Senate delegation reflects its share of the national population.
5. The Congressional Budget Office, in coordination with the Census Bureau, shall publish updated voting weights within one year following each decennial census.
6. In cases where a Senator’s weighted vote results in a fraction, votes shall be rounded to the nearest hundredth for procedural purposes.

Public Right to Repeal Legislation

1. Laws concerning appropriations, national security, and emergency powers shall be exempt from this repeal process, unless they expand executive authority beyond constitutional limits.
2. Any law passed by Congress may be subject to a national referendum for repeal if a petition is signed by at least 5% of registered voters nationwide within one (1) year of the law’s enactment.
3. If a law restricts fundamental rights, the public repeal process shall be expedited, requiring a vote within three (3) months of the petition’s verification.

Campaign Finance and Lobbying Restrictions

1. Upon leaving office, no former Senator shall engage in lobbying or paid advocacy before Congress for a period of ten (10) years.
2. Senators shall be prohibited from receiving campaign donations, gifts, or financial contributions from lobbyists, corporations, or political action committees (PACs).
3. Senators may only fund their campaigns through public financing and individual contributions, with individual donations capped at an amount set by Congress but not to exceed $1,000 per donor per election cycle.

Implementation and Transition

1. Elections for newly structured Senate terms shall begin with the next regularly scheduled Senate elections following ratification.
2. This amendment shall take effect upon ratification but shall not apply retroactively to sitting Senators.

This amendment aims to reform the U.S. Senate by implementing weighted voting, which addresses the issue of malapportionment, while maintaining equal representation for states. It prevents corruption by reducing the power of small states and makes the Senate more reflective of the U.S. population, ensuring it serves the people.

The current structure of the Senate gives disproportionate power to smaller states, which can block or delay important legislation. This creates gridlock and is often exploited by lobbyists and corporate interests. Reforming the Senate will ensure it better reflects the will of the majority of Americans.

No. Each state will still have two Senators, but their votes will now be weighted based on population. This preserves the principle of state representation while fixing the imbalance between small and large states.

Each Senator’s vote will be weighted according to the population of their state, based on the most recent census. This means Senators from more populous states will have a slightly stronger vote than those from less populous states, making the Senate more proportionally representative of the American people.

By preventing small, less representative states from blocking important reforms, the amendment ensures that the Senate can act decisively on issues that protect the Constitution and prevent the concentration of power in the executive branch.

While small states will still have equal representation, their votes will be weighted less. Larger states will have a greater proportion of voting power, preventing small states from blocking legislation that has broad national support.

By reducing the overrepresentation of small states, this amendment limits the influence of powerful interest groups and lobbyists who often focus on a small number of Senators. With more proportional representation, it becomes harder for a few wealthy donors to control the legislative process.

Yes. By adjusting voting weights, the Senate will more accurately reflect the population of the U.S. This allows for more equal representation of the American people, making the Senate’s decisions more in line with public opinion.

The amendment prevents authoritarianism by making it harder for a small number of Senators to obstruct legislation that protects individual rights. It ensures that the Senate cannot be used as a tool by a minority to block progress on crucial national issues, such as civil rights and democracy.

While it gives larger states more voting power in the Senate, it still maintains equal state representation. Larger states will have more influence, but the balance of power will be more in line with the population of the United States. This means, when people move to different locations due to where jobs are, they don’t lose voting impact. The point of the Senate is to give representation and voice to people in all states, not to become a body that blocks the will of the majority of Americans based on where they live.

The filibuster is a procedural rule in the U.S. Senate that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote on legislation by extending debate on the measure.

The filibuster is considered anti-democratic because it allows a small minority of senators to prevent legislation from passing, even if it has the support of the majority of senators and the American people. This undermines the principle of majority rule, which is fundamental to democratic governance.

The filibuster exacerbates the already unequal representation in the Senate, where states with small populations have the same number of senators as states with large populations. This means that a senator from a small state can wield disproportionate power, further distorting the representation of the American people.

In recent years, the filibuster has been used more frequently and strategically to block legislation without even debating it. This has prevented the Senate from acting on important issues, such as voting rights, raising the minimum wage, securing equal pay, and enacting commonsense gun reforms, despite these issues having broad public support.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both emphasized the importance of majority rule. Madison argued that requiring more than a majority to pass legislation would reverse the fundamental principle of free government. Hamilton warned that giving a minority the power to block the majority’s will would be a poison to democratic governance.

The filibuster can paralyze the legislative process, making it difficult for the Senate to pass laws that reflect the will of the American people. This can lead to a lack of progress on critical issues and a sense of frustration and disenfranchisement among voters.

Reforming or eliminating the filibuster is important to ensure that the Senate can function as a democratic body where the majority can effectively pass legislation. This would make the Senate more responsive to the will of the people and help restore trust in the democratic process.

The filibuster can paralyze the legislative process, making it difficult for the Senate to pass laws that reflect the will of the American people. This can lead to a lack of progress on critical issues and a sense of frustration and disenfranchisement among voters.

Alternatives to the current filibuster rule include reducing the number of votes required to end debate, implementing a “talking filibuster” where senators must continuously speak on the floor to maintain a filibuster, or eliminating the filibuster entirely for certain types of legislation. These changes would help ensure that the Senate can operate more democratically while still allowing for thorough debate and minority input.

Malapportionment refers to the unequal representation of citizens in legislative bodies. In the Senate, each state, regardless of population size, is represented by two senators. This means that states with smaller populations have the same representation as states with much larger populations, leading to unequal representation. For example, a senator from Wyoming represents about 580,000 people, while a senator from California represents nearly 40 million people. This imbalance means that the votes of individuals in smaller states carry much more weight than those in larger states.

Democratic principles are based on the idea of equal representation, where each person’s vote should carry roughly the same weight. Malapportionment in the Senate violates this principle by giving disproportionate power to residents of smaller states. This can result in legislation that does not reflect the preferences of the majority of Americans, undermining the concept of government by the people.

The structure of the Senate, with its small number of members and the significant power each senator holds, creates an environment where individual senators can be heavily lobbied by special interest groups. With only 100 senators, a relatively small number of votes can determine the outcome of crucial legislation, making each senator a valuable target for lobbying efforts. This can lead to a situation where senators might be more influenced by financial contributions and promises from lobbyists than by the will of their constituents.

The equal representation of states, regardless of population, means that the Senate does not reflect the democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” Instead, it reflects a compromise made during the drafting of the Constitution to balance the interests of small and large states. This compromise has resulted in a legislative body that can pass laws and confirm appointments that do not align with the preferences of the majority of Americans.

Under the current constitution, changing the structure of the Senate would require a constitutional amendment.

Yes. The weighted voting system ensures that bills with broad public support, including progressive reforms, are less likely to be blocked by a minority of Senators. It strengthens the ability of the Senate to pass legislation that serves the majority of Americans.

By making the Senate more representative of the population, this amendment reduces the ability of a minority of Senators to block laws. The new system makes it more difficult for special interest groups to obstruct the legislative process.

This amendment prevents a small number of Senators, particularly those from smaller, rural states, from holding too much power over national policy. This limits the influence of lobbyists who often target a small group of key Senators, reducing the risk of corruption.

Yes. The amendment ensures that the Senate can no longer be dominated by a minority of Senators who might oppose protections for individual rights. This makes it easier to pass laws that defend rights such as voting, reproductive health, and free speech.

Yes, the amendment will make the Senate more efficient and representative. It will increase accountability and transparency by aligning Senate votes more closely with the will of the people, leading to more productive lawmaking.

States with low populations will still have equal representation in the Senate, but their votes will be weighted less. This ensures that the influence of smaller states is proportional to their population size, reducing the imbalance that currently exists.

The Senate can still block constitutional amendments as defined in Article V, but the weighted voting system makes it less likely for a small group of Senators to prevent amendments that have broad national support.

However, assuming the Citizen-led Amendment Pathway is passed first, the Senate would have no way to stop a citizen-led amendment from passing since that process would rely only on citizens and not politicians in the federal or state government.

By adjusting voting power to be more representative of the U.S. population, the amendment reduces the likelihood that a few wealthy donors can manipulate a small group of Senators to block legislation. The change ensures that the Senate will better reflect the interests of the majority of Americans.

Yes, the amendment ensures that the Senate remains a check on executive power. By making the Senate more representative, it will be harder for a small group of Senators to block bills aimed at curbing presidential overreach or authoritarian actions.