Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress for the admission of new States into the Union.

Bill Number

H.J.Res. 141

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Congress

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-01-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-01-26T14:54:34Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 141) proposes a constitutional amendment to raise the threshold for admitting new states to the United States, requiring a supermajority vote in Congress instead of a simple majority. The goal is to make the process more difficult, potentially preventing hasty or politically motivated additions that could alter the balance of power in Congress.

Key Provisions

• Admission Requirement: New states can only be admitted into the Union with the agreement of two-thirds of members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
• Restrictions on State Formation: No new state can be created within the borders of an existing state, or by combining parts of existing states, without the approval of the affected state legislatures and Congress. (This restates existing constitutional rules for clarity.)
• Ratification Process: The amendment would take effect only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths (38) of the states within seven years of Congress's approval.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Under the current U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 3), Congress can admit new states by a simple majority vote in both houses, as long as it follows the rules on state formation and consents.
• This proposal changes that by requiring a two-thirds supermajority (about 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate), making admission much harder without broad bipartisan support.
• The restatement of formation restrictions and the seven-year ratification limit are minor updates; the seven-year window is a common feature in many constitutional amendments to ensure timely action.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies and Congress: The higher voting threshold could slow or block efforts to admit new states, reducing Congress's flexibility in handling territories or regions seeking statehood. It might lead to more debate and negotiation in the legislative process.
• On Citizens: Residents of U.S. territories (like Puerto Rico, Guam, or Washington, D.C.) or other areas hoping for statehood may face longer delays in gaining full voting rights and representation in Congress, potentially affecting their access to federal benefits and political influence.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could influence U.S. policy toward territories with international ties (e.g., Puerto Rico's status discussions), making changes less likely without strong domestic consensus.
• Overall, it could preserve the current balance of political power in Congress by discouraging additions that might favor one party.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Congress: Members of the House and Senate, who would need broader consensus to admit states, potentially shifting power dynamics.
• Existing States: Their legislatures must approve any state formations involving their territory, and ratification by 38 states is required for the amendment to pass.
• Potential New States and Territories: Residents and governments of places like Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., or U.S. Virgin Islands, whose paths to statehood would become more challenging.
• U.S. Citizens Generally: Could affect national representation in Congress, as new states would add House seats and two Senators each, influencing laws on taxes, voting, and federal funding.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Constitutional: This would amend Article IV, Section 3, altering a core mechanism for U.S. expansion established since 1789. It requires the standard process for amendments: two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths of states— a high bar that has succeeded only 27 times in U.S. history.
• Legal: If ratified, it would bind future Congresses without loopholes, but challenges could arise if seen as infringing on Congress's plenary (full) power over territories. Courts might review admissions under this rule for compliance.
• Political: The change could reduce partisan incentives to admit states (e.g., to gain electoral advantage), promoting stability but possibly frustrating movements for self-determination in territories. As a proposed amendment, its fate depends on the political climate; introduced in 2026, it reflects debates over issues like D.C. or Puerto Rico statehood.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7]

Recent Actions

• 2026-01-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2026-01-21: Introduced in House
• 2026-01-21: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress for the admission of new States into the Union. — issued 2026-01-21 — PDF (2 pages)