Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that new States may be admitted to the United States upon a concurrence of two thirds of each house of Congress.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 99
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-07-18T13:09:03Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 99) proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish a specific voting threshold for Congress when admitting new states to the Union. The goal is to require a higher level of agreement in Congress for such admissions, potentially making the process more deliberate and consensus-driven.
Key Provisions
- Proposed Amendment Text: The resolution introduces a new article to the Constitution stating: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union upon the Concurrence of two thirds of each House."
- Ratification Process: The amendment would become part of the Constitution if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths (38) of the states.
- Introduction Details: Submitted on June 6, 2025, by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA), with cosponsors Representatives Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Scott Perry (R-PA); referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Under the current Constitution (Article IV, Section 3), Congress has the power to admit new states, but the document does not specify a required vote threshold—admissions have historically been approved by a simple majority (more than half) in each house.
- This amendment would impose a two-thirds supermajority requirement (approximately 67% approval) in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, raising the bar for approval and eliminating reliance on simple majorities.
- It does not alter other aspects of state admission, such as prohibitions on forming new states from existing ones without their legislatures' consent.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies and Congress: Would increase the difficulty of admitting new states, potentially leading to more prolonged debates and negotiations in Congress. Federal agencies involved in territorial governance (e.g., Department of the Interior) might face delays in preparing for statehood transitions.
- On Citizens: Residents of U.S. territories or areas seeking statehood (e.g., Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, or U.S. Virgin Islands) could experience slower paths to full voting rights and representation in Congress, as the higher threshold might block proposals that lack broad bipartisan support.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could affect U.S. territorial policies toward non-state entities with international ties, such as Puerto Rico's status discussions.
- Overall, it might reduce the frequency of new state admissions, preserving the current balance of congressional representation.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Congress: Directly impacted, as members would need to secure supermajority support for any statehood bills, affecting party strategies and legislative priorities.
- Residents of Territories and Potential New States: Groups advocating for statehood (e.g., in D.C. or Puerto Rico) may face greater hurdles, while opponents of expansion benefit from the higher threshold.
- Existing States and Their Legislatures: Could influence the balance of power in the Senate (equal representation per state) and House (population-based), with ratification requiring approval from 38 state legislatures.
- Advocacy Organizations: Pro-statehood groups and constitutional scholars would likely engage in debates over the amendment's effects on democratic representation.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional Implications: This would be a targeted change to Article IV, emphasizing supermajority consensus for a foundational power (state admission), akin to thresholds used for overriding vetoes or treaty ratifications. It requires no further congressional action beyond proposal, but ratification by states could spark legal challenges if perceived as altering federalism principles.
- Legal Implications: Admissions would still need to comply with other constitutional rules (e.g., no state formation without affected states' consent), but the supermajority could invite court scrutiny over procedural fairness in future cases.
- Political Implications: Likely to appeal to those wary of rapid territorial expansions that could shift partisan balances (e.g., adding Democratic-leaning states). As a proposed amendment, it highlights ongoing debates on U.S. expansion without addressing broader issues like territorial voting rights under the 14th Amendment. If ratified, it could set a precedent for supermajority requirements in other congressional actions.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (3)
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10], Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-06-06: Introduced in House
- 2025-06-06: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that new States may be admitted to the United States upon a concurrence of two thirds of each house of Congress. — issued 2025-06-06 — PDF (2 pages)