The 21st Century Constitution: Seven Bold Reforms for a More Perfect Union

Prepared by: Rodney LaBruce, Candidate for U.S. Congress, TX-30

Unified Advocacy and Leadership Coalition (UALC)

This combined white paper outlines seven major reforms to realign U.S. governance with democratic values:

I. Campaign Finance Reform: Overturning Citizens United

Objective:

This white paper proposes a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC and regulate campaign finance. It advocates for restoring the power of Congress and the states to limit money in politics, reducing the undue influence of corporations and wealthy donors.

Introduction:

The Citizens United decision in 2010 equated money with free speech and opened the door for unlimited political spending by corporations and special interest groups. As a result, elections have become increasingly dominated by dark money, distorting democratic processes and eroding public trust.

Key Problems:

- Unlimited corporate and PAC spending overwhelms grassroots candidates.

- Dark money groups conceal donor identities.

- Policy decisions increasingly reflect elite donor interests over public needs.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Constitutional Amendment: Clarify that spending money is not protected speech and that corporations are not people.

2. Empower Federal and State Governments: Restore their ability to set contribution limits and spending transparency requirements.

3. Public Financing of Campaigns: Encourage small-dollar contributions and level the playing field.

Implementation:

- Work with reform coalitions like Move to Amend and RepresentUs.

- Push for state-level resolutions calling for a constitutional convention on campaign finance reform.

- Launch a national public awareness campaign highlighting how money corrupts policy outcomes.

II. Congressional Term Limits: Restoring Accountability and Renewal

Objective:

This white paper proposes term limits for members of Congress to reduce entrenched power, enhance legislative responsiveness, and increase diversity in leadership.

Introduction:

The Founders never intended for political office to become a lifelong career. Yet today, some members of Congress have served for over 40 years. This has led to stagnation, decreased accountability, and a disconnect from the public.

Key Problems:

- Career politicians accumulate outsized influence.

- Voter dissatisfaction grows due to perceived disconnect from everyday concerns.

- New voices and ideas are stifled.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Term Limits Amendment: Cap House members to 6 terms (12 years) and Senators to 2 terms (12 years).

2. Phased Implementation: Apply limits to new terms moving forward to prevent disruption.

3. Broader Electoral Reform: Combine with ranked-choice voting or open primaries to further increase competition.

Implementation:

- Introduce federal legislation and coordinate state-level support.

- Mobilize grassroots coalitions and bipartisan support.

- Frame the issue as both anti-corruption and pro-democracy.

III. Voting Rights Amendment: Enshrining the Right to Vote

Objective:

To establish a constitutional right to vote and authorize federal protection against voter suppression.

Introduction:

The right to vote is fundamental, yet the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee it. Recent court decisions and state laws have restricted access through voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and roll purges.

Key Problems:

- No explicit constitutional right to vote.

- State-led voter suppression efforts.

- Supreme Court rollback of Voting Rights Act provisions (e.g., Shelby County v. Holder).

Proposed Solutions:

1. Constitutional Amendment: Guarantee the right to vote in federal and state elections.

2. Automatic Registration: Enshrine automatic and same-day registration as a right.

3. Federal Oversight: Restore federal preclearance for states with histories of voter suppression.

Implementation:

- Work with civil rights groups and legislators.

- Launch education campaigns about disenfranchisement.

- Push for parallel passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

IV. Equal Rights Amendment: Guaranteeing Gender Equality

Objective:

To ratify or reaffirm the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), guaranteeing equal rights under the law regardless of sex.

Introduction:

Nearly a century after its introduction, the ERA remains unratified despite public support. The amendment is critical for ensuring gender equality in employment, healthcare, and legal protections.

Key Problems:

- Women and gender minorities lack explicit constitutional protection.

- Legal challenges persist in workplace discrimination and reproductive autonomy.

- Patchwork state laws provide inconsistent protections.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Ratify the ERA: Affirm that the amendment has met the threshold and adopt it nationally.

2. Reintroduce the Amendment: If needed, restart the ratification process to remove any ambiguity.

3. Educate Public and Courts: Normalize the ERA as settled law through advocacy and judicial precedent.

Implementation:

- Partner with women’s advocacy groups and legal experts.

- Mobilize grassroots movements to pressure remaining states.

- Use media to highlight gender disparities and build support.

V. Judicial Ethics and Recusal Standards: Restoring Integrity to the Supreme Court

Objective:

To implement enforceable ethics rules and recusal standards for Supreme Court justices.

Introduction:

The U.S. Supreme Court currently operates without a binding code of ethics. Justices decide for themselves whether to recuse from cases, even with clear conflicts of interest. This lack of oversight erodes public trust.

Key Problems:

- No enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

- Justices with political ties or conflicts of interest preside over major cases.

- Public perception of the Court as biased and unaccountable.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Ethics Code Amendment: Establish mandatory ethics rules for Supreme Court justices.

2. Independent Oversight Body: Create a judicial ethics panel to review recusal matters and issue public reports.

3. Transparent Disclosures: Require justices to disclose financial, familial, and political entanglements.

Implementation:

- Build bipartisan coalitions focused on judicial integrity.

- Frame as a rule-of-law issue rather than partisan reform.

- Tie public support to recent examples of perceived judicial misconduct.

VI. Ending the Electoral College – A Strategy for Reform

Objective

This white paper outlines a comprehensive strategy for ending the Electoral College, a system historically linked to appeasing Southern slaveholding states at the time of its creation. The goal is to replace the Electoral College with a more democratic method of electing the president, such as a national popular vote. The paper explores the historical context of the Electoral College, examines why it is problematic today, and presents a coordinated federal, state, and local strategy to abolish it through constitutional reform.

Historical Context of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was established as part of the United States Constitution in 1787, and it was born out of compromises designed to balance competing interests among the states. One of the most critical compromises involved the tension between the Northern and Southern states, particularly concerning the issue of slavery.

1. Appeasement of Slaveholding States: Southern states, where slavery was the backbone of the economy, wanted to ensure they had political power that was proportional to their populations, including the enslaved individuals who could not vote. The "Three-Fifths Compromise" allowed slaveholding states to count three out of every five enslaved people toward their population, thereby inflating their political representation in the House of Representatives and, by extension, the Electoral College. This system granted disproportionate political power to the Southern states, enabling them to protect the institution of slavery and influence presidential elections.

2. Historical Consequences: This arrangement helped elect pro-slavery presidents and contributed to maintaining the institution of slavery for decades. Even after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the Electoral College continued to reflect these undemocratic compromises, with states’ electoral votes not always reflecting the true will of the people.

3. Modern-Day Disparities: Today, the Electoral College remains a controversial institution. Several presidential elections, including those in 2000 and 2016, resulted in the election of a candidate who lost the popular vote. Critics argue that the system disproportionately favors smaller, less populated states and undermines the principle of "one person, one vote."

Why Ending the Electoral College is Necessary

1. Undemocratic Outcomes

The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote, which has happened five times in U.S. history. This undermines the democratic principle that every vote should count equally.

2. Disproportionate Power of Smaller States

The current system gives smaller states more political weight than larger states, distorting the balance of power in presidential elections. A voter in a smaller state has more electoral influence than a voter in a larger state, violating the principle of equal representation.

3. Swing States Dominate Campaigns

Presidential candidates focus their campaigns on a handful of swing states, ignoring large portions of the country. This means that millions of voters in "safe" states are largely overlooked in presidential elections, which diminishes their political power.

4. Historical Legacy of Slavery

The Electoral College is rooted in a compromise designed to protect the institution of slavery, and its continued existence perpetuates a system originally intended to grant disproportionate power to slaveholding states. Ending the Electoral College would be a step toward dismantling this vestige of inequality.

Proposed Solutions

1. Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Electoral College

The most direct path to ending the Electoral College is through a constitutional amendment. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution would need to be amended to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote.

1. Action Steps:

2. Federal Strategy: Work with members of Congress to introduce a joint resolution for a constitutional amendment. This resolution must pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate.

3. State Strategy: After passing Congress, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures. Building support in key states is essential, with efforts focused on states where public support for electoral reform is high.

2. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

An alternative to a constitutional amendment is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. If enough states (representing 270 electoral votes) join the compact, the Electoral College system would become functionally irrelevant.

1. Action Steps:

2. State-Level Advocacy: Lobby state legislatures to join the NPVIC. As of 2023, 16 states and Washington, D.C., representing 195 electoral votes, have joined the compact.

3. Local Strategy: Mobilize grassroots movements and local organizations to pressure state lawmakers, especially in swing states or states with a strong interest in electoral reform, to join the compact.

3. Public Education and Advocacy Campaign

Changing the Electoral College system will require broad public support. A coordinated public education campaign is necessary to explain the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College and its historical connection to slavery.

1. Action Steps:

2. Public Awareness: Develop media campaigns, social media outreach, and educational materials that focus on how the Electoral College disenfranchises voters and perpetuates historical inequities.

3. Local Activism: Partner with civil rights organizations, universities, and grassroots activists to host events, town halls, and discussions about the need for reform.

4. Building Bipartisan Support

Electoral reform must transcend party lines. While the movement to end the Electoral College often aligns with progressive politics, it’s important to appeal to conservatives and moderates by emphasizing the value of a more direct, democratic system for all voters.

1. Action Steps:

2. Engage Moderates and Conservatives: Highlight the disproportionate power swing states hold and how a national popular vote would make every voter matter, regardless of geography.

3. Coalition Building: Work with libertarian and centrist groups that favor more direct democratic processes, emphasizing the benefits of national electoral equality.

Implementation Strategies

To ensure that the movement to end the Electoral College is successful, the following implementation strategies will be used:

1. Targeted Federal and State Advocacy

Focus on building support for a constitutional amendment or the NPVIC through coordinated efforts at both the federal and state levels.

1. Federal Level: Identify and lobby key members of Congress who could introduce and champion an amendment. Focus efforts on lawmakers from both parties to secure the two-thirds majority required in both houses.

2. State Level: Prioritize states with large electoral vote counts and those that have historically shown support for electoral reform. Organize state-level advocacy campaigns, mobilize local voters, and coordinate with national organizations to push for ratification of the NPVIC or a constitutional amendment.

2. Public-Private Partnerships

Form partnerships with private organizations, think tanks, and media outlets to amplify the message and raise public awareness about the need for reform.

1. Action Steps: Work with political advocacy organizations, civil rights groups, and legal experts to create and distribute materials that highlight the historical injustices associated with the Electoral College and the benefits of a national popular vote system.

3. Resource Reallocation

Reallocate resources from political campaigns that traditionally focus on swing states to national campaigns that engage voters in all states. This strategy emphasizes the importance of every voter, regardless of geography, under a national popular vote system.

1. Action Steps: Encourage political parties and grassroots organizations to shift their focus away from swing state-centric strategies toward broader voter engagement and education efforts.

Pending or Recent Legislation

Several recent and pending legislative efforts reflect the growing movement to end or reform the Electoral College:

1. H.J.Res.14 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college (2021):

1. This resolution, introduced in the 117th Congress, seeks to amend the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. While it has not gained significant traction, it represents an ongoing effort to bring this issue to the national legislative agenda.

2. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC):

1. As of 2023, 16 states and Washington, D.C., representing 195 electoral votes, have joined the NPVIC. This compact will only take effect once states with a collective 270 electoral votes join, ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote becomes president.

________________________________________

Conclusion and Call to Action

Ending the Electoral College is a monumental but necessary step toward creating a more democratic and equitable electoral system. Its roots in the compromise to protect slavery and its continued impact in disenfranchising voters make reform an urgent issue for modern democracy. By implementing a coordinated federal, state, and local strategy through constitutional amendment or the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, this outdated institution can be replaced with a national popular vote system that ensures every vote counts equally.

Now is the time for political leaders, activists, and citizens to push for electoral reform that reflects the democratic values of equality and fairness. By building bipartisan support, engaging in public education, and leveraging state and federal advocacy, we can create a more just and representative electoral system for all Americans.

VII. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices

Objective

This white paper proposes the implementation of term limits for Supreme Court justices, aiming to reform a lifetime appointment system that has existed since the founding of the United States. By limiting the terms of justices, the judicial branch can ensure greater accountability, reduce political polarization, and maintain a dynamic and responsive interpretation of the Constitution. This reform would require a constitutional amendment and the coordination of federal, state, and public efforts to achieve lasting change.

Historical Context and the Problem with Lifetime Appointments

The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, established the framework for the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," which has been interpreted as a lifetime appointment unless they resign, retire, or are impeached.

• Lifetime Appointments and Judicial Independence: The framers intended for lifetime appointments to protect the judiciary from political influence, ensuring that justices could make decisions based on legal principles rather than political pressures. This structure, however, has resulted in justices serving for increasingly long periods, as life expectancy has increased dramatically since the 18th century.

• The Modern Problem: In recent decades, the average tenure of Supreme Court justices has increased significantly, with some justices serving 30 years or more. This has created several challenges:

• Lack of Accountability: Lifetime appointments can result in justices serving well beyond the point where they are fully effective or responsive to societal changes.

• Politicization of Appointments: The long-term impact of judicial appointments has made the process highly politicized, with presidents and political parties viewing appointments as a way to shape the judiciary for decades.

• Stagnation of Judicial Ideas: The absence of term limits can prevent the infusion of new perspectives into the Court, resulting in a judiciary that is out of step with the evolving values and norms of society.

Why Term Limits Are Necessary

1. Promote Judicial Accountability

A system of term limits would encourage justices to remain accountable for their decisions and behavior over a fixed term. Instead of serving for life, justices would serve for a set number of years, after which they would be replaced through a regular, predictable process.

2. Reduce Political Polarization

The current system incentivizes presidents to appoint younger justices who can serve for decades, leading to highly contentious confirmation battles. Term limits would reduce the stakes of each appointment by making the process more regular and predictable, thus lowering the political temperature surrounding Supreme Court nominations.

3. Ensure Fresh Perspectives

Term limits would ensure a more frequent rotation of justices, allowing the Court to benefit from fresh legal perspectives that reflect modern societal changes. This would prevent the stagnation of legal interpretations and better align the Court with contemporary values and constitutional understanding.

4. Enhance Public Confidence

The lifetime appointment system can contribute to public perceptions that the Court is unaccountable or overly influenced by partisan politics. Term limits could enhance public confidence by creating a more transparent and democratic process for judicial appointments.

Proposed Solutions

1. Implement 18-Year Term Limits for Justices

A term limit of 18 years would strike a balance between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring regular turnover. This would allow each president to nominate two justices during each term, assuming justices are appointed on a staggered basis.

• Staggered Appointments: To prevent all justices from being replaced at once, appointments should be staggered, with one vacancy occurring every two years. This would create a predictable, regular process for appointments.

• Transition Period: For sitting justices, a phased transition could be implemented to prevent abrupt disruptions to the Court’s operations. Sitting justices could be allowed to serve until a certain date, at which point the new term limits would take effect for future appointments.

2. Constitutional Amendment

Term limits for Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution would need to be revised to set a fixed term for justices rather than the current lifetime appointment system.

• Action Steps:

• Federal Strategy: Work with members of Congress to introduce a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. This resolution must pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate.

• State Strategy: After passing Congress, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures. Building support in key states is essential, with efforts focused on states where public support for judicial reform is high.

3. Public Education and Advocacy Campaign

A major public education campaign is necessary to build support for the constitutional amendment. Many Americans are unaware of the consequences of lifetime appointments and may view term limits as a necessary modernization of the Court.

• Action Steps:

• Public Awareness: Create media campaigns, social media outreach, and educational programs to inform the public about the benefits of judicial term limits and the need for reform.

• Local Advocacy: Partner with legal organizations, universities, and civic groups to host events and discussions about the benefits of term limits, focusing on how they enhance accountability and reduce political polarization.

4. Bipartisan Support

Judicial reform must transcend partisan divisions to succeed. While both conservative and liberal factions have benefitted from lifetime appointments, term limits offer a solution that enhances fairness and accountability, regardless of political ideology.

4. Action Steps:

5. Engage Moderates and Conservatives: Highlight how term limits can create a more stable and predictable system for judicial appointments, reducing the extreme partisanship that often accompanies nominations.

6. Coalition Building: Work with libertarian and centrist groups that value a balanced, independent judiciary. Emphasize the benefits of term limits in ensuring a judiciary that remains independent of political pressures over time.

Implementation Strategies

To ensure the successful implementation of judicial term limits, the following strategies will be used:

1. Targeted Federal and State Advocacy

Building support for a constitutional amendment will require coordinated efforts at both the federal and state levels.

4. Federal Level: Identify key members of Congress to introduce the amendment and build bipartisan support for its passage. Emphasize how term limits can depoliticize the Court and promote a more dynamic judiciary.

5. State Level: Focus advocacy efforts on key states with a history of supporting judicial reform or constitutional amendments. Mobilize local advocacy groups and grassroots movements to pressure state legislatures to ratify the amendment.

2. Public-Private Partnerships

Form partnerships with private organizations, think tanks, and media outlets to amplify the message and raise public awareness about the need for term limits.

4. Action Steps: Collaborate with legal reform organizations, academic institutions, and civic advocacy groups to create educational campaigns and media outreach that explain the benefits of term limits and the importance of reducing the politicization of the judiciary.

3. Resource Reallocation

Reallocate resources from partisan judicial nomination campaigns to broader public awareness and educational efforts. This shift in focus will reduce the emphasis on individual nominations and promote a long-term solution to judicial accountability.

Pending or Recent Legislation

There have been recent legislative efforts related to Supreme Court reform, though none have yet passed:

4. Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act (2020):

5. This bill, introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna, proposes 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. After their term, justices would transition to lower federal courts. New appointments would occur every two years, creating a predictable rotation of justices.

6. Status: The bill was introduced in the House but has not passed. It reflects growing interest in judicial term limits.

7. Judiciary Act of 2021:

8. Although focused on expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, this bill reflects broader discussions about reforming the Court to reduce political pressures. Term limits have been a frequent topic in these discussions.

9. Status: The bill was introduced in the House but has not gained sufficient traction to pass.

Conclusion and Call to Action

Limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices is a necessary reform to modernize the judiciary, enhance accountability, and reduce political polarization in the nomination process. Term limits offer a balanced solution that maintains judicial independence while ensuring that fresh perspectives and ideas regularly enter the Court. By implementing an 18-year term limit, conducting a coordinated federal and state advocacy campaign, and educating the public about the benefits of reform, we can create a judiciary that reflects the evolving values of society.

Now is the time to act. Political leaders, legal advocates, and citizens must unite to push for a constitutional amendment that will bring the Supreme Court in line with the principles of fairness, accountability, and democracy. A judiciary that serves the people, without serving for life, is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.