Congressional Civics Act: requiring Congress members pass a civics exam
Would you be able to serve in Congress if you had to pass this test?
What the legislation does
The Congressional Civics Act would require all members of Congress pass a civics exam about the U.S. political system and history. If they don’t pass, within two weeks after their election or appointment, they couldn’t serve.
The exam would comprise 25 questions, randomly drawn from an approved pool of 100 questions across these topics:
American history
The founding of the first colonies and factors leading to American independence
The American Revolution
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and ratification
The Civil War and Reconstruction
World War I
World War II
Historical documents
The Declaration of Independence
The Articles of Confederation
The Constitution
The Bill of Rights
Constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War
Other amendments to the Constitution
American principles
Civil rights and civil liberties
Due process and the rule of law
Elections and the democratic process
Federalism: the relationship between the states and federal government
Separation of powers under the Constitution
Branches of government
Congress
The president and executive departments
The Supreme Court and federal judiciary
The exam’s actual questions and answers themselves aren’t specified in the legislation. Instead, they would later be selected (and updated in perpetuity) by the bipartisan House Administration Committee and Senate Rules Committee.
Technically, this idea is two bills: a constitutional amendment which outlines the general principles, plus the Congressional Civics Act with more specifics, as “Implementing legislation.”
Constitutional amendments have sometimes worked this way in the past, too. For example, alcohol Prohibition was broadly ratified by the 18th Amendment in 1919, but the ban’s actual specifics largely came when Congress enacted the Volstead Act later that same year.
Why a constitutional amendment?
Why is this a constitutional amendment, instead of a “regular” bill?
The Constitution itself currently outlines the requirements for serving in Congress. A House member must be at least 25, be a U.S. citizen for the past seven years, and reside in the state they serve. A senator must be at least 30, be a citizen for the past nine years, and also reside in the state they serve.
So any additions to those requirements would have to appear in the Constitution itself, rather than “normal” legislation.
(Fun fact: Joe Biden was elected Delaware senator at only 29. That was legal, because he turned 30 during the two-month transition period between his election and swearing-in.)
What supporters say
Supporters argue that legislators should actually know something about the country they’re leading.
“It is crucial that our representatives deeply understand their oath [of office],” lead House sponsor Rep Wesley Hunt (R-TX38) said in a press release. “Passing this legislation is vital to confirm that our leaders are knowledgeable about the Constitution and American history.”
“A solid grasp of this understanding is key to safeguarding American values,” Rep. Hunt continued. “Without knowledge of history, the mistakes of the past are likely to be repeated.”
What opponents say
While A Bill a Minute was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition, opponents may counter that the legislation is being promoted as too partisan.
Rep. Hunt posted a social media video about his bill featuring several prominent progressive Democrats making inaccurate statements about U.S. history or law. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN5), Al Green (D-TX9), and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA7) say that crossing the border or being undocumented isn’t a crime. Actually, it is.
(Those representatives disagree that it should be a crime, but that’s a different question.)
Opponents may counter that such selective examples transform what could otherwise be considered a nonpartisan idea as a Republican idea instead.
Even though there are also examples of congressional Republicans getting facts about American civics wrong. For example, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) told the Alabama Daily News that the three branches of government were “the House, the Senate, and executive.” It’s actually the executive, legislative, and judicial.
What happens next?
A constitutional amendment faces steeper hurdles than “regular” legislation, requiring passage by two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-quarters of state legislatures. The last constitutional amendment to date was ratified back in 1992.
Is it still possible? Maybe. But this idea specifically would face a particularly uphill climb: neither the constitutional amendment nor the implementing legislation has attracted a single cosponsor, from either major party.