View source for Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

{{short description|1992 amendment delaying congressional salary changes}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2018}}
{{US Constitution article series}}
The '''Twenty-seventh Amendment''' ('''Amendment XXVII''', also known as the '''Congressional Pay Amendment''' or the '''Congressional Compensation Act of 1789''')<ref>{{cite web |title=Twenty-seventh Amendment |url=https://school.eb.com/levels/high/article/Twenty-seventh-Amendment/488738 |access-date=7 September 2022 |website=Britannica School |publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica}}</ref> to the [[United States Constitution]] states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of [[United States Congress|Congress]] may take effect only after the next election of the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] has occurred. It is the most recently adopted [[List of amendments to the United States Constitution|amendment]] but was one of the first proposed.

The [[1st United States Congress|1st Congress]] submitted the amendment to the [[U.S. state|states]] for [[Article Five of the United States Constitution#Ratification of amendments|ratification]] on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments (''Articles I–XII''). The last ten Articles were ratified in 1791 to become the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], but the first two, the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed [[Congressional Apportionment Amendment]], were not ratified by enough states to [[come into force]] with them.

The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old student at the [[University of Texas at Austin]], wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/08/us/1789-amendment-is-ratified-but-now-the-debate-begins.html|title=1789 Amendment Is Ratified But Now the Debate Begins|last=Berke|first=Richard|date=May 8, 1992|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=March 24, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160217060330/http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/08/us/1789-amendment-is-ratified-but-now-the-debate-begins.html|archive-date=February 17, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Elkins |first=Zachary |date=August 11, 2022 |title=Underestimated but Undeterred: The 27th Amendment and the Power of Tenacious Citizenship |journal=Political Science & Politics |volume=56 |pages=158–163|doi=10.1017/S1049096522000816 |s2cid=251524785 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992.<ref name=":1" /> 

The idea behind this amendment is to reduce corruption in the [[United States Congress|legislative branch]] by requiring an election before a congressperson's salary increase takes effect. The public can thus remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Interpretation: The Twenty-Seventh Amendment |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xxvii/interps/165 |access-date=2020-12-28|publisher=The National Constitution Center |quote=If the public opposed an overly generous congressional pay raise, the public could throw the offending congressmen out of office when they ran for re-election.}}</ref> It is unclear whether the amendment has produced any change in congressional behavior.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Endersby |first1=James W. |last2=Overby |first2=L. Marvin |date=2018-05-04 |title=Congress and the Constitution: The Twenty-seventh Amendment and the Past and Future of Constitutional Alteration |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07343469.2018.1444682 |journal=Congress & the Presidency |language=en |publisher=[[Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies]] |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=7 |doi=10.1080/07343469.2018.1444682 |s2cid=158274131 |issn=0734-3469|url-access=subscription }}</ref> An unintended consequence of the amendment is that, unlike executive branch employees or Congressional staff, all members of Congress continue to get paid during a shutdown. The interpretation of a cease in pay for cease of work as a decrease in salary, which is prohibited by the amendment, has not been ruled upon.<ref name="WeinerWaPo">Rachel Weiner, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/18/is-no-budget-no-pay-constitutional/ Is "No Budget No Pay" constitutional?], ''Washington Post''</ref><ref name="Moyer">Bruce Moyer, [https://web.archive.org/web/20170906005029/https://www.fedbar.org/Advocacy/Washington-Watch/WW-Archives/2013/April-2013-The-Rise-of-Paycheck-Politics.aspx The Rise of Paycheck Politics], ''Washington Watch'' (Federal Bar Association), April 2013.</ref>

== Text ==
{{blockquote|No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript|title=The Bill of Rights: A Transcription|date=November 4, 2015|publisher=Archives.gov|access-date=November 4, 2016}}</ref>}}
{{Clear}}
{{wide image|Amendment_27.jpg|1999px|The Twenty-seventh Amendment from the hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789}}

== Historical background ==

Several states raised the issue of Congressional salaries as they debated whether to ratify the Constitution.

North Carolina's ratifying convention proposed several amendments to the Constitution, including the following: "The laws ascertaining the compensation of senators and representatives, for their services, shall be postponed in their operation until after the election of representatives immediately succeeding the passing thereof; that excepted which shall first be passed on the subject." Virginia's ratifying convention recommended an identical amendment.<ref name="fordham" />

New York's declaration of ratification was accompanied by a similar amendment proposal: "That the Compensation for the Senators and Representatives be ascertained by standing law; and that no alteration of the existing rate of Compensation shall operate for the Benefit of the Representatives, until after a subsequent Election shall have been had."<ref name="fordham" />

=== Proposal by Congress ===

{{See also|Presidency of George Washington#Constitutional amendments|United States Bill of Rights#Proposal and ratification}}

This amendment was one of several proposed amendments to the Constitution that Representative [[James Madison]] of Virginia introduced in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] on June 8, 1789. Madison's original intent was that it be added to the end of [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Compensation and legal protection|Article I, Section 6, Clause 1]] of the Constitution ("The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States").<ref>{{cite web|author1=Gordon Lloyd|title=Representative James Madison Argues for a Bill of Rights|url=https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-on-amendments-to-the-constitution/|website=TeachingAmericanHistory.org|publisher=The Ashbrook Center at Ashland University|access-date=May 5, 2022|location=Ashland, Ohio}}</ref> This and Madison's other proposals were referred to a committee consisting of one representative from each state. After emerging from committee, the full House debated the issue and, on August 24, 1789, passed it and 16 other articles of amendment. Next, the proposals went to the [[United States Senate|Senate]], which made 26 substantive alterations. On September 9, 1789, the Senate approved a culled and consolidated package of 12 articles of amendment.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Labunski|first1=Richard E.|title=James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights|date=2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-518105-0|pages=[https://archive.org/details/jamesmadisonstru00rich/page/235 235]–237|url=https://archive.org/details/jamesmadisonstru00rich|url-access=registration}}</ref>

On September 21, 1789, a House–Senate [[United States congressional conference committee|conference committee]] convened to resolve numerous differences between the House and Senate [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] proposals. On September 24, 1789, the committee issued its report, which finalized 12 proposed amendments for the House and Senate to consider. The House agreed to the conference report that day, and the Senate concurred the next day.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Schwartz|first1=Bernard|title=The Great Rights of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights|date=2002|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|location=Lanham, Maryland|page=186|edition=First Rowman & Littlefield|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d52OVwT_6PYC&pg=PP1|access-date=June 29, 2014|isbn=9780945612285}}</ref>

What would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment was listed second among the 12 proposals sent on September 25, 1789, to the states for their consideration. Ten of these, numbers 3–12, were ratified 27 months later and are known as the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]]. The remaining proposal, the [[Congressional Apportionment Amendment]], has not been ratified by enough states to become part of the Constitution.

The article on Congressional compensation was initially ratified by seven states through 1792 (including Kentucky), but was not ratified by another state for eighty years. The [[Ohio General Assembly]] ratified it on May 6, 1873, in protest of an unpopular [[Salary Grab Act|Congressional pay raise]].<ref name="dean"/> A century later, on March 6, 1978, the [[Wyoming Legislature]] also ratified the article.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bernstein|first=Richard B.|author-link=Richard B. Bernstein|url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3017&context=flr|title=The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment|journal=[[Fordham Law Review]]|volume=61|number=3|year=1992|page=537|access-date=February 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304094838/http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3017&context=flr|archive-date=March 4, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Revival of interest ===

{{external media| float = right| video1 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?447078-1/qa-gregory-watson ''Q&A'' interview with Gregory Watson, July 15, 2018], [[C-SPAN]]}}

This proposed amendment was largely forgotten until Gregory Watson, an undergraduate student at the [[University of Texas at Austin]], wrote a paper on the subject in 1982 for a [[political science]] course.<ref>{{cite news|author=Scott Bomboy|title=How a C-grade college term paper led to a constitutional amendment|url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-a-c-grade-college-term-paper-led-to-a-constitutional-amendment|newspaper=Constitution Daily|date=May 7, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2017/05/05/526900818/the-bad-grade-that-changed-the-u-s-constitution|title=The Bad Grade That Changed The U.S. Constitution|last=Largey|first=Matt|date=May 5, 2017|newspaper=[[All Things Considered]]|access-date=December 20, 2018|publisher=NPR}}</ref><ref name="fordham">{{cite journal|last=Bernstein|first=Richard B.|author-link=Richard B. Bernstein|url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3017&context=flr|title=The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment|journal=[[Fordham Law Review]]|volume=61|number=3|year=1992|pages=497–557|access-date=June 9, 2013}}</ref> In the paper, Watson argued that the amendment was still "live" and could be ratified. Watson received a [[Academic grading in the United States|"C" grade]] for his paper from one of the course's teaching assistants. Watson appealed the grade to the course instructor, Sharon Waite, who declined to overrule the teaching assistant.<ref name="frantzich">{{cite book|first=Stephen E.|last=Frantzich|title=Citizen Democracy: Political Activists in a Cynical Age|location=New York|publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]]|year=2008|pages=12–14|isbn=9780742564459|edition=3rd}}</ref><ref name="ppg">{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_27p9.asp|title=27: Congressional pay raises|newspaper=[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]|date=November 27, 2002|access-date=July 9, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111221232637/http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_27p9.asp|archive-date=21 December 2011}}</ref><ref name=":3" /> Waite has said, "I kind of glanced at it, but I didn't see anything that was particularly outstanding about it and I thought the C was probably fine".<ref name=":2" /> Watson responded by starting a new push for ratification with a letter-writing campaign to state legislatures.<ref name="dean">{{cite web|last=Dean|first=John W.|author-link=John Dean|url=https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-telling-tale-of-the-twenty-seventh-amendment.html|work=[[FindLaw]]|title=The Telling Tale of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment|date=September 27, 2002|access-date=July 9, 2013}}</ref>

In ''[[Dillon v. Gloss]]'',<ref>''Dillon v. Gloss'', {{ussc|256|368|1921}}</ref> the Supreme Court remarked that "ratification [of a proposed constitutional amendment] must be within some reasonable time after the proposal", and suggested that it was "quite untenable" to view proposed amendments from 1789, 1810, and 1861 as still pending.

But in ''[[Coleman v. Miller]]'',<ref>''Coleman v. Miller'', {{ussc|307|433|1939}}</ref> the court ruled that the validity of state ratifications of a constitutional amendment is a political matter, and thus not properly assigned to the judiciary. It also held that for a [[political question]], it was up to Congress to determine whether an amendment with no time limit for ratification is still viable after a long time based on "the political, social and economic conditions which have prevailed during the period since the submission of the amendment".

Watson used $6,000 of his own money to sponsor his nationwide effort.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Strickland |first=Ruth Ann |date=December 1993 |title=The Twenty-Seventh Amendment and Constitutional Change by Stealth |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/419537 |journal=[[PS Political Science and Politics|PS: Political Science and Politics]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=719 |doi=10.2307/419537|jstor=419537 }}</ref> When Watson began his campaign in early 1982, he was aware of ratification by only six states and erroneously believed that Virginia's 1791 approval was the last action a state had taken. He discovered in 1983 that Ohio had approved the amendment in 1873 as a means of protest against the [[Salary Grab Act]] and learned in 1984 that Wyoming had done the same in 1978, as a protest against a 1977 congressional pay raise.<ref name="dean" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/05/how-a-c-grade-college-term-paper-led-to-a-constitutional-amendment/|title=How a C-grade college term paper led to a constitutional amendment|last=Bomboy|first=Scott|date=May 7, 2016|publisher=National Constitution Center|access-date=September 8, 2016|archive-date=September 9, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160909195153/http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/05/how-a-c-grade-college-term-paper-led-to-a-constitutional-amendment/|url-status=dead}}</ref> Watson also did not know until 1997, well after the amendment's adoption, that Kentucky had ratified the amendment in 1792.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/th-amendment-aimed-at-congressional-pay/article_880f5896-32ca-11e4-9e74-001a4bcf887a.html|title=27th amendment aimed at congressional pay|last=Rowley|first=Sean|date=September 2, 2014|website=Tahlequah Daily Press|access-date=September 8, 2016}}</ref> Neither did Kentucky lawmakers themselves{{snd}}in Watson's desire for a 50-state sweep, the Kentucky General Assembly post-ratified the amendment in 1996 (Senate Joint Resolution No. 50), at Watson's request, likewise unaware that the task had already been attended to 204 years earlier.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=June 21, 1996|title=POM-624|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1996-pt10/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1996-pt10-10-1.pdf#page=30|journal=Congressional Record – Senate|pages=14940|via=GPO – govinfo.gov}}</ref>

In April 1983, Maine became the first state to ratify the amendment as a result of Watson's campaign, followed by Colorado in April 1984. Numerous state legislatures followed suit, with some reaffirming the amendment despite having affirmed it centuries ago. Michigan and New Jersey rushed to be the 38th state to ratify the amendment, but Michigan was faster, ratifying the amendment on May 7, 1992, resulting in the certification of the amendment. New Jersey ratified the amendment regardless, overturning its rejection of the amendment centuries earlier.<ref name="fordham" />

In 2016, Zach Elkins, a professor in the University of Texas at Austin Department of Government, became interested in Watson's story and began to document its origins.<ref name="Herman"/> He tracked down Sharon Waite, who had left academia in the 1980s to work on her family's citrus farm.<ref name="Herman"/> Elkins suggested to Waite that they change Watson's grade.<ref name="Herman"/> In 2017, Elkins submitted a grade change form with Waite's signature and a grade change to A+.<ref name="Herman"/><ref name=":3" /> In an interview, Waite said, "Goodness, he certainly proved he knew how to work the Constitution and what it meant and how to be politically active, [...] So, yes, I think he deserves an A after that effort{{snd}}A-plus!"<ref name=":2" /> A+ is not a valid grade at UT, so Watson's grade may have been changed to an A, though Elkins urged the registrar to leave it as the only A+ ever recorded at the University of Texas.<ref name="Herman">{{Cite news|url=https://www.statesman.com/news/20170314/herman-35-years-later-a-for-austinite-who-got-constitution-amended|title=Herman: 35 years later, A+ for Austinite who got Constitution amended?|last=Herman|first=Ken|date=March 14, 2017|work=[[Austin American-Statesman]]|access-date=December 16, 2018|language=en|archive-date=December 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181217062616/https://www.statesman.com/news/20170314/herman-35-years-later-a-for-austinite-who-got-constitution-amended|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=The Bad Grade That Changed The U.S. Constitution|url=https://www.npr.org/2017/05/05/526900818/the-bad-grade-that-changed-the-u-s-constitution|access-date=2021-01-11|website=NPR|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Grades – Texas One Stop|url=https://onestop.utexas.edu/student-records/grades/|access-date=2021-01-11|website=University of Texas at Austin|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":3" /> In the same year, the [[Texas Legislature]] passed a congratulatory resolution in response to Watson's successful grade change and his overall political participation.<ref>{{cite web |title=Bill: HCR 145 |url=https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HCR145 |website=[[Texas Legislature]] Online |access-date=5 May 2022}}</ref>

== Ratification by the states ==
[[File:27th amendment ratification.svg|thumb|369px|{{legend|#ca00d8|Ratified amendment, 1789–1792}}
{{legend|#612a2a|Ratified amendment, 1873–1978}}
{{legend|#2a26ce|Ratified amendment, 1983–1991}}
{{legend|#41ba5a|Ratified amendment, May 1992<sup>1</sup>}}
{{legend|#7df4ff|Ratified post-enactment, 1992–present}}
{{legend|#fffa00|Ratified twice (NC: 1789 and 1989; KY: 1792 and 1996)}}
{{legend|#d3d3d3|Have not ratified amendment}}
<small><sup>1</sup>The Archivist did not certify the amendment until May 18, 1992, with 40 states listed as ratifying the amendment. Kentucky's then-unknown 1792 ratification would have made it 41 states that had ratified at the time of certification, three more than the 38 required for a three-quarters majority.</small>]]

The following states ratified the Twenty-seventh Amendment:

{{Div col|colwidth=40em}}
# Maryland – December 19, 1789
# North Carolina – December 22, 1789 (Reaffirmed on July 4, 1989)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=1989&BillID=H1052|title=North Carolina General Assembly – House Bill 1052 Information/History (1989–1990 Session)|first=NC General Assembly|last=webmasters|website=www.ncleg.net}}</ref>
# South Carolina – January 19, 1790
# Delaware – January 28, 1790
# Vermont – November 3, 1791
# Virginia – December 15, 1791
# Kentucky – June 27, 1792<ref name=":0" /> (Reaffirmed on March 21, 1996)
# Ohio – May 6, 1873
# Wyoming – March 6, 1978
# Maine – April 27, 1983
# Colorado – April 22, 1984
# South Dakota – February 21, 1985
# New Hampshire – March 7, 1985 (After rejection on January 26, 1790)<ref name="Kilpatrick">{{cite book|title=The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto|year=1961|publisher=Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government|page=64|editor=James J. Kilpatrick}}</ref>
# Arizona – April 3, 1985
# Tennessee – May 28, 1985
# Oklahoma – July 1, 1985
# New Mexico – February 14, 1986
# Indiana – February 24, 1986
# Utah – February 25, 1986
# Arkansas – March 13, 1987
# Montana – March 17, 1987
# Connecticut – May 13, 1987
# Wisconsin – July 15, 1987
# Georgia – February 2, 1988
# West Virginia – March 10, 1988
# Louisiana – July 7, 1988
# Iowa – February 9, 1989
# Idaho – March 23, 1989
# Nevada – April 26, 1989
# Alaska – May 6, 1989
# Oregon – May 19, 1989
# Minnesota – May 22, 1989
# Texas – May 25, 1989
# Kansas – April 5, 1990
# Florida – May 31, 1990
# North Dakota – March 25, 1991
# Missouri – May 5, 1992
# Alabama – May 5, 1992
# Michigan – May 7, 1992
{{Div col end}}

On May 18, 1992, the [[Archivist of the United States]], [[Don W. Wilson]], certified that the amendment's ratification had been completed.<ref name="CR 102nd Congress">''Congressional Record of the 102nd Congress'', Volume 138 – Part 9, May 19, 1992, p. 11656.</ref><ref name="Michaelis-1423">{{cite news|first=Laura|last=Michaelis|title=Both Chambers Rush to Accept 27th Amendment on Salaries|work=[[Congressional Quarterly]]|page=1423|date=May 23, 1992}}</ref> Michigan's May 7, 1992, ratification was believed to be the 38th state, but it later came to light that the Kentucky General Assembly had ratified the amendment during that state's initial month of statehood,<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TxtEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76|title=The Statute Law of Kentucky: With Notes, Prælections, and Observations on the Public Acts...|chapter=Chapter XII, June Session 1792|publisher=William Hunter.|year=1809|location=Frankfort|pages=76–77|language=en}}</ref> making Alabama (which acted after Missouri on May 5, 1992) the state to finalize the amendment's addition to the Constitution.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution, 1776–1995|last=Kyvig|first=David E.|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780700607921|url-access=registration|publisher=University Press of Kansas|year=1996|location=Lawrence|pages=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780700607921/page/467 467], 546n17|isbn=9780700607921}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qdmbAAAAQBAJ&q=%22may+5%2C+1992%22+%22twenty-seventh+amendment%22&pg=PA108|title=The U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Law|publisher=Britannica Educational Publishing|year=2012|isbn=9781615307555|pages=105–108|language=en}}</ref>

The amendment was subsequently ratified by:

# <li value=40> New Jersey – May 7, 1992 (After rejection on November 20, 1789)<ref name="Kilpatrick" />
# Illinois – May 12, 1992
# California – June 26, 1992
# Rhode Island – June 10, 1993<ref name="house.gov">{{cite web|title=The Organic Laws of the United States of America|url=http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt|access-date=December 5, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101205190815/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt|archive-date=December 5, 2010}}</ref> (After rejection on June 7, 1790)<ref name="Kilpatrick" />
# Hawaii – April 29, 1994<ref name="house.gov" />
# Washington – April 6, 1995<ref name="house.gov" />
# Nebraska – April 1, 2016<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://journalstar.com/legislature/it-took-awhile-but-add-nebraska-s-name-to-the/article_9ce8c67d-a7f6-5680-a63a-126e2d93bf61.html|title=It took awhile, but add Nebraska's name to the list|last=Young|first=JoAnne|date=April 1, 2016|website=Lincoln Journal-Star |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181219134413/https://journalstar.com/legislature/it-took-awhile-but-add-nebraska-s-name-to-the/article_9ce8c67d-a7f6-5680-a63a-126e2d93bf61.html|archive-date=December 19, 2018|access-date=August 2, 2016}}</ref>

Four states have not ratified the Twenty-seventh Amendment: Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Pennsylvania.

=== Affirmation of ratification ===
On May 19, 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment's certificate of ratification, signed by the Archivist of the United States, [[Don W. Wilson]], on May 18, 1992, was printed and published in the ''[[Federal Register]]''.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Certification of Twenty-seventh Amendment|journal=Federal Register|volume=57|number=97|page=21187|date=May 19, 1992|url=https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/fedreg/fr057/fr057097/fr057097.pdf|publisher=[[National Archives and Records Administration]]|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref>

In certifying that the amendment had been duly ratified, the Archivist of the United States had acted under statutory authority granted to his office by the Congress under {{USC|1|106b}}, which states:{{blockquote|Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.}}

The response in Congress was sharp. [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Robert Byrd]] of West Virginia scolded Wilson for certifying the amendment without congressional approval. Although Byrd supported congressional acceptance of the amendment, he contended that Wilson had deviated from "historic tradition" by not waiting for Congress to consider the ratification's validity, given the extremely long time since the amendment had been proposed.<ref name="Michaelis-1423"/> [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[Tom Foley]] and others called for a legal challenge to the ratification.

On May 20, 1992, under the authority recognized in ''Coleman'', and in keeping with the precedent established by [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Adoption|the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment]], each house of the 102nd Congress passed its own version of a [[concurrent resolution]] agreeing that the amendment was validly ratified, despite the more than 202 years the task took. The Senate's approval of the resolution was unanimous (99 to 0) and the House vote was 414 to 3.<ref name="dean"/>

{{multiple image
| align = center
| image1 = 27th Amendment Pg1of3 AC.jpg
| width1 = 210
| alt1 =
| caption1 = 
| image2 = 27th Amendment Pg2of3 AC.jpg
| width2 = 210
| alt2 = 
| caption2 = 
| image3 = 27th Amendment Pg3of3 AC.jpg
| width3 = 210
| alt3 = 
| caption3 = 
| footer = The Twenty-seventh Amendment's certification, [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]]
}}

== Legal issues ==

=== Cost-of-living adjustments ===

Congressional [[Cost-of-living index|cost-of-living adjustments]] (COLA) have been upheld against legal challenges based on this amendment. In ''Boehner v. Anderson'',<ref>30 [[Federal Reporter|F.3d]] 156 (D.C. Cir. 1994)</ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] ruled that the first COLA was in accord with the amendment because it took effect after the election that followed its vote. The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of COLAs in general. In ''Schaffer v. Clinton'',<ref>240 [[Federal Reporter|F.3d]] 878 (10th Cir. 2001)</ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] ruled (explicitly disagreeing with ''Boehner'') that receiving such a COLA does not grant members of the Congress [[Standing (law)|standing]] in federal court to challenge it; the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] did not hear either case, and so has never ruled on this amendment's effect on COLAs.

=== No Budget, No Pay Act ===
The [[No Budget, No Pay Act]] was proposed in 2012 and again [[No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013|in 2013]] to prevent lawmakers from being paid during a [[government shutdown]]. The bill received limited bipartisan support, but concerns were raised that it violated the twenty-seventh amendment saying that Congress may not "vary" the compensation of its members until the next election.<ref name="WeinerWaPo">Rachel Weiner, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/18/is-no-budget-no-pay-constitutional/ Is "No Budget No Pay" constitutional?], ''Washington Post''</ref><ref name="Moyer">Bruce Moyer, [https://web.archive.org/web/20170906005029/https://www.fedbar.org/Advocacy/Washington-Watch/WW-Archives/2013/April-2013-The-Rise-of-Paycheck-Politics.aspx The Rise of Paycheck Politics], ''Washington Watch'' (Federal Bar Association), April 2013.</ref> The bill did not pass and the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has not addressed its constitutionality.<ref name="Moyer"/>

== See also ==
* [[List of amendments to the Constitution of the United States]]
* [[List of proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States]]
* [[United States Bill of Rights]]

== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|30em}}

=== General sources ===
* {{Cite book |editor1=Johnny H. Killian |editor2=George A. Costello |title=The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation |date=July 2015 |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/constitution-annotated?path=/GPO/Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%20of%20America%253A%20Analysis%20and%20Interpretation |id=Senate Document No. 103–6 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[United States Government Publishing Office]]}} [https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/ The Library of Congress' regularly updated online version].

== External links ==
{{Commons category}}
{{wikisource|Coleman_v._Miller/Opinion_of_the_Court|Coleman v. Miller}}
* [https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript National Archives: Bill of Rights including Twenty-seventh Amendment]
* [https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html Library of Congress Bill of Rights Primary Documents links page]
* Congressional resolutions recognizing ratification:
** {{USBill|102|SConRes|120}}
** {{USBill|102|HConRes|320}}
* [https://research.archives.gov/description/1512313 Certification of the 27th Amendment] at National Archives Online Public Access
* [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f8IUbYsd3y0 The Unlikely Story of the 27th Amendment], interview of Gregory Watson by the [[Dallas County Community College District]] on [[YouTube]]
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/09/25/episode-7-of-the-constitutional-podcast-congress-and-citizens Washington Post Constitutional podcast about the ratification of the 27th Amendment] (with transcript)
* [https://www.c-span.org/video/?26144-1/27th-amendment-constitution# Recording of the debate in the House of Representatives on the 27th Amendment] on [[C-SPAN]]
* [https://hkspolicycast.org/new-life-for-the-equal-rights-amendment-eff1e6d87508/ Harvard Professor Jane Mansbridge podcast discussing the connection between the 27th Amendment and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl0yAbrs27c Gregory Watson's Fight for the 27th Amendment] (''[[The Daily Show]]'', interview with Michael Kosta, published to YouTube on May 4, 2018)
* [https://govtrackinsider.com/will-the-constitution-ever-be-amended-again-we-asked-the-man-behind-the-twenty-seventh-amendment-60ebe7375a3e Will the Constitution ever be amended again? We asked the man behind the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.] Govtrackinsider.com interview with Gregory Watson

{{US Constitution|state=expanded}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:27}}
[[Category:1789 in American law]]
[[Category:1789 in American politics]]
[[Category:1992 in American law]]
[[Category:1992 in American politics]]
[[Category:1st United States Congress]]
[[Category:Amendments to the United States Constitution|27]]
[[Category:Legislative branch of the United States government]]
[[Category:Salaries of office-holders]]