Mace amendment would spare Democrats she targeted

By Brett Rowland
The Center Square

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a constitutional amendment requiring natural-born citizenship for members of Congress and federal judges, sparing the Democrats she targeted while potentially affecting several Republicans.

The amendment would apply prospectively, meaning no existing officeholder would lose office if ratified, including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, and Shri Thanedar of Michigan, whom Mace named in her news release.

The proposal, H.J.Res.188, has no cosponsors and faces long odds in Congress. Since 1973, more than 3,900 joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments have been introduced, according to Congress.gov. Fewer than 9% received committee consideration, and none have been ratified since 1992.

The Constitution requires only the president and vice president to be natural-born citizens under Article II. Mace’s proposal would extend that requirement to all members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed officers, including ambassadors and public ministers. Under Article I, House members must have been U.S. citizens for at least seven years before their election and senators for at least nine years, with no natural-born citizenship requirement for either chamber.

A Center Square review of Congress.gov found no prior joint resolution proposing to extend the natural-born citizenship requirement to members of Congress.

Previous congressional action on the issue has largely moved in the opposite direction. In 2008, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution affirming that Sen. John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father served in the military, qualified as a natural-born citizen eligible for the presidency.

If ratified, the amendment would likely make several Republican lawmakers ineligible to serve, including members who became U.S. citizens through naturalization.

A May 1, 2026, Congressional Research Service report identifies four foreign-born Republican House members: Reps. Victoria Spartz of Indiana, born in Ukraine; Carlos Gimenez of Florida, born in Cuba; Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, born in Mexico; and Young Kim of California, born in South Korea. Public biographies describe them as immigrants who later became U.S. citizens. In the Senate, Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, born in Bogotá, Colombia, became a U.S. citizen at age 18, according to his official biography.

Mace said the amendment is intended to ensure loyalty to the United States.

“If you hold power in the American government, you should be a natural born American citizen,” Mace said in a statement. “The people writing America’s laws, confirming America’s judges and representing America on the world stage should have one loyalty: America.”

Mace announced in August 2025 that she is running for governor of South Carolina.

The proposal drew criticism from several naturalized lawmakers.

Jayapal called the proposal “racist,” “narrow-minded” and “xenophobic” in a statement Wednesday.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat from Illinois, who immigrated to the United States as an infant and later became a citizen, called the amendment “a betrayal” of American principles, citing former President Ronald Reagan’s statement that “anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”

Thanedar said on X, he planned to introduce a counter-resolution targeting Mace. It had not been filed as of 4 p.m. Thursday.

Mace’s office, Spartz, Moreno and Omar did not respond to requests for comment before publication.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, said most proposed constitutional amendments fail to gain traction.

“Most of these proposed constitutional amendments are essentially dead on arrival, or at least don’t get very far at all,” Somin said.

Somin said lawmakers often introduce constitutional amendments to highlight personal priorities or appeal to specific constituencies. Asked whether the large number of unsuccessful amendment proposals represents a meaningful use of congressional resources, Somin said there is “probably some waste of time and resources,” but said it likely wasn’t significant.

John Vile, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University and author of the Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, said the volume of proposals is not new. As of his most recent edition in 2023, approximately 12,000 amendment resolutions had been introduced in U.S. history — but only 34 were ever proposed by Congress, and only 27 were ratified. Vile said he could not identify any prior proposal to extend the natural-born citizenship requirement to Congress.

“The nation goes through cycles of Nativism that are often exploited by so-called populists,” Vile said.

He called the amendment “an extremely regressive step,” adding he was “wary of making any unnecessary distinctions between types of U.S. citizenship.”

In the 118th Congress, 81 constitutional amendment resolutions were introduced. Six received committee consideration, and none passed both chambers.

To be ratified, a constitutional amendment must pass the House and Senate by two-thirds votes and then be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures — 38 states. The last ratified amendment, the 27th Amendment governing congressional pay raises, was approved in 1992 after originally being proposed by James Madison in 1789 — 203 years earlier.

Mace’s resolution has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where most constitutional amendment proposals do not receive hearings. In the 119th Congress, 63 constitutional amendment resolutions have been introduced. One has received committee consideration.