Draft:Pardon Integrity Act
Proposed amendment to the US Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Pardon Integrity Act (House Joint Resolution 135) is a proposed amendment for the Constitution of the United States introduced in the 119th Congress by Democrat Maryland Representative Johnny Olszewski and cosponsored by Republican Nebraska Representative Don Bacon. If ratified, it would create a process where twenty House members and five senators could force a vote on overriding a presidential pardon, which would then require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.[1][2][3]
Submission declined on 23 February 2026 by EatingCarBatteries (talk). This draft does not have sufficient content to warrant a standalone article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
Comment: This is a cool little amendment. I really do hope it gets passed. But for the time being, this article doesn't have much content. You could either wait a bit to see if there is more coverage down the road, or you could either merge it into the articles of Johnny Olszewski and Don Bacon. EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 06:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Background
The proposal was introduced following a series of controversial pardons during the mid‑2020s. Sponsors cited the pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández—who had been extradited, convicted in U.S. federal court on drug‑trafficking and weapons charges, and sentenced to 45 years in prison—as a primary catalyst for the amendment. Hernández was pardoned in late 2025, prompting bipartisan criticism. [1][2]
Representative Olszewski also pointed to mass pardons and commutations issued for individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as clemency for several political allies and public figures. Representative Bacon stated that while the pardon power is an important constitutional authority, its use across multiple administrations has raised “legitimate questions” about oversight and accountability. [1][2][3]
Provisions
News coverage describes the amendment as creating a structured congressional mechanism for reviewing presidential pardons. Reported elements include:
The president must notify the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House within three days of issuing a pardon or act of clemency. Failure to do so would render the pardon void.[1]
Congress would have a limited window of 30 days to introduce a measure to nullify the pardon.[1][3]
A nullification measure signed by 20 members of the House and 5 senators would automatically receive a floor vote.[2][3]
Overturning a pardon would require a two‑thirds vote in both chambers of Congress.[2][3]
Once a pardon is overturned, the president may not reissue the same pardon.[1]
Legislative History
Representative Olszewski introduced the amendment in December 2025. In February 2026, Representative Don Bacon became the first Republican cosponsor, giving the proposal bipartisan sponsorship. As of the latest reporting, the amendment had not advanced beyond introduction and had not received committee action or a floor vote. Commentators note that constitutional amendments face significant procedural hurdles, and the proposal is considered unlikely to be adopted.[1][2][3]
Reception
Support
Supporters describe the amendment as a narrow, commonsense check on the pardon power. Olszewski argued that presidents of both parties have used clemency to reward political allies or shield associates, undermining public trust. Bacon stated that the amendment would restore appropriate checks and balances and strengthen congressional oversight of executive authority. [1][2][3]
Criticism
The Hill argued that the amendment could further politicize the pardon process, making it more difficult for future presidents to extend mercy in controversial or unpopular cases. The author warned that congressional veto power could transform clemency into a partisan battleground rather than a mechanism for justice.[3]
The Cato Institute similarly contended that restricting the pardon power would weaken an essential constitutional safeguard. Drawing on Alexander Hamilton’s defense of a broad pardon authority in Federalist No. 74, the analysis argued that clemency serves as a vital check on excessive federal criminalization and politically motivated prosecutions. The commentary also noted that controversial pardons have been a recurring feature of American history and that structural reforms to federal criminal law would better address underlying issues.[4]
Analysis
The presidential pardon power is established in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and has historically been interpreted as broad and discretionary. Supporters of the Pardon Integrity Act argue that a constitutional amendment is the appropriate mechanism for adding procedural checks to this authority. Critics counter that introducing congressional veto power risks undermining separation‑of‑powers principles and could discourage presidents from issuing pardons in cases where mercy is warranted. Contemporary reporting highlights these debates but does not yet include extensive academic legal analysis.[1][2][3][4]