The 72-Hour Posting & Plain-Language Legislative Transparency Act

A minimum standard for readable, reviewable lawmaking in the United States Congress

Executive Summary

Americans are asked to live under laws they often never get a real chance to see until after the vote. In the most consequential moments—year-end budget deals, emergency packages, "must-pass" extensions, and sprawling negotiated compromises—legislative text can move on timelines that are realistic for political strategy, but unrealistic for democratic review. When major bills are released late, it isn't just the public that is locked out: lawmakers, staff, subject-matter experts, state and local implementers, affected industries, and watchdog organizations all lose the time needed to identify drafting errors, hidden carveouts, unintended consequences, and last-minute special-interest provisions.

Congress already recognizes this problem. The House has long had internal availability rules that require certain texts and reports to be accessible before floor action—yet those rules are procedural and can be bypassed or waived through commonly used mechanisms, including special rules, unanimous consent, and suspension procedures.^{3 4} The result is a transparency regime that works well on routine items, but can fail precisely when stakes are highest.

This paper proposes a practical reform: a unified, enforceable "cooling-off" period plus intelligible summaries—a "72-Hour Posting & Plain-Language Legislative Transparency Act"—built by merging the mechanics in the two provided documents.^{1 2} The reform has two core requirements:

1. 72-hour public posting of final legislative text before any final passage vote on covered measures (including major amendments and negotiated "manager's packages"), with limited and well-defined emergency exceptions.^{1 2}
2. Plain-language, standardized summaries that explain what the measure does, who is affected, and what changes since the last public version—so non-experts can understand the stakes without needing a law degree.^{1 2}

Why should you care? Because "time to read" is not a luxury—it is a safety feature. A 72-hour minimum window helps catch mistakes before they become law, improves accountability (members can't credibly claim they didn't know what was inside), and reduces the odds that complex deals contain surprises that only become visible after implementation begins. Plain-language requirements also reduce a core barrier to democratic participation: legal text can be technically necessary, but it does not have to be needlessly opaque. Research in cognitive science and empirical legal studies shows that even lawyers understand and recall plain-language documents better than "legalese," and lawyers often prefer plain-language drafts without seeing them as less enforceable.¹²

This reform is also politically realistic because it is not novel in concept. California voters approved a constitutional/statutory change requiring bills to be posted online for 72 hours before a vote, and it passed with 65.4% support.⁸ The state's official analyses projected relatively modest administrative costs (roughly $1–2 million one-time and ~$1 million annually for recording/online availability, depending on implementation choices).⁷

The bottom line: A democracy cannot be "informed consent" governance if the consent is requested before the information exists. A 72-hour posting rule—paired with plain-language disclosure and modern machine-readable publishing—sets a minimum standard for legitimate lawmaking in an era of complex bills and fast-moving narratives.

---

The Problem Statement

1) Existing rules are incomplete and waivable

The U.S. House already uses "availability" requirements for certain legislative materials, including committee reports and other documents, generally keyed to multi-day timeframes.³ These requirements are meaningful but procedural, not absolute: they can be modified or waived by the House itself through standard parliamentary tools (e.g., special rules reported by the Rules Committee, unanimous consent, or procedures that do not require advance report availability).^{3 4}

This creates a predictable failure mode:

• Routine bills often receive adequate public "sunshine."
• High-stakes negotiated packages—where public review is most needed—are the most likely to be accelerated through waivers.

2) The public legitimacy gap is widening

Transparency failures do not occur in a vacuum. Trust in the federal government remains historically low; for example, Pew Research Center's long-running measures show low levels of trust in government in recent years.⁶ When Congress legislates quickly on complex packages without meaningful public review, it deepens a perception that lawmaking is insider-driven—even when the underlying policy goals are broadly supported.

3) Complexity is inevitable; opacity is optional

Modern legislation is complex for real reasons: it governs large systems, interacts with existing statutes, and must be precise. But "complex" does not require "unreadable." Plain-language research indicates that difficult-to-process drafting conventions reduce comprehension and recall—even among lawyers—and that simplified language can preserve meaning while improving usability.¹²

When legislative products become long, cross-referential, and structurally convoluted, the practical effect is a shift in power toward those with the time and specialization to parse the text instantly (or those who already influenced it). The current system therefore amplifies inequality in access: well-resourced actors can analyze quickly, while ordinary citizens and many local implementers cannot.

4) The constitutional constraint: Congress controls its rules

Any durable reform must recognize a foundational reality: each chamber sets its rules of proceedings.⁵ That means enforcement must be designed primarily as:

• House and Senate rules (or standing orders) that operate through points of order and floor procedure, and/or
• A statute explicitly enacted as an exercise of congressional rulemaking authority, acknowledging that each chamber retains its constitutional power to amend or waive it.⁵

This is a design constraint, not a barrier: it simply means the reform should be framed as a procedural legitimacy standard, enforced internally rather than by courts.

---

The Proposed Reform

Overview

The "72-Hour Posting & Plain-Language Legislative Transparency Act" merges the two provided documents into one integrated transparency mechanism: (A) timed public availability of final text plus (B) standardized intelligible disclosure.^{1 2}

A) 72-Hour Public Posting Requirement (scope + timing)

Covered actions ("final passage events")

A covered 72-hour clock is triggered before any of the following floor actions:

1. Final passage of any bill or joint resolution.
2. Adoption of a substitute (including an amendment in the nature of a substitute) that becomes the operative text.
3. Adoption of a conference report or final bicameral compromise package.
4. Adoption of a manager's amendment / manager's package (or functional equivalent) that materially revises the text.
5. Adoption of any "major amendment" meeting objective thresholds (recommended):
   • Adds or replaces ≥ 20 pages of legislative text or
   • Creates/expands federal programs, authorities, or penalties in a way that is reasonably expected to be operationally significant (as certified by the Clerk/Secretary using published criteria).^{1 2}

Timing rule

No covered final passage event may occur unless:

• The exact final text has been publicly posted online for at least 72 hours prior to the vote; and
• The posting is in both human-readable and machine-readable forms.^{1 2 13}

Implementation note: Congress already publishes bill text digitally; the reform standardizes a "single source of truth" posting endpoint and requires that the posted version be the same version voted on.

B) Plain-Language Requirement (standardized summaries + change logs)

Plain-language summary package (mandatory for covered measures)

At the time the 72-hour clock starts, Congress must publish a "Plain-Language Legislative Summary" that includes:

1. What the bill does (high-level)
   A brief description using everyday language, not legal jargon or "legalese."^{1 2 9 10 11}

2. Who is affected
   Categories of people, businesses, state/local governments, or federal agencies that would see new obligations, rights, or funding changes.

3. Key numbers (budget estimates, timelines, program sizes)
   Where applicable: estimated costs, authorized funding levels, effective dates, and sunset provisions.

4. Change log
   A summary of material changes since the last publicly posted version (what was added, removed, or revised).

5. Disclaimer
   A clear statement that the plain-language summary is not controlling—the enacted statutory text governs—and is intended only for public understanding.

Format standards

• Template-based: Use a standardized format (issued by the Clerk/Secretary) to reduce drafting inconsistency and spin.
• Length guidance: Summaries should be as short as possible while remaining accurate and comprehensive, typically 2–5 pages for major bills.
• Bipartisan review opportunity: Minority party members of the relevant committee(s) may submit a separate "minority view" summary if desired, which is published alongside the majority summary.

C) Emergency Exception (narrow and transparent)

The 72-hour requirement may be waived only if:

1. A genuine emergency exists (e.g., imminent national security threat, natural disaster requiring immediate federal action, financial market crisis).
2. Leadership certification: The Speaker/Majority Leader (or their designee) submits a written certification to the Clerk/Secretary describing:
   • The nature of the emergency,
   • Why the standard 72-hour window is operationally infeasible, and
   • The reduced timeline being used (e.g., 24 hours, 48 hours).
3. Public transparency: The certification is published online immediately and remains accessible.⁷

This creates a high bar for bypassing the rule while preserving flexibility for truly urgent situations.

D) Enforcement Mechanism

Point of order

Any member may raise a point of order that the 72-hour posting requirement (or plain-language summary requirement) has not been met. The presiding officer (or the chamber, if appealed) determines compliance based on:

• Official posting timestamps from the Clerk/Secretary's website, and
• Availability of the required plain-language summary.

Waivers require supermajority (optional strong form)

To further strengthen the rule, Congress could require that any waiver (outside the emergency exception) must be approved by a supermajority vote (e.g., 2/3 or 3/5) rather than simple majority. This raises the political cost of bypassing transparency.

Non-judicial enforcement

Because Congress controls its own rules,⁵ enforcement is procedural, not subject to external court review. This is consistent with the constitutional design and protects legislative autonomy while creating internal accountability.

---

Impact Analysis (benefits, costs, tradeoffs, and precedents)

1) Governance and accountability benefits

Fewer "surprise" provisions. A 72-hour window materially improves the likelihood that members, committees, press, agencies, and civil society can identify:

• drafting errors,
• conflicting cross-references,
• last-minute carveouts,
• implementation bottlenecks.

Better member accountability. It becomes harder for lawmakers to claim they did not know what they voted on when a minimum public posting window is enforced.

Reduced influence asymmetry. Well-resourced actors can always analyze faster; the reform narrows (not eliminates) the advantage by guaranteeing a baseline review window for everyone else.

2) Comprehension and compliance benefits (plain-language evidence)

Plain-language is not merely "friendlier writing." Empirical evidence indicates that complex "legalese" reduces comprehension and recall—even among trained lawyers—while simplified drafting improves performance without reducing perceived enforceability.¹² That supports a policy premise: if the public is expected to comply with laws, the communicative layer surrounding those laws should be optimized for accurate understanding.

3) Economic and administrative costs (likely modest)

A major advantage of this reform is that Congress already has digital publication infrastructure; the marginal cost is largely staffing, tooling, and workflow integration. State precedent provides a concrete benchmark: California's official analyses for a similar 72-hour requirement projected $1–2 million one-time and ~$1 million annually for recording/posting legislative proceedings, depending on implementation choices.⁷ While federal implementation differs, the direction is clear: these costs are small relative to the scale of government operations, and far smaller than the downstream costs of preventable drafting errors and poorly understood obligations.

4) Precedent and public legitimacy signals

California's Proposition 54 required 72-hour public posting prior to votes and passed with 65.4% support.⁸ That does not automatically translate to federal polling, but it is strong evidence that voters can support a simple legitimacy rule: "publish the final text before the vote."

Additionally, historical U.S. polling and congressional statements have cited strong public support for "time to read" reforms (with the important caveat that some referenced polling is dated).¹⁴ The reform is therefore plausibly aligned with broad, cross-ideological fairness intuitions: regardless of policy content, the public expects basic transparency and time for review.

5) Tradeoffs and mitigations

Tradeoff: slower action in genuine emergencies.
Mitigation: narrow emergency exception with certification and transparency.⁷

Tradeoff: gamesmanship via "relabeling" amendments to avoid thresholds.
Mitigation: objective size/impact thresholds + clerk certification + public change logs.^{1 2}

Tradeoff: "summary spin."
Mitigation: standardized template, bipartisan review lane, and explicit "non-controlling" disclaimer; publish both majority/minority committee views when available.

---

Conclusion

Congress does not need to become slower to become better. It needs a minimum legitimacy standard: if a measure is important enough to govern 330+ million people and reshape budgets, rights, and obligations, it is important enough to be publicly readable before the vote.

The 72-Hour Posting & Plain-Language Legislative Transparency Act is a targeted, operational reform that closes known loopholes in existing practice, modernizes legislative publishing, and restores a baseline of informed consent in democratic governance. It is compatible with constitutional rulemaking realities, supported by credible plain-language evidence, and validated by state precedent demonstrating feasibility and public appeal.^{5 7 8 9 12}

In an era where distrust is high and policy complexity is unavoidable, this reform is not a partisan weapon. It is a quality-control standard—the legislative equivalent of "measure twice, cut once."

---

Reference List

1. Document A (draft reform mechanics)
   Internal reference document

2. Document B (source library & framing)
   Internal reference document

3. Congressional Research Service, RS22015 - Availability of Legislative Measures in the House; includes discussion of availability requirements and waivers
   Link: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22015

4. U.S. House of Representatives, House Rules and Manual (HMAN-118) - Procedure notes; e.g., suspension practices can proceed without advance report availability
   Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-118/html/HMAN-118-houserules.htm

5. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5 - Each House determines rules of proceedings
   Link: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-5/

6. Pew Research Center, Public trust in government - Recent trend data; low trust
   Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/12/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/

7. California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, Proposition 54 - Summary and fiscal effects for 72-hour posting rule
   Links:

   • https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/quick-reference-guide/54.htm
   • https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/propositions/54/analysis.htm

8. UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, Proposition 54 official results (65.4% Yes)
   Link: https://igs.berkeley.edu/library/california-ballot-proposition-guides/november-8-2016-general-election-summary/november-8-1

9. Plain Writing Act of 2010 - Statutory basis for plain-language governance
   Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/301

10. Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-11-15 - Final Guidance on Implementing the Plain Writing Act of 2010
    Link: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-15.pdf

11. Federal Plain Language Guidelines (PLAIN), Federal Plain Language Guidelines (2011)
    Link: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf

12. Martínez, Mollica & Gibson, "Even lawyers do not like legalese," PNAS (2023) - Experimental evidence on comprehension/recall and preference for plain language
    Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10266064/

13. Government Publishing Office / govinfo, United States Legislative Markup (USLM) documentation - Machine-readable legislative text standard
    Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/features/uslm

14. Congressional Record (Congress.gov), statement citing polling about posting bills online before votes - Historical; cited as evidence of longstanding public preference
    Link: https://www.congress.gov/crec/2009/06/09/CREC-2009-06-09-pt1-PgH6167-2.pdf

15. Congress.gov, H.R. 4328 — Read the Bill Act (114th Congress) - Federal precedent proposal for 72-hour availability
    Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4328

    Changelog

• December 27, 2024 — Fixed MDX syntax errors (removed invalid {#id} heading anchors)
• December 26, 2024 — Initial draft published