The United States Constitution, the nation's foundational legal document, has remained largely unchanged since its ratification more than two centuries ago. With only 27 amendments—10 of which comprise the Bill of Rights—its longevity reflects both its original design and the high threshold required to alter it. Amending the Constitution demands a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures, a process many view as increasingly difficult in today’s polarized political climate.

Despite these challenges, five prominent constitutional scholars and experts from diverse political backgrounds were recently asked to identify a single constitutional change they would prioritize if given the opportunity. Their responses reveal notable areas of consensus, particularly around reforming the Electoral College and codifying gender equality.

Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, emphasized the importance of restoring legislative authority exclusively to Congress. He highlighted the Constitution’s use of the unequivocal term “all” in Article One, underscoring that all legislative power belongs solely to Congress, not the executive branch or the judiciary. According to George, recent presidential issuance of executive orders and judiciary rulings represent an overreach that undermines constitutional intent. He argued for a renewed commitment to this principle to preserve the separation of powers.

RJ Lyman, president of the Niskanen Center, advocated for instituting term limits across federal offices, extending the principle applied to the presidency to Congress and the Supreme Court. Specifically, he proposed two-term limits for senators, six terms for House members, and fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. Lyman suggested this system could facilitate judicial recusals, improve court capacity, and reduce partisanship, ultimately serving to restrain federal government excesses.

Jay Swanson, senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, called for a comprehensive reevaluation of the First Amendment’s application, particularly around campaign finance. He argued that the amendment has been interpreted in ways that protect the political influence of wealthy interests, a departure from its original anti-oligarchic purpose. Drawing inspiration from abolition-era constitutional arguments, Swanson urged a renewed interpretive approach grounded in the Constitution’s democratic values to overturn rulings such as Citizens United.

Melissa Murray, professor of constitutional law at New York University, stressed the need to explicitly enshrine gender equality in the Constitution by formally adopting the Equal Rights Amendment. She noted ongoing uncertainties surrounding the ERA’s ratification but underscored its symbolic and practical importance, especially amid contemporary discussions about voting rights. Murray traced the historical struggle for gender equality back to early feminists who viewed legal definitions of marriage and domestic relations as forms of domination, arguing that a constitutional amendment is necessary to affirm women’s full citizenship rights.

Lastly, Matt Bennett, co-founder and executive vice president for public affairs at The Third Way, proposed abolishing the Electoral College in favor of deciding the presidential election by national popular vote. Bennett described the Electoral College as an outdated mechanism designed in part to mediate electoral decisions in a less connected era, no longer suited to modern democratic norms. He highlighted its tendency to concentrate campaign attention on a handful of swing states, disadvantaging voters in most parts of the country, while also noting that the shift to digital advertising diminishes concerns about the influence of large states. Bennett warned that preserving the Electoral College risks repeating past instances where the presidency was effectively chosen by the House of Representatives, a scenario he views as ill-fitted to contemporary democracy.

These perspectives illustrate key debates about how the nation might address perceived constitutional shortcomings in legislative authority, democratic representation, judicial function, and equal rights. While amending the Constitution remains a demanding process, the proposals highlight areas where legal scholars and practitioners see potential for reform in pursuit of a more equitable and functional system.