The Legislative Integrity and Single Subject Act

Recognizing that democracy requires laws to be understood by those who must obey them; Rejecting the practice of passing massive, unread legislation in the dark; Hereby establishes the "Read the Bill" mandate and the strict Single Subject Rule.

Art. 1.

1. Every bill, act, or legislative proposal introduced or voted upon must embrace only one single subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

2. All provisions within a bill must have a direct, logical, and natural connection to the primary subject. Provisions that are substantive in nature cannot be grouped together solely under the guise of "Budgetary Measures" or "Miscellaneous Provisions."

3. Any provision or section of an act that is not germane to the single subject expressed in the title is void ab initio. If the non-germane provisions are inseparable from the whole, the entire act is void.

Art. 2.

1. No vote may be held on the final passage of any bill unless the complete, final text of the bill has been published on a publicly accessible official website for at least 72 hours (3 full days) prior to the vote.

2. If any amendment is added to the bill, the 72-hour clock resets. Voting on a bill that has been modified hours before the session is prohibited.

3. The 72-hour rule may be waived ONLY in cases of:

a) Imminent military attack;

b) Natural disaster requiring immediate aid;

provided that a separate vote is taken specifically to waive the rule, achieving a 2/3 supermajority.

Art. 3.

1. The practice of consolidating unrelated appropriations, authorizations, and policy changes into a single "Omnibus" or "Consolidated" spending bill is prohibited. Appropriations for each major department or policy area must be voted upon as separate, standalone bills.

2. It is prohibited to attach "riders"—provisions unrelated to the appropriation of funds—to budgetary legislation. Policy changes must not be enacted via spending bills.

3. The primary sponsor of the bill is obligated to provide a summary, not exceeding 1000 words, written in plain language. While the content of the summary is not subject to judicial review to avoid litigation gridlock, the failure to publish any summary at all constitutes a procedural defect preventing the vote.

Art. 4.

1. Any law passed in violation of the procedure set forth in Art. 2 (72-Hour Rule) or Art. 1 (Single Subject) is defectively enacted and subject to judicial nullification. Upon a finding of violation by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Act shall be declared void and unenforceable.

2. Any citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the state has legal standing to file a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment that an act violates the Single Subject Rule or the 72-Hour Rule.

3. Courts shall grant expedited review (priority docket) for challenges based on this Act, as they pertain to the fundamental validity of the legislative process.

4. Upon a prima facie showing that the 72-Hour Rule was violated, the court shall issue a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of the Act until the procedural defect is cured.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (EXPOSÉ)

1. THE PROBLEM

Modern legislation has become a tool of obfuscation. "Omnibus" bills often exceed 5,000 pages and are released merely hours before a vote. This darkness allows special interests to hide corruption inside "must-pass" legislation. When representatives vote on laws they haven't read, representative democracy collapses.

2. THE OBJECTIVE

This Act restores legislative hygiene. It enforces the "Single Subject Rule," ensuring that if a bill is about "Disaster Relief," it cannot secretly ban software. It mandates a 72-hour waiting period for the final text. It forces legislators to vote on specific issues rather than giant, all-or-nothing packages.

3. ADDRESSING CONCERNS: GRIDLOCK VS. DELIBERATION

Critics argue that voting on separate bills will slow down the legislative process ("gridlock"). This is a purposeful feature, not a bug. Speed in legislation often serves only lobbyists and special interests. A slower, more deliberate process ensures that each expenditure and policy is publicly debated and scrutinized. The cost of a slightly slower parliament is a small price to pay for the prevention of corruption and the restoration of public trust.