What does the 27th Amendment to the US Constitution state?

1. How the Amendment Reads and What It Literally Means — A Plain Statement That Matters

The amendment’s single sentence reads: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” That plain text means any statutory change to congressional pay cannot become operational until at least one House election has occurred after passage, effectively delaying a raise or cut until voters have had the opportunity to respond. The wording appears consistently in constitutional repositories and legal summaries, which reproduce the same text verbatim and emphasize the single, gatekeeping condition — the intervening election — as the amendment’s operative provision ^{[4] [5]}. This textual clarity leaves limited room for alternative literal readings, though questions arise about implementation details and whether the clause applies to all forms of compensation adjustments.

2. The Unconventional Ratification Story — From 1789 Proposal to 1992 Finish Line

The Twenty‑Seventh Amendment’s journey is unusual: it was proposed in 1789 alongside other early amendments and remained unratified for more than 200 years before being declared adopted in 1992. Historical accounts credit a sustained grassroots effort led by a university student, Gregory Watson, who researched the dormant amendment and campaigned for state legislatures to ratify it, culminating in the necessary three‑quarters threshold ^{[1] [3]}. Archival narratives and constitutional foundations document this rare long‑tail ratification, noting that while most amendments were ratified within a few years, this amendment’s completion required renewed political attention and the changing posture of multiple state legislatures across decades ^[1].

3. Practical Effect — What the Amendment Does and How Courts and Officials Treat It

In practice, the amendment functions as a timing constraint on congressional compensation changes: lawmakers can vote to alter pay but cannot have such changes take effect until after the next House election. Legal commentators and government references emphasize this postponement effect as a safeguard that ties compensation adjustments to electoral accountability, by ensuring legislators cannot immediately benefit from pay changes without facing voters beforehand ^{[6] [7]}. Official constitutional annotations and law school summaries frame the provision as limiting immediate implementation rather than forbidding pay changes outright, which leaves room for legislatures to enact changes timed to comply with the amendment’s intervening‑election requirement ^{[7] [5]}.

4. Why It Matters Politically — Accountability, Anti‑Corruption Framings, and Competing Agendas

The amendment is commonly invoked as an anti‑corruption mechanism: delaying compensation changes forces legislators to face voters before they reap direct financial benefits, thereby creating political accountability. Proponents emphasize the preventive, democratic logic; critics or skeptics point out that timing rules can be circumvented by structuring changes in non‑salary forms or by delayed implementation schedules, and that political calculations still drive whether and when legislatures act. Sources vary in emphasis: historical and constitutional analyses highlight the accountability rationale, while practical assessments from legal commentators note implementation nuances and potential loopholes that could blunt the amendment’s intended restraining effect ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Consensus Across Sources and the Record of Dates — Where Experts Agree and What Remains Uncontroversial

Across the diverse sources consulted, there is broad agreement on three points: the exact text of the amendment, its original 1789 proposal, and its final ratification in 1992 after a prolonged state‑by‑state process. Major repositories and legal reference sites reproduce the same sentence and narrate the same ratification arc, providing consistent dating and documentary support ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Differences among sources are mainly interpretive and practical rather than factual: analysts and institutional resources converge on the amendment’s plain meaning and historical timeline, while legal scholars debate edge cases of application and political actors discuss the amendment’s normative impact on legislative behavior ^{[4] [5]}.