Straight answers

A legal right that requires public officials to justify major decisions with honest, evidence-based reasoning on the public record, enforceable through the courts we already have.

For a major decision, an official has to put written reasons in the public record that honestly state the facts they found, the evidence and law they relied on, the main alternatives they weighed, and why the chosen action best fits the law and the facts. It applies to the big stuff: rules, contracts, permits, enforcement, and election administration, not every routine act.

It is not a vibe. There are concrete, objective tests: does the record match what the official actually relied on, does the logic connect the facts to the action, did they post reasons in time, did they address the real alternatives and the contrary evidence they were on notice of, and could an honest official have reached that conclusion on that record. Failing any one is a violation. A citizen panel reviews the reasoning and advises, and courts keep the final say.

The normal result is a remand: the decision goes back to be redone honestly, with no finding of fault. The official can even reach the same result if they justify it honestly. Personal penalties and, in the worst cases, removal are reserved for bad faith or a repeated pattern, proven to a high standard in court.

Secrecy is a reason to route the record, not to skip it. Nothing in the framework requires disclosing information that federal law requires be kept confidential. What it does require is that the official file a sealed justification with the court, post a public substitute explanation to the fullest extent the law allows, and state on the public record why confidentiality was invoked. The sealed portion is inspected by inspectors independent of the branch claiming the secret, not by the citizen panel, and their findings become evidence in the case. If the sealed material conflicts with what is publicly known, the public evidence prevails unless the sealed findings show by clear and convincing evidence that the public evidence is materially false or misleading. An official who reaches for confidentiality again and again builds a public record of having done so, and that pattern is itself reviewable. “We cannot tell you” is not an answer by itself.

No. The honesty standard applies equally to every party and every branch. In the national study, majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents all said they would vote for it, and opposition never rose above 10% in any bloc. Most of those who did not vote yes were undecided, not opposed.

No. Honest, reasoned disagreement is protected, even when you dislike the outcome. Only knowing dishonesty on the official record is actionable, to a high standard, with court review. There are caps on filings, fast dismissal of frivolous petitions with costs shifted to the filer, and abusing the process is itself a violation. The same rule that catches a bad official catches a bad-faith filer.

No. An honest, well-reasoned decision is protected even if a court later reverses it on the merits. The criminal piece is rare and narrow, every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is walled off from the civil track.

The duty attaches to the reasons an official enters in the record for an official decision, not to anything they say as a citizen, a candidate, or a party member. Campaign speech, personal commentary, and political debate are untouched. It also does not require any official to affirm a view the state approves of. It requires them to state the reasons they actually relied on, and those stated reasons are what gets tested. This is not a law against lying: false statements are not regulated as speech, though they can be evidence in court the way they already are under ordinary evidence rules. Honest disagreement, a mistaken prediction, and an incomplete debate are not violations, and the text says a merely debatable judgment is not enough on its own. Independent attorneys are reviewing exactly these questions on the record, including the compelled-speech and overbreadth objections. We do not claim the design is beyond challenge. We claim the line it draws, official records rather than private speech, is the right one and a defensible one.

We believe it extends standards courts already apply. Independent attorneys are reviewing the operative text on the record. We do not claim it is bulletproof. We claim it is a serious, defensible design worth public debate.

No. You are standing behind one sentence: the American people have a right to honest government service. It is not an endorsement of the operative legal text, of the organizations, or of any party or candidate, and the design is still being revised in public. Nothing is published until you confirm by email. You choose whether your name is listed publicly or counted privately, and you can change or remove it yourself at any time from the link in that email. No donation is required or expected.

Two nonprofit entities: a research institute organized under section 501(c)(3) (federal recognition application in preparation) and a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, legally and financially separate. A coalition and advisory council are forming; board seats follow.

Independent reviewers are engaged under a published process. Until their written reviews release, we say the work is under independent review and we publish our materials so anyone can scrutinize them directly.

You choose. The Institute funds research and education; deductibility of those gifts is conditional on IRS recognition (application in preparation). The Action organization funds non-deductible advocacy. Separate accounts, separate receipts, never commingled.

Skepticism is fair. The headline number (73% would vote it into law) comes from a nationally representative study run by Verasight, an independent research firm, and preregistered before any data came in. It is the final vote, taken after people read the complete ballot text and reviewed the detailed enforcement design. Only 8% said no; the rest were undecided. The instrument is public. Read it and judge for yourself.

Yes. You can walk through the full ballot the way a study participant did, including the 13 principles and the response breakdown for every page. The law itself, in plain language, is at the end of the story walk, which opens the full site with the framework and the amendment text. If you prefer to read, the whole story is also written out as one page.