Constitution
§13.1 — Optional Referendum
Read the operative provision in the annotated Constitution.
Open provision →The Residency Verification Enhancement Act passed both chambers and was signed on a Tuesday in Month 4 of Year 4. The Act added new document authentication requirements to the federal Gate 2 certification process under §6.1: biometric verification, notarized translations for foreign-issued documents, and a mandatory third-party credential check for applicants from seventeen specified countries. Supporters called it a necessary integrity measure. Opponents called it a documentation burden that would create certification backlogs for years, and that the country-specific list raised serious §1.6 questions.
Forty-three days after enactment, a coalition called the Open Pathway Alliance — built from immigration law nonprofits, resident community organizations, and civil liberties groups across fourteen States — filed the opening declaration with the Elections Panel. They had until Day 90 to begin. They had begun.
Phase One — The Geographic Requirement
The §13.1 petition process runs in two phases. Phase One requires gathering signatures from citizens equal to a percentage of eligible voters — currently set at 1.2% by statute — in each of at least one-third of all States and Territories. The Republic has 31 States and Territories. The coalition needed to hit 1.2% in at least 11 of them.
The threshold sounds modest. It is not. The challenge is geographic distribution, not raw volume. The five largest States by immigrant-connected population could generate enormous signature counts, but Phase One does not reward depth — it rewards spread. A State with 900,000 eligible voters needed 10,800 signatures. A Territory with 120,000 eligible voters needed 1,440. The organizing work in a smaller Territory was not easier; it was often harder, because the infrastructure did not exist and had to be built.
Phase One — Month 5
Three jurisdictions cleared. Eight short of threshold.
The coalition's initial organizing concentrated in States with the largest affected resident communities. By the end of Month 5, three large States had cleared 1.2%. But Phase One requires distribution, not concentration. Seven of the eleven required States had no organized petition infrastructure at all when the campaign began.
The coalition made a strategic pivot: it deployed half its organizer capacity to smaller States and Territories where the absolute signature requirement was lower, even if the percentage requirement was the same. A Territory that needed 1,440 signatures was achievable in six weeks with a single dedicated team and a digital-first NVS strategy.
By Month 7, the coalition had cleared 1.2% in six States. By Month 9 — within the applicable statute’s eight-month Phase One period — they cleared the eleventh required State. The geographic distribution requirement had been satisfied. Phase One was complete.
Phase Two — The National Threshold
The petition statute allows up to eight months for Phase Two and requires signatures from 5% of eligible voters nationally. Crucially, signatures gathered in Phase One carry over and count toward the Phase Two total. The coalition had gathered approximately 2.3% of eligible voters nationally during Phase One — well below 5%, but a meaningful starting base.
Phase Two organizing was different in character. The geographic constraint was gone; the campaign could concentrate on high-volume States and digital outreach without worrying about distribution. By Month 14 — five months into Phase Two — the national count cleared 5.8%. Phase Two was complete.
5 mo.
Phase One duration
5.8%
National signatures at Phase Two close
90 days
Referendum window after EP certification
Eligibility Screening and the Referendum
At filing, the Elections Panel determined eligibility and published its reasons under §13.1(5). A law is not immune from repeal merely because it implements a constitutional obligation or contains appropriations. Repeal cannot extinguish the underlying constitutional duties. No timely judicial challenge was brought under the applicable statute. After signature verification the Panel scheduled the referendum within ninety days.
The campaign divided on familiar lines. The Act's supporters argued that the authentication requirements were a proportionate integrity measure and that opponents had overstated the documentary burden. The coalition argued that the country-specific list encoded national origin discrimination in the certification process in a way that §1.6 barred, and that the 34-month processing backlog projections the MA had published would overwhelm timely certification. The ballot question was simple: should the Act remain in force?
§13.1 — The Result
Repealed. 56% No, 64% turnout.
56% of votes cast favored repeal. Turnout was 64%. Section 13.1 requires a majority for repeal and supplies no turnout threshold. The Elections Panel certified the result at 11:22 PM on referendum night. The Residency Verification Enhancement Act was repealed from the moment of certification. Existing applications were processed under the prior lawful framework, which had remained in force except for the repealed Act’s added requirements. Section 13.1 does not supply a general automatic revival rule for every repealed predecessor statute.
The Legat Consul issued a technical NRS notice the following morning confirming which certification standards were in effect. No further executive action was required. The repeal was self-executing.
The Legislature Re-Enacts
Nine months after the repeal, the Legislature passed the Residency Certification Integrity Act — a successor statute that retained biometric verification and removed the country-specific documentation list entirely, replacing it with a risk-based assessment framework that applied uniform criteria to all applicants. A new statutory 180-day processing cap replaced the original statutory 90-day timeline. It was signed in Month 26.
The Open Pathway Alliance did not petition the successor statute. The country-specific list had been their primary §1.6 objection. The longer statutory timeline addressed the backlog concern. The coalition's leadership published a statement noting they would monitor implementation and reserved the right to petition future amendments.
What This Scenario Tests
§13.1's two-phase structure is not an accident. Phase One's geographic requirement ensures that a citizen referendum reflects genuine national distribution of concern — not a concentrated campaign in a few States with large affected communities. The coalition in this scenario had the resources to win Phase Two easily. Phase One was the real test, requiring months of organizing infrastructure in States where none existed.
The §13.1 process does not check whether petitioners are right. The Elections Panel's eligibility screen checks only whether the law is the kind of law that can be repealed by referendum. The question of whether the authentication requirements were wise, necessary, or discriminatory was not adjudicated — it was voted on. Citizens who disagreed with the Legislature's judgment had a mechanism to express that disagreement, and they used it.
The Legislature's re-enactment shows the system's iterative design. §13.1 explicitly permits re-enactment of a repealed law, which is then again subject to referendum. The constitution does not treat a successful petition as a permanent bar on the Legislature. It treats it as a democratic instruction to revisit the policy — and trusts that the Legislature, informed by the referendum outcome, will produce something the citizenry can accept.