> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://civicscommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://civicscommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/our-current-work/constitutional-amendment-process.md). # Constitutional Amendment Process The Cardano Constitution can be changed. Until 2026 there was no agreed way to do it. The right to amend was always there, but a right without a process is a theory. Without an agreed method for proposing, debating and refining changes, nothing stood between the Constitution and a rushed amendment that went straight on-chain with no scrutiny, or one drafted by a well-resourced few that the wider community never had a real chance to read. The Civics Committee established a working group in September 2025 to close that gap. The result is a documented process and a live portal. [**Open the CAP Portal**](https://cap.intersectmbo.org/) to read proposals, submit one, or take part in a consultation. Guides, FAQs and step-by-step instructions all live there. *** ### How the process works **Two ways in.** A **Constitutional Amendment Proposal (CAP)** is for a specific change you want made. A **Constitution Issue Statement (CIS)** is for a problem you have spotted but cannot yet solve. The second route matters: without it, anyone who sees a flaw but has no fix has nowhere to go. **Proportionate scrutiny.** Consultation periods scale to how significant the change is. These are recommended minimums, not hard limits. | Category | Example | Minimum | | ------------ | ------------------------------------------- | ------- | | Editorial | Typo, broken link | 14 days | | Interpretive | Clarifying wording without changing meaning | 30 days | | Procedural | Changing how a governance process works | 60 days | | Substantive | Changing a core principle or value | 60 days | | Technical | Changing on-chain economic rules | 90 days | | Other | Anything else | 30 days | **Editors guard the process, not the content.** An editor can flag inconsistency, conflict with other constitutional text, unclear drafting, or unintended consequences. An editor cannot block a proposal, rewrite its meaning, or favour one proposal over another. Authors keep ownership of their own work, and the full history of what was suggested and what was accepted stays public. > The Editor protects the quality of the process; the Author defines the power of the proposal. **Participation is voluntary.** Cardano is permissionless, and anyone may submit a constitutional governance action on-chain without using this Portal. What the process offers is legitimacy: a public, verifiable record that a proposal was properly debated and refined before the community voted on it. **The record is verifiable.** The portal is open source, uses open data formats, and exposes a public API. Proposals, comments, versions and audit events can be inspected, mirrored, or built on. Version history is hash-chained, so the record can be checked independently. *** ### Working group documents The design work behind the process, and the source material for anyone who wants to scrutinise it. | Document | What it is | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | [Phase 1 Requirements Document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BvTW5LlFezNXG5agxZ6Gi35f-3Ma_mzlVEk8aGmu0wE/edit?usp=sharing) | The nine principles any acceptable amendment process must satisfy, plus the operational and technical constraints. Approved 4 December 2025. | | [Phase 2 Deliverables](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yu5Szh6P8sMYo74oomemon-UAEcoJ1IU6uJEEHVPfIY/edit?usp=sharing) | The full process design: lifecycle, consultation cycles, editorial review, role definitions, ratification handover. Approved 27 August 2026. | | [Working Group Charter v2.0](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iSrvuWTQGOlQYIq536huYDwM67GuFTrqQEilIi2pE70/edit?usp=sharing) | The group's current mandate, superseding [v1.0](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yiU8E6x2svg5ZjsBtt39DN-j8e7eI-K1_VeMUG10Uzc/edit?usp=sharing). | | [Meeting transcripts](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oILReUq36yM3J-eYABr_9dY9R3l3heOJ?usp=sharing) | Every working group session, published. | | [Workshop materials](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j_fmp8fShyeL10LnPh0L8rkjYgk6q4Sh?usp=sharing) | Including the Day Zero workshop in Berlin, the first public test of the concepts. | *** ### Who built it The working group brought together people from the Cardano Foundation, Intersect, IOG and the community, including independent DReps and governance participants from around the world. It met weekly and published everything. The design was shaped early by one question: who is this actually for? The obvious model was the existing GitHub-based process Cardano uses for technical improvements. But most of the community are not software developers, and requiring a GitHub account to comment on a constitutional amendment would have excluded most of the people the process exists to serve. The resolution was to keep a permanent, transparent backbone while putting a plain web front door in front of it. *** ### Status The portal is in **public alpha through November 2026**. The working group is currently on hiatus, awaiting finalization of the Alpha phase. Known open items: multilingual support is on the roadmap but not built; email notifications were deliberately omitted from v1 to avoid GDPR complexity; and the question of who submits the final on-chain governance action at the end of the process is not yet settled. --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://civicscommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/our-current-work/constitutional-amendment-process.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.