Do my elected officials really want to hear from me?

100% absolutely, yes! Elected officials are in office because of their constituents, and most genuinely want to understand the issues that matter to the people they represent. Hearing directly from real voters like yourself on specific issues helps legislators understand the real human impact of policy decisions that can otherwise feel abstract. Your voice, particularly as someone who votes and lives in their district, carries real weight.

What typically happens when an elected official receives communications from a constituent?

Most offices track and log every piece of communication they receive. Staff members sort messages by topic and tally how many constituents have contacted the office in favor of or against a particular issue. These tallies are regularly reported to the legislator. When a significant number of constituents weigh in on the same topic, it signals to the official that the issue is important to their district and additional attention may be needed. Tip: Personalized, thoughtful messages about an issue will often carry more weight and get noticed, resulting in the likelihood of a personal response (but never guaranteed).

How do elected officials feel about grassroots advocacy?

Most elected officials view grassroots advocacy favorably and as an important part of the democratic process. It shows that an issue has broad community support beyond professional lobbyists or special interest groups. Legislators are also aware that for every person who takes action, many more constituents likely share the same concerns.

How long is too long when it comes to an effective message to a legislator?

Shorter is almost always better. A message of 200–300 words is ideal. State who you are (their constituent!), what issue you are contacting them about (an issue or bill #), what you are asking them to do (support vs. oppose, co-sponsor, etc.), and why it matters to you personally. Don’t overthink—speak from your heart and experience. Tip: Aim to make your key point in the first two sentences.

Should I include personal information about myself, family, or job in my message?

Including relevant personal context—your profession, your role as a caregiver, or how an issue directly affects you—will make your message more compelling and memorable. Use your judgment and only share what you are comfortable with and what is genuinely relevant. Tip: Avoid including financial details, medical specifics, or other sensitive data. A brief, authentic personal story can make a strong impact without getting too specific.

What happens when I send a message and who typically reads it?

At the federal level, most communications are ingested into an electronic system that segments messages into organized categories reviewed by the appropriate staff. At the state level, messages may go into a similar system or be sent directly to the office email. Constituent messages are initially read by junior staff who sort and categorize them, then reviewed by a legislative aide or policy staffer who specializes in that subject area. Particularly compelling messages may be flagged and brought directly to the legislator’s attention.

How do I find out who my elected officials are and how to contact them?

The advocacy system integrated into the American Vox Pop site will seamlessly connect you to your elected official based on the bill or issue (state vs. federal) and ensure delivery of your message.

Do I need to mention affiliations when contacting an elected official?

If you believe mentioning an affiliation (organization, club, society, etc.) has an advantage, do so—but always start by mentioning your personal connection as their constituent or someone who lives and votes in their district. Your constituent status is your most powerful credential.

Is there anything I should avoid when contacting an elected official?

Stay focused on one topic per message. Avoid foul language, personal attacks, or anything that could be misconstrued as a threat. Do not contact a federal official about a state issue (or vice versa) as it’s outside their jurisdiction. If you don’t have a personal story, don’t make one up—it’s okay to support or oppose an issue based on its merits alone.

Can I really make a difference?

100% yes! When you combine your voice with others in an organized advocacy effort, the cumulative impact can be significant. While quantity does matter, a well-written, heartfelt message from a constituent can and often does shift or enhance an official’s perspective.

Restore the Constitutional Balance: Defend the Tenth Amendment from Federal Agency Overreach

As America enters a new era of industrial mobilization—driven by national security, advanced technology, energy expansion, and supply chain reshoring—we face a critical structural test. Federal agencies are increasingly tempted to bypass local consent, using administrative preemption to override state decisions on land use, water rights, and infrastructure siting. While national progress is vital, eroding our constitutional architecture is not the answer.We the People must demand that federal urgency respects state authority. The honest path forward is not to deny these tensions, but to channel them through the constitutional architecture designed by the Founders: the Tenth Amendment. By establishing a statutory "clear-statement rule," we can ensure that federal agencies cannot displace state law by mere inference or administrative overreach. True, durable national progress requires the consent of the governed, built upon the foundation of state-level deliberation.

Defend the Tenth: Reclaiming State Sovereignty Over Land and Water

Reaffirm Tenth Amendment limits on federal preemption of state authority over land, water, and local infrastructure siting.

Why Defending the Tenth Matters

The Pressure of Industrial Mobilization

Accelerated federal timelines for energy, chips, and artificial intelligence infrastructure create unprecedented pressure to override local authority, threatening to turn cooperative federalism into administrative coercion.

The Erosion of Constitutional Architecture

Federal agencies routinely use doctrines like 'implied preemption' and 'obstacle preemption' to displace state laws without explicit authorization from Congress, bypassing the legislative process entirely.

Durable Consent Requires Local Deliberation

Top-down federal mandates provoke long-term political and legal resistance. State-level deliberation is not a bottleneck; it is the essential mechanism that produces the durable consent required for physical infrastructure to succeed.

Our Proposed Solutions

✓

Establish a Statutory Clear-Statement Rule

Enact a federal 'Defend the Tenth Act' requiring Congress to explicitly state its intent in statutory text before any federal agency may preempt state authority over land, water, or local siting.

✓

Reverse Presumptions of Implied Preemption

Statutorily declare that implied, field, and obstacle preemption in covered domains are rebuttable presumptions, shifting the burden of proof back to federal agencies.

✓

Empower State Attorneys General with Expedited Standing

Authorize state AGs to bring civil actions in federal court to challenge unauthorized agency preemption, with a statutory mandate for federal courts to issue a decision within 180 days.

✓

Mandate Congressional Transparency and Oversight

Direct the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to publish an annual report detailing every federal agency action asserting preemption in covered domains to restore legislative visibility.

✓

Enact State-Level Companion Sovereignty Acts

Encourage states to pass parallel legislation declaring state authority over land, water, and siting as sovereign functions, requiring formal intergovernmental compacts rather than agency directives.

Key Facts at a Glance

The Constitutional Baseline

The Tenth Amendment, ratified in 1791, explicitly reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the States or to the People.

The Clear-Statement Precedent

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly applied the 'clear-statement rule' across major federalism cases, establishing that Congress must speak unambiguously to alter the federal-state balance.

Unchecked Agency Actions

Federal agencies assert preemption hundreds of times per year across various rulemakings and administrative decisions, the vast majority of which never undergo direct congressional review.

The RFRA Legislative Model

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 serves as a direct historical precedent for Congress using a statute to broadly reaffirm and protect a core constitutional principle across all federal actions.

Sample Talking Points

The Founders solved the federal-state tension in 1791. The structural balance of the Tenth Amendment has held through every American crisis, and we must reaffirm it before the next crisis tests it.

Federal agencies currently use doctrines like implied and obstacle preemption to displace state laws without Congress ever taking a vote. This bill flips the presumption: Congress must speak expressly, or state authority holds.

This is not an anti-progress initiative. It preserves genuine federal authority where Congress has spoken clearly. It simply demands that federal agencies respect the limits of their statutory mandates.

If a Member of Congress refuses to vote to reaffirm the Tenth Amendment with a clear-statement rule, ask them directly: which part of our constitutional architecture do they believe we can do without?

Local consent is the foundation of durable national progress. Top-down administrative mandates fail; cooperative federalism succeeds.

Want to Take Action?

Engage with American VoxPop. Contact your elected officials to make your voice heard on this campaign.

Start Trial Membership!

Stay Informed

Get notified about advocacy campaigns and ways to make a difference.

FederalismTenth AmendmentSovereigntyLand UseWater RightsAccountabilityAdministrative State

Restore the Constitutional Balance: Defend the Tenth Amendment from Federal Agency Overreach

Defend the Tenth: Reclaiming State Sovereignty Over Land and Water

Why Defending the Tenth Matters

The Pressure of Industrial Mobilization

The Erosion of Constitutional Architecture

Durable Consent Requires Local Deliberation

Our Proposed Solutions

Establish a Statutory Clear-Statement Rule

Reverse Presumptions of Implied Preemption

Empower State Attorneys General with Expedited Standing

Mandate Congressional Transparency and Oversight

Enact State-Level Companion Sovereignty Acts

Key Facts at a Glance

The Constitutional Baseline

The Clear-Statement Precedent

Unchecked Agency Actions

The RFRA Legislative Model

Sample Talking Points

Administrative Preemption vs. The Clear-Statement Rule

Want to Take Action?

Stay Informed

Advocacy Campaign FAQs

Restore the Constitutional Balance: Defend the Tenth Amendment from Federal Agency Overreach

Defend the Tenth: Reclaiming State Sovereignty Over Land and Water

Why Defending the Tenth Matters

The Pressure of Industrial Mobilization

The Erosion of Constitutional Architecture

Durable Consent Requires Local Deliberation

Our Proposed Solutions

Establish a Statutory Clear-Statement Rule

Reverse Presumptions of Implied Preemption

Empower State Attorneys General with Expedited Standing

Mandate Congressional Transparency and Oversight

Enact State-Level Companion Sovereignty Acts

Key Facts at a Glance

The Constitutional Baseline

The Clear-Statement Precedent

Unchecked Agency Actions

The RFRA Legislative Model

Sample Talking Points

Administrative Preemption vs. The Clear-Statement Rule

Want to Take Action?

Stay Informed