Update Constitutional Committee 2026
144 DReps voted · 49 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes347.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain341.1K ₳Rationale
Abstaining from voting as a DRep due to my role as a member of the Tingvard constitutional consortium, ensuring structural independence and avoiding conflicts of interest between governance delegation and constitutional interpretation.
Thank you for reading my rationale. You can follow my governance journey on X as user @kenerik
- Yes287.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain282.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes272.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes268.8K ₳No rationale
- No246K ₳Rationale
I'm noticing a trend of too many individuals from the same coordinated circle taking over the CC. I will vote no until there is more interest-diversity amongst the council.
- Yes237.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the Update Constitutional Committee 2026 governance action.
This action implements the outcome of the 2026 Constitutional Committee election by updating committee membership to reflect the candidates selected through the established DRep voting process.
For me, this vote is not about whether I personally agree with every view, statement, or action of every individual elected. It is about respecting a legitimate governance process and honoring its verified outcome.
Decentralized governance only has meaning if the community is willing to accept the results of the processes it has agreed to use. Elections cannot become symbolic exercises where results are respected only when they align with our individual preferences.
The Constitutional Committee has a specific and important role within Cardano governance: determining whether governance actions comply with the Cardano Constitution. Its purpose is not to dictate policy or replace the judgment of DReps, SPOs, or ADA holders, but to serve as an independent constitutional safeguard within the broader governance system.
Updating the committee in accordance with the election results also supports continuity, accountability, and the orderly transfer of governance responsibility.
I have seen no compelling evidence that the election process or its outcome was invalid, nor any reason to reject the implementation of the results.
Decentralization does not happen simply because the protocol allows it. It happens because the community deliberately practices it. That includes participating in elections, respecting their outcomes, and allowing Cardano’s governance institutions to evolve through transparent community-driven processes.
For those reasons, I vote YES.
- Yes189.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes184.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes149.7K ₳Rationale
Supporting this as the routine on-chain ratification of the already-elected and audited 2026 Constitutional Committee candidates. No issues with the process or the proposed members.
- Yes138.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes125.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes121.8K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes because this governance action is fundamentally about honoring the outcome of Cardano’s 2026 Constitutional Committee election and ensuring continuity of constitutional governance.
The four incoming members — Philip DiSarro, Leandros BSP, Marek Mahut, and Cardano Curia — were selected through the established public election process, with candidate registration, stake-weighted DRep voting, independent auditing, and publication of the final results before this update action was submitted. Approving this action therefore respects the legitimacy of that process rather than reopening the candidate selection after the election has already concluded.
I also believe continuity matters. The Constitutional Committee plays a necessary role in reviewing governance actions for constitutional compliance, and the expiring seats must be renewed to keep the committee functioning properly. This update balances continuity through the re-election of existing members with new representation through incoming members, while preserving the existing quorum and established term limits.
For me, the key principle is simple: if Cardano establishes a transparent, auditable election process, then governance should faithfully enact its results unless there is a material procedural or constitutional defect. I see no such issue here. For that reason, I am voting yes to approve the elected committee update.
- Yes86.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes85.7K ₳Rationale
Its a shame APAC is not represented but rather a functioning body than none.
- Yes85.6K ₳Rationale
EN — iFly (SWADA) votes YES. The Constitutional Committee must be renewed before the four seats expiring at epoch 653 lapse, otherwise the committee risks falling below committeeMinSize and constitutional review stalls. The election was constitution-compliant (Article III §3), open to any ada holder, conducted on chain via Ekklesia, and independently audited by DQuadrant. The four seated members are the top four by DRep stake-weighted vote.
Reservation: only about 38 DReps (~2.3B ada) took part in the election, which is a thin legitimacy base, and the Asia Africa Cardano Coalition finished fifth — so APAC and Africa lose direct representation. I would like to see both turnout and regional balance addressed before the next cycle. A functioning committee nevertheless beats a stalled one. I vote YES.
SV — iFly (SWADA) röstar JA. Konstitutionsutskottet måste förnyas innan de fyra platserna som löper ut vid epok 653 upphör, annars riskerar utskottet att hamna under committeeMinSize och den konstitutionella granskningen stannar av. Valet följde konstitutionen (artikel III §3), var öppet för alla ada-innehavare, genomfördes on-chain via Ekklesia och granskades oberoende av DQuadrant. De fyra tillsatta ledamöterna är de fyra främsta enligt DRep-viktad röstning.
Invändning: endast omkring 38 DReps (~2,3 miljarder ada) deltog i valet, vilket är en tunn legitimitetsgrund, och Asia Africa Cardano Coalition kom på femte plats — därmed förlorar APAC och Afrika direkt representation. Jag vill se både valdeltagande och regional balans åtgärdade före nästa omgång. Ett fungerande utskott är ändå bättre än ett som står stilla. Jag röstar JA. - Yes73.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes62.6K ₳Rationale
This action faithfully seats the candidates chosen through Intersect's open, publicly audited 2026 CC election.
- Yes56K ₳No rationale
- Yes51.8K ₳Rationale
I vote Yes for this proposal intended to extend the Terms of the incumbent CC members. ~Lourde Ouroborus Imperator Aeternalis ~
- Yes50.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain45.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain35.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes31.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes19.7K ₳Rationale
This one's straightforward for me. The election was public, it was audited, everything's on-chain and checkable. Two of the four people are already on the committee doing the work, and the other two bring something new without anyone grabbing extra power.
The committee needs to be full to function, and this fills it the right way. I don't see anything here that gives me pause.
Voting yes.
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes9K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes688.7 ₳No rationale
- Abstain292 ₳No rationale
- Yes167.7 ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale