There’s plenty of evidence we live in a post-literate world, thanks to the rise of video-based social media and a steep decline in reading over recent years. The latest evidence comes from a congresswoman who wants to add images to legislation. It’s certainly not an idea to immediately reject out of hand, but the congresswoman made the explicit case this could be needed because not all Americans can understand boring old text.
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington state, tweeted Tuesday about her efforts to allow illustrations—including blueprints, maps, and web page layouts—into legislation text.
“Have you ever thought that it’s really weird you can’t add pictures to laws?” Gluesenkamp Perez tweeted. “I see so many laws that would be clearer and more logical if we could just include a map or a blueprint.”
“Congress recently passed my initiative to bring legislation into the 21st century and explore including images in the text of bills—this is a long overdue step in the legislative process,” she continued.
Have you ever thought that it's really weird you can’t add pictures to laws? I see so many laws that would be clearer and more logical if we could just include a map or a blueprint.
Congress recently passed my initiative to bring legislation into the 21st century and explore… pic.twitter.com/9tlxnTLNpP
— Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (@RepMGP) August 25, 2026
Gluesenkamp Perez included the text of a letter she sent to both Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress about creating a standardized process for including images into legislation.
The congresswoman mentioned in her letter that an appropriations bill included a call to study this issue and generate a report on feasibility. But the most interesting lines come near the end of the letter, where she seems to acknowledge that we’re evolving into a world where text is no longer seen as the best way to convey information. Or at least not the most popular way.
From her letter:
Ultimately, this is about representation. For too long, our laws have been written for “staffer bros” with bow ties who will issue guidance on how to follow them from cubicles on Pennsylvania Avenue. We should be able to draft legislation that speaks to all Americans, regardless of how they learn or the profession they work in—from visual learners and foremen to lawyers and policy experts.
A blueprint, diagram, map, or other illustration can communicate legislative intent more clearly than text alone, and Congress should have a clear and consistent process for using that tool. Modernizing our drafting practices in this way will make our laws more accessible without undermining the integrity of the legislative process.
I respectfully ask for your support in advancing this important institutional improvement.
Gluesenkamp Perez, who took office in 2023, has been interested in this topic for some time. She complained in a 2025 Facebook video that Congress was “built by lawyers for lawyers.”
“Visual information is as true as legalese. Probably more so,” Gluesenkamp Perez said.
That’s certainly a populist message that will resonate with wide swaths of the population at first glance. But it’s also kind of a silly declaration on its face. Congress is crafting laws. Legislation has legalese because it pertains to laws. We might like to make laws simpler or easier for the common person to understand, but every field has specialized knowledge that needs to be studied and utilized in sometimes complex ways to succeed.
And visual information is open to interpretation as much as written information. Arguably, it’s harder to interpret visual information and apply that information in the real world. We’re all familiar with the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you include a diagram or blueprint in your legislation, it might make it easier for some people to understand. But there’s no question that it will be interpreted in a hundred different ways by various judges across the country.
Facts Only
* Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez tweeted about efforts to add images, including blueprints, maps, and web page layouts, into legislation text.
* The congresswoman stated that adding pictures could make laws clearer and more logical.
* A letter mentioned a call for Congress to study the feasibility of including images in legislation.
* The congresswoman asserted that laws should be drafted to speak to all Americans, regardless of learning style or profession.
* Visual information can communicate legislative intent more clearly than text alone.
* The congresswoman mentioned that visual information is as true as legalese.
* The congresswoman complained in a 2025 video that Congress was "built by lawyers for lawyers."
Executive Summary
A congresswoman has advocated for including visual elements, such as blueprints, maps, and web page layouts, in legislative text to enhance clarity. The congresswoman suggested this is necessary because not all Americans can easily understand traditional text. She argued that visual aids could make laws clearer and more logical.
The congresswoman also referenced an initiative passed by Congress to explore including images in bills. In a letter to leaders, she framed the request as a matter of representation, suggesting that laws should be drafted for all Americans, including visual learners and those from various professions. She argued that illustrations can communicate legislative intent more clearly than text alone.
The congresswoman expressed frustration with the current method of lawmaking, suggesting it is designed for a narrow group rather than reflecting the diversity of the population. She requested a standardized process for using visual tools in legislation to improve accessibility without compromising the integrity of the legal process.
Full Take
The discussion pivots on the tension between textual tradition and contemporary modes of communication in governance, specifically questioning the epistemic authority vested solely in written language. The argument moves from a practical plea for improved clarity—using visual aids like maps or blueprints—to a broader claim about representation: that legal frameworks should be accessible to diverse populations.
The text establishes a core conflict regarding interpretation: while visuals can offer immediate clarity ("a picture is worth a thousand words"), they introduce complexities in application, noting that visual information is open to numerous interpretations by judges. This raises the critical question of whether prioritizing accessibility through imagery necessarily undermines the precise, specialized nature required for legal structures and judicial consistency.
The underlying pattern suggests a friction between institutional inertia (the established reliance on legalese) and evolving societal expectations (the demand for accessible, multimodal communication). The appeal is framed as an attempt to democratize legislative practice, but the caution introduced—that visual information is harder to apply consistently in the real world—reveals a resistance to shifting foundational assumptions. The implication is that the proposed change forces a reckoning over what constitutes legitimate and stable knowledge within a formalized system.
What criteria should dictate the weighting between immediate comprehension (visual clarity) and rigorous, specialized application (textual precision) when establishing public law? If visual representations are more accessible but more open to diverse interpretation, does this compromise the necessary constraints of legal certainty, or does it simply mandate a new method for achieving that certainty?
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as an analysis of a legislative proposal, skillfully weaving in direct quotes while providing reflective commentary on the tension between clarity and legal complexity.