What will be next US Constitutional Amendment?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of the amendments currently before the states, I could possibly see the Child Labor Amendment being adopted in 2024 if Democrats make an issue of it on the centenary of it being sent to the states.  The 28 states in green have already approved it, and if a push to adopt it were made by labor as a symbolic gesture, I think the 8 states in red would likely approve it now, making for 36 sure states and I think that if it were done as part of an anniverary blitz, they'd have a chance of getting two more to reach the needed 38.

Other amendments that could conceivably pass this century, but not this decade, would be ones banning the death penalty, allowing flag desecration laws, requiring a balanced budget, and/or returning abortion law to the purview of State legislatures.

(On the abortion issue, I can see those who support a narrower time frame for legal abortion than the current "until viability" regime but not a complete abolition of abortion possibly joing forces with those who seek to ban all abortions in passing such an amendment.  It's probably the least likely of the possible new amendments, but not an impossible one.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The electoral college is one of those things that would likely get reformed if we have a convention, but otherwise will not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Two thirds of the States (currently 34) would have to issue an application for a Convention, which then Congress would be obligated to call.  The exact details of what such applications and such a call would entail was never specified.  The closest we came to ever having a convention was 1913 when we were two states short of calling a convention so that an amendment mandating direct election of Senators could be proposed.  The Senate caved and finally agreed to send such an amendment to the States doing that to forestall the possibility of a convention that might do more than just the one amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Other amendments that could conceivably pass this century, but not this decade, would be ones banning the death penalty, allowing flag desecration laws, requiring a balanced budget, and/or returning abortion law to the purview of State legislatures.

Uh, no.

After the last economic downturn it is painfully obvious that rushing to balance the budget would have sent us into a depression... which would further shrink tax receipts which would force even more cuts and so on.

And we have too many laws already.  Creating an entire new set of laws to arrest people for desecrating flags is the last thing we need.  After the disastrous war on drugs I think society is getting a little sick of all these pointless laws that clog up the legal system with innocuous petty criminals.

I never said anything about whether these amendments would be desirable or not, just whether they had any chance, however small, of being adopted this century. There aren't that many people itching to burn flags, so a flag desecration amendment would hardly clog up the courts.  As for the balanced budget amendment, not this decade, but later, if we get into a debt problem bad enough that we actually do default.  The reason most state constitutions have balanced budget clauses is as a reaction to previous defaults by state governments. While I don't see the Federal government having such a default any time soon, having one by the end of the century is quite conceivable, tho not inevitable, and if we do default, taking steps such as a balanced budget amendment to prevent it from ever happening again is quite possible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

An amendment to overturn the far-right Citizens United ruling has to pass soon. Has to. Eighty percent of the public supports such an amendment, so what's the excuse not to pass it?

It won't.  Such an amendment has broad but extremely shallow support and there's no way it'll get the requisite two-thirds of either House or three-quarter of the States.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the gutting of the Voting Rights Act making it necessary, perhaps the Right to Vote Amendment, along with the Equal Rights Amendment.    

While I doubt the Fair Vote Amendment has any chance of passage, I can see where one would argue for its passage as a way to respond to Shelby County v. Holder.  But why the Equal Right Amendment?  Not only am I not aware of any efforts to suppress the women's vote, the Voting Rights Act doesn't include any language about gender based voting discrimination.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

An amendment to overturn the far-right Citizens United ruling has to pass soon. Has to. Eighty percent of the public supports such an amendment, so what's the excuse not to pass it?

It won't.  Such an amendment has broad but extremely shallow support and there's no way it'll get the requisite two-thirds of either House or three-quarter of the States.

Numerous states have already endorsed it. I don't know if that really helps it in Congress though.

Numerous is not three-quarters.  It's not even a majority.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the gutting of the Voting Rights Act making it necessary, perhaps the Right to Vote Amendment, along with the Equal Rights Amendment.    

While I doubt the Fair Vote Amendment has any chance of passage, I can see where one would argue for its passage as a way to respond to Shelby County v. Holder.  But why the Equal Right Amendment?  Not only am I not aware of any efforts to suppress the women's vote, the Voting Rights Act doesn't include any language about gender based voting discrimination.

The Voting Rights Act was most recently renewed under George W. Bush, with most Republicans voting in favor.

The GOP of Bush's time was an entirely different beast.  

Yes and no.  I suspect that if there were Shelby County and the VRA were to come up for renewal today, something very like the 2006 renewal would be passed.  Failing to renew it was not an option, and changing the preclearance coverage formula was and still is a political livewire the GOP did not want to touch.  Still, it probably will have to wait for Democratic Congress to write a new section 4 that takes into account SCOTUS' concerns.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would Universal preclearance be kosher?

Possibly, but there's no way that would fly politically.  If it was only about redistricting, it wouldn't be too bad, but under preclearance, every little election detail, up to and including precinct locations, had to be vetted by the DoJ in advance every time there was the slightest change in procedure or regulations.  It wasn't solely or even mainly a desire to return to the bad old days of Jim Crow that cause Southern governments to get rid of preclearance. Preclearance was a pain in the butt to deal with, especially if DoJ was moving at a typical bureaucratically glacial pace.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Other amendments that could conceivably pass this century, but not this decade, would be ones banning the death penalty, allowing flag desecration laws, requiring a balanced budget, and/or returning abortion law to the purview of State legislatures.

I don't see flag desecration laws ever passing ratification, and it'd be a stupid amendment if done.

Not at the present, but I could easily see such an amendment passed during a future surge of patriotic fervor.  I do agree it would be stupid.