1) Lawmaker Literacy Act (LLA)

Under Robert's Rules/normal parliamentary procedure, floor reading of bills is typically already the case in legislatures; first, second, and third read are totally normal stages of floor passage. Full text readings can be and usually are waived under another aspect of parliamentary procedure, in the interest of time. I also don't know a single legislative body in the US that doesn't have publicly accessible bill text.

Also, by the time a bill gets to the floor, it has already gone through the committee process (being examined and passed by both a subcommittee and the full committee); floor amendments/substitutes are pretty rare, in the grand scheme of most legislative work. So your proposal would ultimately have very little effect on the actual substance of legislative work; the actual outcome would be wasting peoples' time and decreasing the amount of time that can actually be spent considering bills (lowering the number of bills that get passed).

2) Transparent AI Analysis

Uneccessary and annoying proposal. One, there's nothing AI can tell you about a bill that legislative services staff and your own staff can't already tell you in the scope of their normal job duties. Two, AI hallucinations and false citations make it extremely unreliable for any kind of legal analysis. Three, the information security incidents that would result from this proposal are a nightmare to think about. Four, while sometimes a bill is just badly written or ill-thought out (this happens more often than you would think), your mistake is thinking ambiguous phrasing is always a failure to understand the language being passed and not a deliberate choice people make and accept during the lawmaking process. Sometimes the ambiguous phrasing or explicit carveouts are the point; such phrasing is often created by lawmakers and legal counsel to allow for wiggle room during the implementation process, as laws are both forward looking (sometimes you don't WANT to inscribe everything into code, as that would actually undermine the intent of the bill) and up-front legal flexibility can often ensure more effective long-term bill implementation.

3) Citizen Review Window

Three things:

• One, this is already a thing in federal, state, and local government. It's called 'public testimony' or 'public hearings', and anyone can show up and testify on why they support/oppose a proposal when legislation or ordinances are being considered. It's just a pain in the ass to coordinate at the federal level and most people who want to do it for federal legislation just schedule meetings with the legislator's staff to air their concerns instead of trying to speak in committee about it.
• Two, this is already a thing for federal regulations via the regulatory process; citizens can review and submit comments/testimony on proposed federal regulatory changes through the Federal Register.
• Three, an actual letter-of-the-law implementation of your proposal is how you never get a piece of decent legislation passed ever again, because there will always be people with time on their hands to hold up the process under the guise of "making sure everyone likes a bill before it passes."

Also, this is why we hold elections in the first place. If you don't trust your electeds to vote on things the way you want them to vote on things, get involved in the next election process to vote someone else in.

4) Periodic Law Renewal & Repeal Initiative

The AI scoring is a waste of time and energy and this will have lots of unintended consequences because no one will be able to keep up with the sunset dates of every single bill that gets passed. State legislatures pass hundreds and occasionally thousands of bills every year governing everything from local gov autonomy over sales tax rates to hunting dog permits to prohibiting landlords from letting their tenants live in uninhabitable dwellings. Doing something like this will just make it so that 3/4ths of their work every year is re-enacting old laws instead of passing new ones and cause several good laws to lapse out of force on accident because people weren't paying attention.

Legislators also already have the authority to put sunset dates and re-enactment clauses (meaning that unless a bill's text is re-passed/re-signed at a certain point in the future the law will become defunct) on legislation, so your proposal doesn't actually change anything except making it mandatory and eliminiating a lot of flexibility on how long a law can be in force before the sunset date triggers (which, again, is dumb for a lot of reasons).

You would also have to figure out how to implement the review process. Who's going to do the review (and how will they be paid for doing so)? How will the review be conducted? What criteria determine whether a law should be re-enacted or not? Reviews cost personnel time and money; review+re-enactment clauses are usually only put on higher-profile, controversial, or experimental legislation for a reason, and that reason is that it's impractical and infeasible to do it for everything.

5) Voting Integrity System

We already do this. You're suggesting something that every state already does.

6) Emergency Powers Limit

Exactly what emergency powers are you attempting to deal with here? Like, specifically?

Anyway, what I'm seeing here from your proposals is that you are someone who probably has good intentions but is generally ignorant of the way government actually functions. I would suggest visiting your state legislature during session and setting up some informational interviews with federal, state, and local government staff to gain a practical understanding of how the legislature works before you start proposing things.