List of rescissions of Article V Convention applications explained

Article V of the United States Constitution provides that the legislatures of the several states may apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Left unclear, however, is whether a state's legislature which has applied to Congress for such a convention may later change its sentiment and rescind such application.

If the purpose of Article V is to give state legislators power over a recalcitrant Congress - and if state lawmakers may indeed limit their applications by specific subject matter - it is possible that, if the question were ever put before them, federal courts would hold that a rescission of a previous application is likewise valid, in order to give more meaningful effect to the power which Article V confers upon state legislators.

Recent activities

The legislatures of some states which, at various times, have made application to Congress for the calling of an Article V amendatory convention, have later rescinded such petitions. During the period between 1988 and 2024, it is known that lawmakers in 26 states adopted legislation to rescind previous legislative measures to apply for such a convention. Perhaps there were others in addition to the 26 which are confirmed and listed below. Remaining unclear from the language of Article V - and subject to debate - is whether an application, once made by a state legislature, may be subsequently revoked by that state's legislature.

From 2008 to 2024 in 13 of those very same 26 states, lawmakers changed their minds yet again - back in the direction of favoring that an Article V amendatory convention in fact be called.

List of state legislative rescissions (1988–2024)

What follows is a listing of states whose legislatures are confirmed to have approved resolutions and memorials rescinding previous resolutions and memorials applying for an Article V amendatory convention. These known rescissions from 25 states have been officially received by at least one of the two houses of Congress and were, at a minimum, summarized in the Congressional Record and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in either house of Congress. A 26th state, New York, very recently rescinded as well, but neither house of Congress has yet formally received New York's 2024 rescission. Again, the list below, covering 1988 to present, might not be all-inclusive:

Unsuccessful efforts to rescind prior Article V Convention applications (2009–2017)

From 2011 to 2017, unsuccessful measures to rescind previous convention calls were known to have been introduced in 10 states as follows:

2009

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2017

Incomplete state legislative actions in favor of calling an Article V Convention (2010–2020)

2010

During the 2010 state legislative season, there was at least one state in which it is known that Article V amendatory convention applications were approved by one chamber of that state's bicameral legislature. On June 9, 2010, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved ten concurrent resolutions requesting that Congress call separate Article V conventions on various subject matters. Aside from referring all ten of them to its Finance Committee - where they all died - the Louisiana Senate did not take further action on these concurrent resolutions:

2011

During the 2011 state legislative season, there were at least five states in which it is known that Article V amendatory convention applications were approved by one chamber of bicameral legislatures. While there may be other examples, the known five are:

2012

During the 2012 state legislative season, it is known that in five states Article V amendatory convention applications were approved by one chamber of a bicameral legislature. While it is possible that there were others, the five known examples are:

Likewise during the 2012 state legislative season, there was one state in which an alleged Article V Convention so-called "application" was approved by only one chamber of a bicameral legislature. That was:

2013

During the 2013 state legislative season, Article V amendatory convention applications received the approval of one chamber of bicameral state legislatures. While it is possible that there were others, the three known examples are:

2014

During the 2014 state legislative season, Article V Convention applications received the approval of one chamber of bicameral state legislatures. While it is possible that there were others, the seven known examples are:

2015

During the 2015 state legislative season, it is known that Article V Convention applications received the approval of one chamber of the following 16 bicameral state legislatures:

2016

During the 2016 state legislative season, it is known that Article V Convention applications received the approval of one chamber of the following 10 bicameral state legislatures:

2017

During the 2017 state legislative season, it is known that Article V Convention applications received the approval of one chamber of the following four bicameral state legislatures:

Likewise during the 2017 state legislative season, there was one state in which an alleged Article V Convention so-called "application" was approved by only one chamber of a bicameral legislature. That was:

2018

During the 2018 state legislative season, it is known that there were four Article V Convention applications which received the approval of just one chamber of the following bicameral state legislatures:

2019

During the 2019 state legislative season, it is known that there were three Article V Convention applications which received the approval of just one chamber of the following bicameral state legislatures:

2020

During the 2020 state legislative season, it is known that there was one Article V Convention application which received the approval of just one chamber of the following bicameral state legislature:

Attempts to limit or restrict delegates attending an Article V Convention

The last time that a proposed Federal law was introduced in Congress to establish procedures for - and to impose limitations and restrictions upon - delegates attending an Article V amendatory convention was in 1991 when United States Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah offered the bill S. 214 ("Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1991") during the 102nd Congress. Senator Hatch's proposed Federal legislation received no further consideration than to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in the United States Senate on January 15, 1991.

Noting that, for more than two decades, Congress has demonstrated no interest in clarifying, via Federal statute, the limitations and restrictions of an Article V amendatory convention - and deeming it proper to take matters into their own hands - lawmakers in exactly half of the 50 states have offered legislation in recent years to impose, in state law, limitations and restrictions upon delegates (from those specific states) who would be participating in a national Article V Convention. While there might be others, the following are known examples from 25 states:

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Legislation offered in Congress to call an Article V Convention

In January 1975, during the 94th Congress, U.S. Congressman Jerry Pettis, a Republican from California, introduced House Concurrent Resolution No. 28, calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. In H.Con.Res. 28, Pettis proposed that each state would be entitled to send as many delegates to the convention as it had Senators and Representatives in Congress and that such delegates would be selected in the manner designated by the legislature of each state. With Pettis' death, his colleague, Representative Norman F. Lent, a Republican from New York, introduced similar legislation, House Concurrent Resolution No. 340, during August 1977, for the consideration of the 95th Congress. Both the Pettis and Lent concurrent resolutions received no further consideration than to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Other proposals for a Convention of the States

Employing a slightly different strategy not attempted previously, there was, in the years 2013 through 2016, a movement afoot within the legislatures of some states to invoke that provision of the United States Constitution which allows for interstate compacts (namely Article I, Section 10) to be utilized for setting uniform ground rules on the applying process for the calling of an Article V convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution which, if such an amendment were to be ratified, would require that the Federal budget be balanced.

From 2013 to 2016, bills are known to have been offered in a number of states that would, if passed, form such a "Compact for America".

2013

Taking yet another approach is the concept of a "management study" offered during 2013 in North Dakota (House Bill No. 1446) which a management study would be "...related to the calling of a convention under article V of the United States Constitution, including concerns associated with a 'runaway' convention and methods through which states have addressed those concerns...". Having passed the North Dakota House of Representatives on February 26, 2013, House Bill No. 1446 was defeated by a vote of 16 yeas and 31 nays in the North Dakota Senate.

2014

2015

2016

At the Federal level, House Concurrent Resolution No. 26 was introduced in the 114th Congress by U.S. Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona ("Effectuating the Compact for a Balanced Budget"). H.Con.Res. 26 has received no further consideration than to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 19, 2015.

Congressional maintenance of Article V applications and rescissions

One issue of concern over the years has been official receipt by Congress of the applications, and of the rescissions, approved by state lawmakers. In some instances, the process went very smoothly with Congress - particularly the Senate - expeditiously providing readers of the Congressional Record with the full verbatim texts of such applications, or rescissions, which were then referred to committee. But in other cases, retransmitting to Congress the state legislative documents - in some instances multiple times - was necessary for those state documents to finally be entered word-for-word into the Congressional Record. South Carolina's above-mentioned H. 3400 - approved in 2004 - would be a prime example. It took nearly a full decade for that resolution of rescission to be entered into the Congressional Record and to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. Virginia's 2004 House Joint Resolution No. 194 was similarly situated.

As an outgrowth of that frustration, on March 18, 2014, Senate Joint Memorial No. 104 was approved by the Idaho Legislature calling upon Congress to "...maintain a record of the Article V applications of the states in a form that is open and accessible to the people of the United States." On May 15, 2014, Idaho's S.J.M. No. 104 was designated as "POM-231"; was referred to the U.S. Senate's Committee on the Judiciary; and was published verbatim in the U.S. Senate's portion of the Congressional Record.

See also

List of state applications for an Article V Convention

References

External links

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "List of rescissions of Article V Convention applications".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.