This is a list of known applications made to the United States Congress by the states for a national convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution under Article five of the Constitution.
Contents
- Legislation offered in Congress to actually call an Article V Convention
- Van Sickle Boughey Classification
- List of State Applications for an Article V Convention
- Maintaining custody of the state legislatures applications
- 2013 Ohio Application 2014 Georgia Michigan Tennessee Florida and Louisiana Applications and 2015 North Dakota Application
- Accuracy of the counts
- Wisconsin 1929
- Accuracy of Record
- Verifiable Applications
- Strong Applications
- Weak Applications
- Unknown Applications
- Petitions to Congress
- Rogers Style Application Counts
- Federal Budgeting
- Balanced Budget
- Limited Income Tax
- Revenue Sharing
- Amendment XVI
- Federal Structure and Operation
- Direct Election of Senators
- Apportionment of Legislature
- Mode of Amendment
- Political Campaign Finance Reform
- Paulsen Style Application Counts
- Class I and II Applications
- Class I II and III Applications
- Brennan Style Application Counts
- References
The Congress, ..., on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ...
Historically, Congress did not keep a formal record of applications received from the states for such a convention, beyond publication in the Congressional Record. However, on January 6, 2015 Congress began the process of counting applications submitted by the states with the passage of a House rule in the House of Representatives. The rule calls for publication of all applications for a convention "made in pursuance of Article V" as well as state legislators' rescissions of such applications. Notably the rule does not describe rescissions as being "in pursuance" of Article V. In 1990, Judge Bruce Van Sickle and attorney Lynn M. Boughey compiled a list from the Congressional Record of state applications for an Article V Convention in the Hamline Law Review. This list of applications has been expanded and maintained by the organization Friends of the Article V Convention, which sponsored a complete review of the Congressional Record from 2008–2010. Whether the House of Representatives in future Congresses retains this Rule, and continues to compile and publish Article V Convention applications and rescissions, remains to be seen.
FOAVC has recently published the applications listed by amendment subject and by numeric count of applying states. Based on photographic copies of applications already submitted to Congress, the amendment subject list shows that at least four different amendment subjects have achieved the necessary two thirds mark to cause a convention. However FOAVC maintains amendment subject is the incorrect method to count applications as the text of Article V does not describe same subject. Instead it favors a simple numeric count of applying states as described by Article V, Supreme Court rulings, statements of Congress and historic records. This list shows that ten conventions are currently mandated to be called
On May 24, 2016 Congressman Luke Messer (R-Indiana) submitted H.R. 5306 to Congress. The purpose of the legislation is to create the first official list of Article V Convention applications in United States history and has received bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill requires the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to conduct a search of all congressional records in NARA and produce copies of all applications submitted by the states since 1789.
Legislation offered in Congress to actually 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, in 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 House Committee on the Judiciary.
Van Sickle-Boughey Classification
In "A Lawful and Peaceful Revolution", Van Sickle and Boughey define five classifications of applications.
The following is added to this list, where the original text was not recorded in the congressional record.
Van Sickle and Boughey indicate which applications have been rescinded by their state by encasing these in parentheses, and make no note of which applications have led to amendments proposed by congress.
It is unclear from the language of Article V—and subject to debate—as to whether an application, once made by a state legislature, may be subsequently revoked by that state's legislature. It is also unclear whether congress proposing an amendment negates all applications directed toward that topic.
In the table below, the classification of rescinded applications are stricken, with the year of rescission given in parentheses and a link to the record of the rescission. Those applications which lead to amendments proposed by congress are listed in parentheses.
List of State Applications for an Article V Convention
Applications are sorted by date passed by the state, or by date of record in the congressional record. Application classes are encased in parentheses if congress presented an amendment on the topic given and stricken if the state has rescinded its application. All descriptions with six or more states have identical amendment text, unless specified.
Only the legislature of Hawaii has never approved an Article V convention application.
Maintaining custody of the state legislatures' applications
If one considers that applying for a convention is a constitutional power of the several states, should the states have the burden of managing the counting of applications? This viewpoint reduces the role of Congress to collecting applications and verifying claims by states that the applications included by the states allow the convention being applied for. If that claim is correct, Congress must call a convention as specified by that claim. Another point of view holds that Congress must maintain custody, and keep an up-to-date tally, of the state legislatures' applications. In 2014, Idaho lawmakers approved House Joint Memorial No. 104 (designated as "POM-231" and published in the Senate's portion of the Congressional Record of May 15, 2014) admonishing Congress to do a better job of keeping track of such applications. On January 6, 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives amended its parliamentary rules (House Resolution No. 5 by Representative Kevin McCarthy) so as to instruct the House's Committee on the Judiciary to undertake a compilation of past Article V Convention applications; as a result, the website of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives has already begun to make the full texts of some of the prior applications available to Internet users.
2013 Ohio Application; 2014 Georgia, Michigan, Tennessee, Florida and Louisiana Applications; and 2015 North Dakota Application
The balanced budget application of Ohio in 2013 as well as those of Georgia, Michigan, Tennessee and Louisiana in 2014, and that of North Dakota in 2015, include a list of previous state applications that the new application should be counted with.
Some resolutions include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas. Georgia and Ohio also include Delaware, and Ohio adds New Hampshire. Louisiana's mentions Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee, but completely neglects Michigan. None of the applications include itself in the list. Florida in 2014 re-affirmed its 2010 re-application (after its 1988 rescission of that state's 1976 House Memorial No. 2801 and Senate Memorial No. 234). The 2015 North Dakota application does not list other states which have previously applied.
The Michigan 2014 application thus represents 18 states, the 2014 Georgia application thus represents 19 states and the 2013 Ohio application and 2014 Tennessee application represent 20 states. Louisiana's 2014 application contains 22 (excluding itself). All would be short of the 34 states required to mandate an article V convention.
Accuracy of the counts
Applications for all of the states listed on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment can be found in the table above, including a 2012 application by New Hampshire and a 1976 application by Delaware. Thus it seems likely that if another state follows this precedent it could include 23 states, plus itself, for a total of 23 states. There is disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application. If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio's 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd (out of the necessary 34) and Michigan's 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic—rather than merely the 20th and 22nd, respectively. The Balanced Budget Amendment applications by Ohio and Michigan plowed completely new ground for those two states. Whereas, the renewed applications from Alabama, Florida (both 2010 and 2014), Georgia, New Hampshire, and Tennessee, simply re-visited old and already-familiar territory. Those five states applied during the 1970s and then rescinded in the period from 1988 to 2010. Then, they changed their minds yet again and re-applied from 2010 to 2014 for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention. Again, if states may not rescind, then with Michigan's actions of March 26, 2014, the threshold of 34 that Article V requires for triggering a convention on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment has now been met.
Wisconsin 1929
In 1929 Wisconsin applied to Congress to perform their constitutional duty to call a convention, listing Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin as states having made an application for a convention. There were 48 states in 1929, so 32 applications would be required to call a convention. 35 states were named.
Accuracy of Record
Links to the text of applications by all states except California and North Carolina are provided in the table above. A reference to an application by California has been found in the congressional record and the text of an application by South Carolina is given in the table above.
It should be noted that the table here is not guaranteed to be a complete record, and that records for additional applications known in 1929 may have been lost.
Verifiable Applications
Three states, Missouri, Texas and Wisconsin, had applied for a general convention. Eleven states listed had applied for a convention to prohibit polygamy (Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont and Washington), plus South Carolina. Idaho had included the direct election of the President and Vice President with their request for direct election of Senators. Thus 16 states clearly had outstanding applications.
Strong Applications
Alabama and Georgia had outstanding issues from 1832 and 1833, making a less certain 18. Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada and Oklahoma would be added if we include class II requests for Direct Elections of Senators, for a total of 25.
Weak Applications
The only known records for an application New York and Virginia are their ratification documents, before the Bill of Rights. New Jersey and Kentucky applied for a convention to prevent the Civil War, and class III applications for the Direct Election of Senators. Arkansas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Utah only had documented class III applications for the Direct Election of Senators. These nine states have questionable merit for inclusion.
California is most likely in this group.
Unknown Applications
The status of North Carolina can not be known without the text of the applications, if this is not a misrepresentation of South Carolina.
Petitions to Congress
The Senate referred the memorial to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Clerk of House, Karen Haas sent the request to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner’s office. On October 24, 2013, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, presented it to the Judiciary Committee for review. The action was entered in the Congressional Record:
PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 3 of rule XII, 55. The SPEAKER presented a petition of Dan Marks, Hilo, HI, relative to a letter regarding methods for proposing amendments; which was referred to the committee on the Judiciary.
Elizabeth MacDonough the Senate Parliamentarian in July 2013, entered the request in the Congressional Record on August 1, 2013 and sent the request on to the Judiciary Committee. That entry reads:
[Page: S6204] POM-120. A communication from citizens of the State of Hawaii petitioning for verification and tabulation of State applications for an Article V Convention; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Rogers Style Application Counts
James Kenneth Rogers holds that applications are required to list an issue, and must be tallied accordingly. Thus, this section contains counts of applications on specific issues. One obvious question is how close do the applications need to be.
Three broad categories are presented, with tabulations for narrower categories tabulated and a count of amendments following specific wordings.
Federal Budgeting
The many applications for a balanced budget, limitations on income tax and revenue sharing warrant a counting of these issues and particularly popular wordings of them. Since many of the income tax and revenue sharing applications recommend a repeal of Amendment XVI, this also deserved a separate count.
Balanced Budget
Currently, 28 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia) have outstanding applications for an amendment to establish a balanced budget. Seven more states have rescinded their application (Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia and Wyoming). With the 2014 application by Michigan, the total of active plus rescinded applications equaled the 34 required to mandate a convention. Then, in 2016, West Virginia (like Ohio in 2013 and Michigan in 2014) made a first-time application for a Convention on the topic of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Likewise, in 2016, Delaware rescinded its 1976 application for a Convention on that subject.
Two particular wordings of applications have been submitted by over six states.
The wording labeled Balanced Budget, Emergency in the above table have outstanding applications from thirteen states (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia). Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming have rescinded their applications with this particular wording.
The wording labeled Balanced Budget, General in the above table has outstanding applications from six states (Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri and New Hampshire.) Florida, Louisiana and Oregon have rescinded applications with this particular wording.
Other wordings, without enough states to warrant a separate categorization, have been made by eleven states (Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.) Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada and North Dakota have rescinded their applications with rare wordings.
Applications by Louisiana and North Dakota in 2011 to require approval by a majority of the state legislatures to authorize any increases in the national debt limit can be viewed as a different type of balanced budget amendment but with a similar goal.
Limited Income Tax
Fifteen states (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin) have outstanding applications for an amendment to limit income taxes. Thirteen more states have rescinded their applications (Florida, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming). Two particular wordings of applications have been submitted by over six states.
The wording labeled Income Tax, Limited I has outstanding applications from seven states (Alabama, Delaware, Kansas, Michigan, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin). Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Utah have rescinded applications with this wording.
The wording labeled Income Tax, Limited II has outstanding applications from six states (Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania). Illinois and Wyoming have rescinded there applications with this wording.
Other, less popular, wordings are outstanding for three states (Colorado, Delaware and Virginia). Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah have rescinded variant wordings on this topic. The applications listed here for Virginia and Hawaii don't actually request that a convention to be called to produce this amendment.
Revenue Sharing
Fourteen states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia) have outstanding applications for an amendment establishing federal-state revenue sharing. Seven more states have rescinded their applications (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Dakota). Two particular wordings of applications have been submitted by over six states.
The wording labeled Revenue Sharing, I has outstanding applications from eight states (Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota and West Virginia). Louisiana, Massachusetts and North Dakota have rescinded their applications with this wording.
The wording labeled Revenue Sharing, II has outstanding applications from five states (Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire and New Mexico). Nebraska has rescinded their application with this wording.
Other, less popular, wordings are outstanding for four states (Alabama, Illinois, Ohio and Texas). Florida, Georgia, Illinois and Louisiana have rescinded variant wordings on this topic.
Amendment XVI
Income Tax, Limit I and II and Revenue Sharing II specifically call for the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave Congress the power to lay income taxes without regards to states' populations. Fifteen states have expressly called for the repeal of Amendment XVI (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin). Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey and Utah have rescinded their calls to repeal Amendment XVI.
All of these proposals, plus another labeled Taxation on Government Securities, call for a change to the federal income tax. 24 states have applied for an amendment to change the income tax structure (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mains, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin). Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming have rescinded their applications to change the income tax structure.
Federal Structure and Operation
Several amendments have been proposed to alter the political structure of the United States government. Two of the most relevant are the Direct Election of Senators and Apportionment of State Legislatures. Alterations to the methods of amending the constitution and requests for a proportional electoral college have also garnered respectable support among state legislatures.
Direct Election of Senators
21 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin) have outstanding applications for an amendment establishing the election of Senators by popular vote. Seven more states have since rescinded their applications (Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming). Two particular wordings received significant support, identified by Roman numerals.
These applications contributed to the proposal by congress of Amendment XVII, with the 28 states above being four states short of enough to have forced a convention in 1911 and pressure building. All of the rescissions have been since 2000, as a part of a movement to prevent the calling of a convention.
The first wording has outstanding applications from eleven states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin). Oregon and Utah have rescinded applications with this wording.
The second wording has outstanding applications from five states (Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee). Montana has rescinded their application with this wording.
Other wordings are outstanding for nine states (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota and Washington). Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Wyoming have rescinded applications with spurious wordings.
Apportionment of Legislature
Twenty states (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming) have outstanding applications for an amendment establishing the right of a state to determine state legislature districts by a non proportional method. Eleven more states have since rescinded their applications (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah). Two particular wordings have been popular, indicated by Roman numerals.
The first wording has outstanding applications from ten states (Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming). Idaho, Kansas and Montana have rescinded applications with this wording.
The second wording has outstanding applications from sixteen states (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, ). Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah have rescinded their application with this wording.
Other wordings are outstanding for Illinois and Iowa.
Mode of Amendment
Ten states (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin) have outstanding applications for an amendment to alter the process of amending the constitution of the United States. Seven more states have rescinded their applications (Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming).
The wording labeled Mode of Amendment, Identical Text in the above table has outstanding applications from 6 states (Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia). Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming have rescinded applications with this wording.
Political Campaign Finance Reform
Five states (Vermont, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island) have thus far made applications for an amendment to overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in order to more tightly regulate political contributions from corporations.
Paulsen Style Application Counts
Michael Paulsen holds that the applications for a convention alone should govern the convention. Thus, this section contains counts of applications based on groupings not excluded by the applications themselves.
Counts including class IV, V or VI applications would become Rogers style due to the limitations clearly expressed in these applications, and are not included below.
Class I and II Applications
Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin have outstanding applications for a convention to propose amendments, with no accompanying issue.
Alabama has a request for a convention limiting tariffs, and South Carolina one for clarification on Amendment X, each implying that other amendments may be considered.
Class I, II and III Applications
24 more states have outstanding class III applications. These are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
This gives a total of 31 states with known outstanding class I, II or III applications. Three more application would meet the 2/3 requirement to call a convention.
Brennan Style Application Counts
Thomas E. Brennan holds that, in 1982, it was necessary, desirable and feasible to hold a convention. He lists the following counts in the introduction to his claim.