List of state applications for an Article V Convention: Difference between revisions
m Disambiguated: rescission → Repeal#Parliamentary procedure |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{quote|The Congress, ..., on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ...}} |
{{quote|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 verbatim publication (or at least summarization) 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' [[ |
Historically, Congress did not keep a formal record of applications received from the states for such a convention, beyond verbatim publication (or at least summarization) 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' [[Repeal#Parliamentary procedure|rescissions]] of such applications. Notably the rule does not describe rescissions as being "in pursuance" of Article V.<ref>http://www.foavc.org/reference/file59.pdf</ref> 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'' (FOAVC), 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.<ref>http://www.foavc.org/reference/1930.pdf</ref> This list shows that ten conventions are currently mandated to be called<ref>http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm</ref><ref>http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm</ref> |
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.<ref>http://www.foavc.org/reference/1930.pdf</ref> This list shows that ten conventions are currently mandated to be called<ref>http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm</ref><ref>http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm</ref> |
Revision as of 20:39, 9 September 2018
The verifiability of the claims made in this article is disputed. (February 2017) |
This article possibly contains original research. (February 2017) |
This article is part of a series on the |
Constitution of the United States |
---|
Preamble and Articles |
Amendments to the Constitution |
Unratified Amendments: |
History |
Full text |
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.
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 verbatim publication (or at least summarization) 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.[1] 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 (FOAVC), 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.[2] This list shows that ten conventions are currently mandated to be called[3][4]
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.[5]
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",[6] Van Sickle and Boughey define five classifications of applications:
- Class I: A call for a general convention, with no motivating issue listed
- Class II: A call for a general convention, with a separate statement of proposed amendment or explicit statement that the convention may consider other amendments proposed by states
- Class III: A call for a general convention tied to a proposed amendment
- Class IV: A call for a convention, with language aimed to limit the convention to the issue presented
- Class V: A call for a convention, with language to rescind the application from consideration for a convention if any other topic is to be covered
The following is added to this list, where the original text was not recorded in the Congressional Record:
- Class ??: A note of an application without the actual text
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 rescinded 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 the State of Hawaii has never approved an Article V convention application through both legislative bodies.
State | Issue/Subject | Date of State's Approval | Receipt by Congress | Class (or Year of Rescission) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Virginia | Bill of Rights | November 14, 1788 | AC V.1 258-259 | (II) |
New York | Bill of Rights | February 5, 1789 | AC V.1 282Text | (II) |
Georgia | Clarify Amendment X | December 12, 1832 | J HR V22.2 270-271 | |
South Carolina | Clarify Amendment X | December 19, 1832 | J HR V22.2 219-220 | |
Alabama | Limitation on Tariffs | January 12, 1833 | J HR V22.2 361-362 | II |
Indiana | General and Unlimited Article V Convention | March 13, 1861? | CG V.37.S 1465-6 | I |
Ohio | General and Unlimited Article V Convention | March 20, 1861 | 1861 Ohio Laws 181 | I |
New Jersey | Final Resolution for Slavery | February 1, 1861 | CG V. 36.2 p. 681 | (II) |
Kentucky | Final Resolution for Slavery | February 5, 1861 | CG V.36.2 p. 773 | (II) |
Illinois | Final Resolution for Slavery | February 28, 1861 | CG V.36.2 p. 1270 | (??) |
Nebraska | Direct Election of Senators, Other | April 14, 1893 | 1893 Neb. Laws 466-7 | III |
Texas | General and Unlimited Article V Convention | June 5, 1899? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 33, p. 219 ("Concurrent resolution, S.C.R. No. 4") | I |
Minnesota | Direct Election of Senators, Other | February 13, 1901? | CR V.34 p.2561 | (III) |
Pennsylvania | Direct Election of Senators, II | February 13, 1901? | CR V.45 p.7118 | (III) |
Idaho | Direct Election of President, Vice-President and Senators | February 14, 1901? | CR V.45 p.7114 | |
Montana | Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, II |
February 21, 1901? January 31, 1905? |
CR V.35 p.208 CR V.39 p.2447 |
|
Oregon | Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other |
February 23, 1901? March 10, 1903? January 26, 1909? |
CR V.35 p.117 CR V.45 p.7118 CR V.43 p.2025 |
|
Tennessee | Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, Other |
March 27, 1901? March 14, 1905? |
CR V.35 p.2344 CR V.45 p.7119 |
|
Colorado | Direct Election of Senators, I | April 1, 1901? | CR V.45 p.7113 | (II) |
Michigan | Direct Election of Senators, Other | April 9, 1901? | CR V.35 p.117 | (III) |
Texas | Direct Election of Senators, I | April 17, 1901? | CR V.45 p.7119 | (II) |
Arkansas | Direct Election of Senators, Other | April 25, 1901? | CR V.45 p.7113 | (III) |
Kentucky | Direct Election of Senators, II | February 10, 1902? | CR V.45 p.7115 | (III) |
Illinois | Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other |
February 10, 1903? May 23, 1907? |
CR V.45 p.7114 CR V.42 p.164 |
(III) | (II)
Nevada | Direct Election of Senators, II | February 25, 1903? | CR V.37 p.24 | (III) |
Utah | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 12, 1903? | CR V.45 p.7119 | |
Washington | Direct Election of Senators, Other | March 12, 1903? | CR V.45 p.7119 | (II) |
Nebraska | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 25, 1903? | CR V.45 p.7116-7 | (III) |
Iowa | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 24, 1904? | CR V.38 p.4959 | (III) |
Missouri | Direct Election of Senators, II | March 18, 1905? | CR V.40 p.1905 | (III) |
South Dakota | Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I |
February 2, 1907? February 9, 1909? |
CR V.41 p.1907 CR V.43 p.2667-2668 |
(III) | (III)
Delaware | Anti-Polygamy | February 11, 1907? | CR V.41 p.3011 | |
Missouri | General and Unlimited Article V Convention | March 6, 1907? | CR V.45 p.7116 | I |
Indiana | Direct Election of Senators, Other | March 11, 1907? | CR V.45 p.7114 | (II) |
Iowa | Direct Election of Senators, Other | March 12, 1907? | CR V.45 p.7114-5 | (II) |
Nevada | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 23, 1907? | CR V.42 p.163 | (II) |
New Jersey | Direct Election of Senators, I | May 28, 1907? | CR V.42 p.164 | (III) |
Louisiana | Direct Election of Senators, Other | November 25, 1907? | CR V.42 p.5906 | |
Oklahoma | Direct Election of Senators, Other | January 20, 1908? | CR V.45 p.7117-8 | |
South Dakota | Anti-Polygamy | February 6, 1909? | CR V.43 p.2670 | III |
Kansas | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 6, 1909? | CR V.45 p.7115 | (II) |
Wisconsin | Direct Election of Senators, I | May 31, 1910? | CR V.45 p.7119-20 | (III) |
Washington | Anti-Polygamy | September 1, 1910? | CR V.46 p.651 | III |
Montana | Direct Election of Senators, Other | January 20, 1911? | CR V.46 p.2411 | |
Maine | Direct Election of Senators, Other | February 22, 1911? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 46, p. 4280 ("Joint resolution") | (III) |
Tennessee | Anti-Polygamy | February 17, 1911? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 47, p. 187 ("Senate joint resolution 43") | |
Montana | Anti-Polygamy | March 1, 1911? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 47, pp. 98-99 ("House joint memorial 7") remainder of text p. 99 | |
Nebraska | Anti-Polygamy | March 14, 1911? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 47, p. 99 ("Joint resolution by House and Senate of Nebraska Legislature") | III |
Ohio | Anti-Polygamy | March 15, 1911? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 47, pp. 660-661 ("House joint resolution 13") remainder of text p. 661 | III |
Illinois | Prevent and Suppress Monopolies | May 11, 1911? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 47, p. 1298 ("House joint resolution 9") | III |
Wisconsin | General and Unlimited Article V Convention | June 12, 1911? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 47, p. 1873 ("Joint resolution (J. Res. 15, S.)") | I |
California | Direct Election of Senators, I | June 13, 1911? | CR V.47 p.2000 | (??) |
Vermont | Anti-Polygamy | December 18, 1912? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 49, p. 1433 ("Joint resolution") | III |
Illinois | Anti-Polygamy | March 12, 1913? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 50, pp. 120-121 (Senate joint resolution 12") remainder of text p. 121 | III |
Oregon | Anti-Polygamy | January 20, 1913? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 49, p. 2463 ("Senate joint resolution 2") | |
Wisconsin | Anti-Polygamy | March 26, 1913? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 50, pp. 42-43 (No number, or resolution type, is given for this resolution) remainder of text p. 43 See, also, Cong. Rec. Vol. 50, p. 116 | III |
Missouri | Supreme Court Jurisdiction | April 15, 1913? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 50, p. 2428 ("House joint and concurrent resolution 23") | III |
Michigan | Anti-Polygamy | July 2, 1913? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 50, p. 2290 ("House resolution No. 120") | III |
South Carolina | Anti-Polygamy | February 15, 1915? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 53, p. 2442 ("Concurrent resolution") | |
Louisiana | Mode of Amendment, Other | January 12, 1920? | CR V.60 p.31 | |
Nevada | Anti-Prohibition | December 7, 1925? | CR V.67 p.458 | (??) |
Wisconsin | Direct Election of President and VP | December 7, 1925? | CR V.67 p.458 | (??) |
Wisconsin | General and Unlimited Article V Convention | June 10, 1929 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 71, p. 2590 ("Senate Joint Resolution 65") | (??) |
Wisconsin | Article V Requirements Already Met for Convention Call | September 4, 1929? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 71, p. 3369 ("Senate Joint Resolution 83") | (??) |
Wisconsin | Article V Requirements Already Met for Convention Call | September 23, 1929? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 71, p. 3856 ("Joint Resolution No. 83, S.") | (??) |
Massachusetts | Anti-Prohibition | March 13, 1931? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 75, p. 45 ("Resolutions") | (III) |
New York | Anti-Prohibition | December 8, 1931? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 75, p. 48 ("Assembly 4") | (IV) |
Wisconsin | Anti-Prohibition | December 8, 1931? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 75, p. 57 ("Joint resolution") | (III) |
New Jersey | Anti-Prohibition | February 1, 1932? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 75, p. 3299 ("Joint Resolution 1") | (III) |
California | Tax on Government Securities | July 9, 1935? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 79, p. 10814 ("Senate joint resolution") | III |
California | Federal Labor Laws | July 9, 1935? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 79, p. 10814 ("Senate Joint Resolution 23") | III |
Oregon | General Welfare Act of 1937 ("Townsend National Recovery Plan") | February 1, 1939? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 84, p. 985 ("House Joint Memorial 1") | |
Wyoming | Income Tax, Limit II | March 8, 1939? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 84, pp. 2509-2510 ("House Joint Memorial 4") remainder of text p. 2510 | |
Maryland | Income Tax, Limit II | March 27, 1939? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 84, p. 3320 ("House resolution") appearing to have been approved only by the Maryland House of Delegates—and NOT at all by the Maryland Senate | III |
Rhode Island | Income Tax, Limit I | March 26, 1940? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 86, p. 3407 ("Resolution") | III |
Iowa | Income Tax, Limit II | April 18, 1941? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 87, p. 3172 ("House Concurrent Resolution 15") | III |
Maine | Income Tax, Limit I | April 17, 1941? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 87, pp. 3370-3371 ("Resolution") remainder of text p. 3371 | |
Massachusetts | Income Tax, Limit I | April 29, 1941? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 87, pp. 3812-3813 ("Resolutions") remainder of text p. 3813 | |
Michigan | Income Tax, Limit I | May 16, 1941? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 87, p. 4537 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution 20") | III |
Iowa | Presidential Term Limits | March 26, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, p. 2516 ("House Concurrent Resolution 26") | (III) |
Illinois | Presidential Term Limits | March 26, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, pp. 2516-2517 ("Senate Joint Resolution 8") remainder of text p. 2517 | (III) |
Michigan | Presidential Term Limits | April 6, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, p. 2944 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution 24") | (III) |
New Hampshire | Income Tax, II | April 29, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, pp. 3761-3762 ("A concurrent resolution") remainder of text p. 3762 | |
Delaware | Income Tax, Limit I | May 3, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, p. 4017 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution 6") | |
Illinois | Income Tax, Limit II | May 26, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 98, pp. 742-743 (HJR 32) remainder of text p. 743 | |
Pennsylvania | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | May 27, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, p. 8220 ("Joint resolution") | III |
Pennsylvania | Income Tax, Limit II | May 27, 1943? | CR V.89 pp.8220-8221 ("[House Concurrent resolution [No. 50]"] | III |
Alabama | Income Tax, Limit I | July 8, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, pp. 7523-7524 ("House Joint Resolution 66") remainder of text p. 7524 | III |
Wisconsin | Income Tax, Limit I | September 14, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, p. 7524 ("Assembly Joint Resolution 55") | III |
Wisconsin | Presidential Term Limits | September 14, 1943? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 89, p. 7525 ("Joint Resolution No. 38, A") | (III) |
Kentucky | Income Tax, Limit I | March 20, 1944? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 90, pp. 4040-4041 ("House Resolution 79") remainder of text p. 4041 | |
New Jersey | Income Tax, Limit I | February 25, 1944? | CR V.90 p.6141 | |
California | World Federation | April 14, 1949? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 95, pp. 4568-4569 ("Assembly Joint Resolution 26") remainder of text p. 4569 | IV |
New Jersey | World Federation | April 14, 1949? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 95, p. 4571 ("Assembly Concurrent Resolution 17") | IV |
North Carolina | World Federation | April 20, 1949? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 95, pp. 6587-6588 ("Resolution 37") remainder of text p. 6588 | IV |
Michigan | Revenue Sharing, II | May 5, 1949? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 95, pp. 5628-5629 (HCR 26) remainder of text p. 5629 | IV |
Florida | World Federation | May 16, 1949? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 95, p. 7000 ("Senate Memorial 282") | |
Nebraska | Revenue Sharing, II | May 25, 1949? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 95, pp. 7893-7894 ("Legislative Resolution 32") remainder of text p. 7894 | |
Connecticut | World Federation | June 1, 1949? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 95, p. 7689 ("Joint Resolution") | IV |
Kansas | Income Tax, Limit I | March 28, 1951? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 97, p. 2936 (SCR 4) | III |
Iowa | Revenue Sharing, II | April 17, 1951? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 97, pp. 3939-3940 (SCR 11) remainder of text p. 3940 | IV |
Florida | Income Tax, Limit I | May 10, 1951? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 97, pp. 5155-5156 (SCR 206) remainder of text p. 5156 | |
Maine | Revenue Sharing, II | June 4, 1951? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 97, pp. 6033-6034 ("Joint Resolution") remainder of text p. 6034 | IV |
New Hampshire | Revenue Sharing, II | August 28, 1951? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 97, pp. 10716-10717 ("Concurrent Resolution") remainder of text p. 10717 | |
Arkansas | Income Tax, Limit II | February 4, 1952? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 98, p. 742 (SCR 10) | III |
Utah | Income Tax, Limit I | February 11, 1952? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 98, p. 947 ("Joint Resolution") | |
New Mexico | Revenue Sharing, II | February 11, 1952? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 98, pp. 947-948 (HJR 12) p. 948 | IV |
Georgia | Limited Treaty Powers, Various | January 29, 1952? | CR V.98 p.1057 | |
Georgia | Income Tax, Limit I | February 6, 1952? | CR V.98 p.1057 | |
Indiana | Income Tax, Limit II Income Tax, Limit II |
February 18, 1952? March 12, 1957? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 98, pp. 1056-1057 (HCR 10) remainder of text p. 1057 Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, pp. 6474-6475 ("House Enrolled Concurrent Resolution 8") remainder of text p. 6475 |
III III |
Virginia | Income Tax, Limit I | February 21, 1952? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 98, p. 1496 (HJR 32) | III |
California | Motor Vehicle Tax Distribution | April 16, 1952? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 98, pp. 4003-4004 (AJR 8) remainder of text p. 4004 | III |
Louisiana | Income Tax, Limit I | January 13, 1953? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 99, p. 320 ("Concurrent resolution") remainder of text p. 321 | |
South Dakota | Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text |
March 5, 1953? February 15, 1955? March 2, 1963? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 99, pp. 9180-9181 (SJR 4) remainder of text p. 9181 Cong. Rec. Vol. 101, pp. 2861-2862 (SJR 5) remainder of text p. 2862 Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, pp. 14638-14639 (SJR 1) remainder of text p. 14639 |
|
Illinois | Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, Identical Text |
June 25, 1953? March 5, 1963? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 99, p. 9864 (HJR 37) Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 3788 (SJR 4) |
III | IV
Georgia | School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right |
January 31, 1955? February 5, 1959? March 4, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 101, p. 1532 ("Resolution") Cong. Rec. Vol. 105, p. 1834 (HR 99) Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 5817 (HR 128-212) |
|
Texas | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text |
March 14, 1955? April 4, 1963? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 101, pp. 2770-2771 (SCR 15) remainder of text p. 2771 Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 11852 (HCR 21) |
III | IV
Oklahoma | Income Tax, Limit Other | May 23, 1955? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 101, pp. 8397-8398 (SJR 15) remainder of text p. 8398 (referred to the Committee on Finance rather than to the Committee on the Judiciary) | |
Michigan | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States | April 4, 1956? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 102, pp. 7240-7241 (HCR 8) remainder of text p. 7241 | IV |
Idaho | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States | April 1, 1957? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 103 pp. 4831-4832 (HCR 6) remainder of text p. 4832 | |
Indiana | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States | March 12, 1957? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, pp. 6471-6472 ("House Enrolled Concurrent Resolution 2") remainder of text p. 6472 | IV |
Indiana | Limited Treaty Powers, Various | March 12, 1957? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, pp. 6472-6473 ("House Enrolled Concurrent Resolution 4") remainder of text p. 6473 | III |
Indiana | Proportional Electoral College, Other | March 12, 1957? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, pp. 6473-6474 ("House Enrolled Concurrent Resolution 7") remainder of text p. 6474 | III |
Indiana | Repeal of Constitution's 16th Amendment | March 12, 1957? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, pp. 6474-6475 ("House Enrolled Concurrent Resolution 8") remainder of text p. 6475 | III |
Indiana | Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other |
March 12, 1957? January 26, 1976? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, pp. 6475-6476 ("House Enrolled Concurrent Resolution 9") remainder of text p. 6476 Cong. Rec. Vol. 122, p. 931 ("Concurrent Resolution") |
III III |
Florida | Supreme Court Review, Other | June 5, 1957? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, p. 12787 (SCR 116) | |
Alabama | Judicial Term Limits | June 25, 1957? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 103, p. 10863 (SJR 47) | III |
Connecticut | Prohibit Interstate Income Tax | May 6, 1958? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 104, pp. 8085-8086 (SJR 9) remainder of text p. 8086 | III |
Alabama | Limited Federal Preemption | January 1, 1959? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 105, p. 3083 (SJR 2) | III |
Wyoming | Limit Federal Powers | February 26, 1959? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 105, pp. 3085-3086 ("Enrolled Joint Resolution 2") remainder of text p. 3086 | |
Arkansas | Validity of 14th Amendment | March 18, 1959? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 105, p. 4398 (HCR 24) | III |
Nevada | Limit Federal Powers | March 11, 1960? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 106, p. 10749 (SJR 7) | III |
Louisiana | Limit Federal Powers | June 11, 1960? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 106, p. 14401 (HCR 22) | |
Arkansas | Supreme Court Review, Other | February 2, 1961? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 107, p. 2154 (HCR 14) | III |
Wyoming | Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency |
February 21, 1961? February 8, 1979? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 107, p. 2759 ("Enrolled Joint Resolution 4") CR V.125 p.2116 |
|
Georgia | Supreme Court Review, Other | March 9, 1961? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 107, p. 4715 (SR 39) | |
South Carolina | Limit Federal Powers | March 11, 1962? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 108, p. 5051 ("Concurrent Resolution") | |
Oklahoma | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | January 21, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 1172 ("Enrolled Senate Concurrent Resolution 2") | |
Oklahoma | Apportionment of Legislature, I | January 21, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, pp. 1172-1173 ("Enrolled Senate Concurrent Resolution 3") remainder of text p. 1173 | |
Kansas | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | January 31, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 2769 (SCR 3) | |
Kansas | Apportionment of Legislature, I | January 31, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 2769 (SCR 4) | |
Florida | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | February 5, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, pp. 2071-2072 ("Senate Memorial 12-X(63)" remainder of text p. 2072 | |
Florida | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | February 5, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 2072 ("Senate Memorial 13-X(63)" | |
Idaho | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
February 14, 1963? January 26, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 2281 (SJM 4) Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 1229 (SJM 1) |
|
Arkansas | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | February 21, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 2768 (HJR 2) | III |
Arkansas | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | February 21, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, pp. 2768-2769 (HJR 3) remainder of text p. 2769 | III |
Arkansas | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
February 21, 1963? April 5, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 2769 (HJR 4) Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, pp. 6917-6918 (SJR 1) remainder of text p. 6918 |
III III |
Arkansas | Proportional Electoral College, Other | February 21, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 2769 (HJR 12) | III |
South Dakota | Proportional Electoral College, Other | March 11, 1963? | CR V.109 p.3982 | ?? |
Montana | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
March 11, 1963? February 17, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 3854 (SJR 15) Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 2777 ("A Joint Resolution") |
|
Idaho | Balanced Budget, Other | March 11, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 3855 ("SJM 9") | |
Montana | Proportional Electoral College, I | March 25, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 4469 ("HJR 13") | |
Wyoming | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | February 14, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109 pp. 4778-4779 ("Enrolled Joint Resolution 2") remainder of text p. 4779 | |
Wyoming | Apportionment of Legislature, I | February 9, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 4779 ("Enrolled Joint Memorial 14") | |
Wyoming | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | February 15, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 4779 ("Enrolled Joint Memorial 15") | |
Alabama | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | March 13, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 5250 (HJR 13) | III |
Washington | Apportionment of Legislature, I | March 30, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 5867 (HJM 1) | III |
Missouri | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
April 8, 1963? February 22, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 5868 (HCR 4) Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 3304 (HCR 2) |
III III |
Missouri | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | April 8, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 5868 (HCR 5) | III |
Utah | Proportional Electoral College, I | April 8, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 5947 (HCR 1) | |
Colorado | Proportional Electoral College, I | April 11, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 6659 (HJM 4) | III |
Colorado | Income Tax, Limit Other | April 25, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 7060 (SJM 9) | III |
Nevada | Apportionment of Legislature, I | February 12, 1963? February 17, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 9942 (SJR 2) | III |
South Carolina | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
June 10, 1963? February 18, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 10441 ("House Concurrent Resolution") Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 3304 ("Concurrent Resolution") |
|
South Carolina | Apportionment of Legislature, I | June 10, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 10442 (SCR 149) | |
South Carolina | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | June 10, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 10441 ("House Concurrent Resolution") | |
South Carolina | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | June 10, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 10442 (SCR 148) | |
South Carolina | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | June 10, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, pp. 10441-10442 ("House Concurrent Resolution") remainder of text p. 10442 | |
South Carolina | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | June 10, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, pp. 10442-10443 (SCR 147) remainder of text p. 10443 | |
Texas | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
April 4, 1963? July 26, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 11852 (HCR 22) Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 18171 (SCR 24) |
III III |
Texas | Proportional Electoral College, I | May 22, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, pp. 11852-11853 (HCR 29) remainder of text p. 11853 | III |
South Dakota | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
March 2, 1963? March 1, 1965? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 14639 (SJR 2) Cong. Rec. Vol.111, pp.3722-3723 ("Joint resolution") remainder of text p. 3723 |
|
Wisconsin | Proportional Electoral College, I | March 2, 1963? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 109, p. 14808 (Resolution Number Not Provided) | III |
Virginia | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
March 15, 1964? December 3, 1964? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 110, p. 5659 (HJR 90) Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, pp. 880-881 (HJR 6) remainder of text p. 881 |
III III |
Massachusetts | School Management, Other | March 18, 1964? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 110, p. 7616 (Unnumbered resolution) appearing to have been approved only by the Massachusetts House of Representatives—and NOT at all by the Massachusetts Senate | III |
Massachusetts | Senior Pensions | April 23, 1964? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 110, p. 9875 (Unnumbered resolution) | III |
Virginia | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | December 3, 1964? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 880 (HJR 5) | III |
Louisiana | School Management, States' Right | January 6, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, pp. 164-165 (SCR 3) remainder of text p. 165 | |
Arizona | Apportionment of Legislature, II | February 18, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 3061 (HCM 1) | |
Kansas | Apportionment of Legislature, II | January 27, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, pp. 3061-3062 (SCR 1) remainder of text p. 3062 | |
South Carolina | School Management, States' Right | February 18, 1965? | CR V.111 p.3304 | |
Utah | Apportionment of Legislature, II | March 8, 1965? | CR V.111 p.4320 | |
Maryland | Apportionment of Legislature, II | March 25, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 5820 (SJR 1) | III |
North Carolina | Apportionment of Legislature, II | May 17, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 10673 ("Resolution 60") | |
Minnesota | Apportionment of Legislature, II | May 17, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 10673 ("Resolution 5") | III |
Oklahoma | Proportional Electoral College, I | May 12, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 11488 (SCR 35) also found at Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, pp. 11802-11803 ("Enrolled Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 35") remainder of text p. 11803 | |
Louisiana | Apportionment of Legislature, II | June 1, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 12110 (SCR 25) | |
New Hampshire | Apportionment of Legislature, II | June 8, 1965? | CR V.111 p.12853 | |
Illinois | Revenue Sharing, Other | June 9, 1965? | CR V.111 p.14144 | III |
Florida | Apportionment of Legislature, II | June 22, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 14308 (HM 2433) | |
Mississippi | Apportionment of Legislature, II | July 7, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 15769 ("S. Con. Res. 101") | III |
Mississippi | School Management, States' Right | July 7, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, pp. 15769-15770 ("S. Con. Res. 102") remainder of text p. 15770 | III |
Mississippi | Anti-Subversion | July 7, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 15770 ("H. Con. Res. 14") | III |
Illinois | Apportionment of Legislature, II Apportionment of Legislature, Other |
June 22, 1965 March 13, 1967 |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 19379 ("Senate Resolution No. 52" and unicameral--not likewise approved by Illinois House of Representatives) Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, p. 8004 (HJR 32) |
III |
Nebraska | Proportional Electoral College, I | August 10, 1965? | CR V.111 p.19775 | III |
Nebraska | Apportionment of Legislature, I | September 22, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 24723 ("Legislative Resolution") | III |
Ohio | Revenue Sharing, Other | September 28, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, p. 25237 (SJR 16) | III |
Kentucky | Apportionment of Legislature, II | October 6, 1965? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 111, pp. 26073-26074 ("Senate" Concurrent "Resolution 8") remainder of text p. 26074 | III |
Alabama | Apportionment of Legislature, II | January 14, 1966? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 112, pp. 200-201 (SJR 3) remainder of text p. 201 | III |
New Mexico | Apportionment of Legislature, II | January 14, 1966? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 112, p. 199 (SJR 2) | III |
Tennessee | Apportionment of Legislature, II | January 14, 1966? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 112, p. 199-200 (HJR 34) remainder of text p. 200 | |
Illinois | Apportionment of Legislature, Other | March 13, 1967 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, p. 8004 (HJR 32) | III |
Indiana | Apportionment of Legislature, II | March 13, 1967? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, p. 6384 ("House Enrolled Concurrent Resolution No. 58") | III |
Alabama | Revenue Sharing, Other | April 19, 1967? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, pp. 10117-10118 ("Resolution No. 11") remainder of text p. 10118 | III |
North Dakota | Apportionment of Legislature, Other | April 28, 1967? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, p. 11175 (HCR I-1) | |
Georgia | Revenue Sharing, Other | May 4, 1967? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, pp. 11743-11744 ("Resolution 96") remainder of text p. 11744 | |
Texas | Revenue Sharing, Other | June 28, 1967? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, p. 17634 (SCR 12) | III |
Illinois | Revenue Sharing, Other | June 28, 1967? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, p. 17634-17635 (SJR 63) remainder of text p. 17635 | |
Iowa | Apportionment of Legislature, Other | May 13, 1969? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 115, p. 12249 (SCR 13) | III |
Florida | Revenue Sharing, Other | September 3, 1969? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 115, p. 24116 (SM 397) | |
New Hampshire | Revenue Sharing, I | December 1, 1969? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 115, p. 36153-36154 ("Concurrent resolution..." remainder of text p. 36154 | |
Mississippi | School Management, Other School Management, No Assignment |
March 5, 1970? March 15, 1973? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 113, p. 6097 (SCR 514) Cong. Rec. Vol. 119, p. 8089 (HCR 55) |
III IV |
Louisiana | Anti-Subversion | June 22, 1970? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 116, pp. 20672-20673 (HCR 4-A) remainder of text p. 20673 | |
Louisiana | Income Tax, Limit Other | July 7, 1970? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 116, p. 22906 (SCR 25) | |
Louisiana | Revenue Sharing, Other | July 10, 1970? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 116, p. 23765 (HCR 270) | |
New Jersey | Revenue Sharing, I | December 16, 1970? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 116, p. 41879 (SCR 77) | IV |
West Virginia | Revenue Sharing, I | January 26, 1971? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 117, pp. 541-542 (HCR 9) remainder of text p. 542 | IV |
Massachusetts | Revenue Sharing, I | March 4, 1971? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 117, p. 5020 (Unnumbered resolution) | IV |
South Dakota | Revenue Sharing, I | March 8, 1971? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 117, p. 5303 (HJR 503) | IV |
North Dakota | Revenue Sharing, I | April 26, 1971? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 117, p. 11841 (SCR 4013) | |
Louisiana | Revenue Sharing, I | June 15, 1971? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 117, pp. 19801-19802 (SCR 138) remainder of text p. 19802 | |
Ohio | Revenue Sharing, I | June 28, 1971? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 117, p. 22280 ("Joint Resolution") | IV |
Delaware | Revenue Sharing, I | February 18, 1971? | CR V.117 p.3175 | |
Oregon | Revenue Sharing, I | May 24, 1971? | CR V.117 p.16574 | ?? |
Massachusetts | School Management, Other School Management, Other |
September 8, 1971? March 28, 1973? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 117, p. 30905 (Unnumbered resolution) CR Vol. 119, pp. 12408-12409 (Unnumbered resolution) remainder of text p. 12409 |
IV IV |
Michigan | School Management, No Assignment | November 16, 1971? | CR V.117 pp.41598-41599 (SCR 172) Printed in "Extensions of Remarks" portion of Congressional Record remainder of text p. 41599 | IV |
Iowa | Revenue Sharing, I | March 2, 1972? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 118, pp. 6501-6502 (HJR 1) remainder of text p. 6502 | IV |
Florida | Senate Control of Presiding Officer | April 4, 1972? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 118, p. 11444 (SM 227) | |
Arizona | School Management, Prayer | April 4, 1972? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 118, p. 11445 (HCR 2009) | |
Tennessee | School management, No Assignment | May 8, 1972? | CR V.118 p.16214 | |
New York | School Management, Other | October 2, 1972? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 118, pp. 33047-33048 ("Joint Resolution No. 7) remainder of text p. 33048 | IV |
Virginia | Balanced Federal Budget | March 15, 1973? March 10, 1975? March 29, 1976? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 119, p. 8091 (HJR 75) CR Vol. 121, p. 5793 (SJR 107) CR Vol. 122, pp. 8335-8336 (SJR 36) remainder of text p. 8336 |
III IV | IV
Mississippi | Prayer in Public Buildings | March 20, 1973? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 119, p. 8689 (HCR 14) | IV |
Virginia | School management, No Assignment | April 3, 1973? | CR V.119 p.10675 | ?? |
New Jersey | School Management, Other | April 9, 1973? | CR V.119 p.11446 | ?? |
Texas | School Management, No Assignment | April 10, 1973? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 119, p. 11515 ("House Concurrent Resolution") | IV |
Oklahoma | School Management, No Assignment | April 25, 1973? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 119, p. 14428 (HCR 1026) | |
Maryland | School Management, Other | May 7, 1973? | CR V.119 p.14421 | ?? |
Nevada | School Management, No Assignment | May 29, 1973? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 119, pp. 17022-17023 (SJR 7) remainder of text p. 17023 | IV |
New Hampshire | School Management, Other | June 5, 1973? | CR V.119 p.18190 | |
Arkansas | Balanced Federal Budget | March 10, 1975? March 8, 1979? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 121, p. 5793 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution") CR Vol. 125, p. 4372, POM-78 (HJR 1) |
III IV |
Mississippi | Balanced Federal Budget | April 29, 1975? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 121, pp. 12175-12176 (HCR 51) remainder of text p. 12176 | III |
Missouri | Right to Life, Various | May 5, 1975? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 121, p. 12867 (SCR 7) | III |
Nevada | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | June 26, 1975? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 121, p. 21065 (AJR 47) | III |
Louisiana | Balanced Federal Budget | July 28, 1975? February 8, 1979? July 19, 1979? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 121, p. 25312 (SCR 109) CR V.125 p.2110-1 Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, pp. 19470-19471, POM-394 (SCR 4) remainder of text p. 19471 |
|
Kentucky | School Management, No Assignment | September 8, 1975? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 121, p. 27821 ("House" Joint "Resolution No. 29") | III |
Alabama | Balanced Federal Budget | September 10, 1975? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 121, p. 28347 (HJR 105) | |
Georgia | Balanced Federal Budget | February 6, 1976? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 122, p. 2740 (HR 469-1267) | |
Delaware | Balanced Federal Budget | February 25, 1976? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 122, p. 4329 (HCR 36) | |
South Carolina | Balanced Federal Budget | February 25, 1976? February 8, 1979? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 122, p. 4329 (Numerically Undesignated Resolution) CR V.125 p.2114 |
|
Massachusetts | School Management, No Assignment | April 7, 1976? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 122, p. 9735, (Unnumbered resolution) | III |
Oklahoma | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | June 7, 1976? | CR V.122 p.16814 | III |
Louisiana | Right to Life, Various | July 22, 1976? | CR V.122 p.23550 | |
Maryland | Balanced Federal Budget | January 28, 1977? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 123, pp. 2545-2546, POM-59 (SJR 4) remainder of text p. 2546 | IV |
Virginia | Line Item Veto, Various | March 28, 1977? | CR V.123 p.9289 (1977 House Joint Resolution No. 168) | ?? |
New Jersey | Right to Life, Various | April 5, 1977? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 123, p. 10481, POM-124 ("Senate No. 1271") | IV |
South Dakota | Right to Life, Unborn Right to Life, Sacred Life |
April 18, 1977? April 18, 1980? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 123, p. 11048, POM-135 (HJR 503) | |
Utah | Right to Life, Various | May 2, 1977? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 123, pp. 13057-13058, POM-151 (HJR 28) remainder of text p.13058 | |
Arkansas | Right to Life, Various | May 20, 1977? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 123, pp. 15808-15809, POM-189 (HJR 2) remainder of text p. 15809 | IV |
Rhode Island | Right to Life, Various | May 20, 1977? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 123, p. 15809, POM-190 ("Resolution") | IV |
Texas | Balanced Federal Budget | May 30, 1977? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, pp. 5223-5224, POM-95 (HCR 31) remainder of text p. 5224 | IV |
Arizona | Balanced Federal Budget | June 14, 1977? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 123, pp. 18873-18874, POM-231 (HCM 2003) remainder of text p. 18874 | |
Massachusetts | Right to Life, Various | June 23, 1977? | CR V.123 p.20659 | ?? |
Indiana | Right to Life, Various | July 22, 1977? | CR V.123 p.4797 | ?? |
Colorado | Balanced Federal Budget | April 5, 1978? | [file:///C:/Users/User1/Downloads/newpdf.pdf Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, p. 8778, POM-579 (SJM 1)] | V |
Nebraska | Right to Life, Various | April 21, 1978? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, p. 12694, POM-637 (Legislative Resolution No. 152) | IV |
Tennessee | Judicial Term Limits | April 25, 1978? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, p. 11437, POM-612 (HJR 21) | |
Tennessee | Balanced Federal Budget | April 25, 1978? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, pp. 11437-11438, POM-613 (HJR 22) remainder of text p. 11438 | |
Pennsylvania | Right to Life, Various | April 25, 1978? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, p. 11438, POM-614 (House Bill No. 71--described as a "Joint Resolution") | IV |
Oklahoma | Balanced Federal Budget | May 3, 1978? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, p. 12397 (POM-629) (HJR 1049) | |
Kansas | Balanced Federal Budget | May 19, 1978? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, p. 14584, POM-657 (SCR 1661) | IV |
Delaware | Right to Life, Various | June 9, 1978? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 124, p. 17055, POM-687 (HCR 9) | |
North Dakota | Balanced Federal Budget | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2113 | |
North Carolina | Balanced Federal Budget | February 22, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2113-4 | ?? |
Mississippi | Right to Life, Various | February 26, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 3196, POM-49 (HCR 3) | IV |
Florida | Balanced Federal Budget | March 1, 1979? June 21, 1988? |
Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 3655, POM-59 ("Senate Memorial" No. 234) Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, pp. 3655-3656, POM-60 (HM 2801) remainder of text p. 3656 Cong. Rec. Vol. 134, p. 15363, POM-549 (SM 302) |
|
Idaho | Balanced Federal Budget | March 1, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 3657, POM-64 (HCR 7) | |
New Mexico | Balanced Federal Budget | March 1, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, pp. 3656-3657, POM-62 (SJR 1) remainder of text p. 3657 | IV |
South Dakota | Balanced Federal Budget | March 1, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 3656, POM-61 (SJR 1) | |
Nebraska | Balanced Federal Budget | March 7, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 4152, POM-67 (Legislative Resolution No. 106) | IV |
Georgia | Right to Life, Various | March 8, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 4372, POM-79 (House Resolution No. 254) | |
Utah | Balanced Federal Budget | March 8, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, pp. 4372-4373, POM-80 (HJR 12) | |
Pennsylvania | Balanced Federal Budget | March 12, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 4627-4628, POM-85 (House Concurrent "Resolution No. 236") | IV |
Oregon | Balanced Federal Budget | March 22, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 5953, POM-104 (SJM 2) | |
Indiana | Balanced Federal Budget | May 1, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 9188, POM-192 ("Senate Enrolled Joint Resolution No. 8") | IV |
New Hampshire | Balanced Federal Budget | May 16, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125 p. 11584, POM-223 (HCR 8) | |
Iowa | Balanced Federal Budget | June 18, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 15227, POM-301 (SJR 1) | IV |
Nevada | Right to Life, Various | June 25, 1979? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 125, p. 16350, POM-312 (SJR 27) | V |
Nevada | Balanced Federal Budget | January 29, 1980? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 126, pp. 1104-1105, POM-535 (SJR 8) remainder of text p. 1105 | III |
Idaho | Right to Life, Various | March 21, 1980? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 126, p. 6172, POM-602 (SCR 132) | |
Oklahoma | Right to Life, Various | April 24, 1980? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 126, p. 8972, POM-701 (HJR 1053) | |
Tennessee | Right to Life, Various | May 2, 1980? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 126, p. 9765, POM-712 (SJR 23) | |
Alabama | Right to Life, Various | May 8, 1980? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 126, p. 10650, POM-717 (SJR 9) | IV |
Arizona | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | May 15, 1980? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 126, p. 11389, POM-730, (HCR 2001) | |
North Dakota | Right to Life, Various | April 27, 1981? | CR V.127 p.10650 | ?? |
Alaska | Balanced Federal Budget | February 3, 1982? | CR V.128 p.798 | ?? |
Missouri | Balanced Federal Budget | July 21, 1983? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 129, p. 20352, POM-323 (SCR 3) | V |
Arizona | Line Item Veto, Various | June 5, 1984? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 130, p. 15611, POM-684 (SCR 1008) | |
South Dakota | Line Item Veto, Various | March 12, 1986? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 132, pp. 4473-4474, POM-599, ("A Joint Resolution") remainder of text p. 4474 | |
Utah | Income Tax, Limit Other | March 30, 1987? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 133, p. 9736, POM-94 (SJR 8) | |
South Dakota | Term Limits on Members of Congress | April 4, 1989? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 135, pp. 5395-5396, POM-42 (HJR 1001) remainder of text p. 5396 | |
Idaho | Income Tax, Limit Other | April 10, 1989? | CR V.135 p.5895 | |
Georgia | Flag Desecration | April 16, 1991? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 137, pp. 8085-8086, POM-26 (House "Resolution No. 105") remainder of text p. 8086 | |
Colorado | Limited Funded Mandates, Various | June 26, 1992? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 138, p. 16552, POM-428 (SJM 92-3) | V |
South Dakota | Limited Funded Mandates, Various | March 22, 1993? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 139, p. 5905, POM-50 (SJR 3) | |
Missouri | No Judicial Taxing Power | June 29, 1993? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 139, p. 14565, POM-175 (SCR 9) | V |
Delaware | Income Tax, Limit Other | June 28, 1994? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 140, p. 14718, POM-554 (HCR 56) | |
Missouri | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | June 29, 1994? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 140, pp. 15072-15073, POM-575 (SCR 21) remainder of text p. 15073 | V |
Arizona | No Judicial Taxing Power | March 27, 1996? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 142, pp. S3012-S3013, POM-523 (SCR 1014) remainder of text p. S3013 | |
South Dakota | No Judicial Taxing Power | March 27, 1996? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 142, p. S3013, POM-526 (HCR 1010) | III |
Nevada | Term Limits on Members of Congress | June 29, 1996? | Nevada Constitution | III |
North Dakota | No Judicial Taxing Power | April 6, 2001? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 147, pp. S3704-S3705, POM-7 ("House Concurrent Resolution No. 3031") remainder of text p. S3705 | III |
Louisiana | Posse Comitatus | April 29, 2008? | Cong. Rec. Vol. 154, p. S3504, POM-329 ("House Concurrent Resolution No. 38") | IV |
Florida | Balanced Federal Budget | April 19, 2010 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, pp. S5563-S5564, POM-323 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution 10") remainder of text p. S5564 | V |
Nebraska | Balanced Federal Budget (Reaffirmation of 1976 Legislative Resolution No. 106) | April 13, 2010 | Legislative Resolution No. 538 | V |
North Dakota | Mode of Amendment, Other | April 14, 2011 | HCR 3048 | V |
North Dakota | Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures | April 11, 2011 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 158, p. S1459, POM-66 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4007") | IV |
Alabama | Balanced Federal Budget | June 1, 2011 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, pp. S3666-S3667, POM-251 ("Senate Joint Resolution No. 100") remainder of text p. S3667 | V |
Louisiana | Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures | June 21, 2011 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 158, p. S2241, POM-69 ("House Concurrent Resolution No. 87") | IV |
New Hampshire | Balanced Federal Budget | May 16, 2012 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, p. S5153, POM-197 ("House Concurrent Resolution 40") | V |
Ohio | Balanced Federal Budget | November 20, 2013 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S1174, POM-197 ((Senate) "Joint Resolution No. 5") | V |
Georgia | Balanced Federal Budget | February 20, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, pp. S3667-S3668, POM-254 ("Senate Resolution 371") remainder of text p. S3668 | V |
Georgia | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | March 6, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-285 ("Senate Resolution No. 736") | V |
Michigan | Balanced Federal Budget | March 26, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, p. S2098, POM-14 ("Enrolled Senate Joint Resolution V") | V |
Tennessee | Balanced Federal Budget | April 9, 2014 | HJR 548 | V |
Alaska | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | April 19, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S6021, POM-345 ("House Joint Resolution 22", also referred to as "Legislative Resolve No. 68") | V |
Florida | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | April 21, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-286 ("Senate Memorial 476") | V |
Florida | Balanced Federal Budget | April 21, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-288 ("Senate Memorial 658") | V |
Florida | Legislation in Congress to contain only one subject and that one subject must be clearly expressed in the measure's title | April 23, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-289 ("House Memorial 261") | V |
Vermont | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | May 2, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S4331, POM-284 ("Joint Senate Resolution No. 27") | V |
Louisiana | Balanced Federal Budget | May 15, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S5563, POM-322 ("House Concurrent Resolution No. 70") | V |
California | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | June 23, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 160, p. S5507, POM-320 ("Assembly Joint Resolution No. 1") | V |
Illinois | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | December 3, 2014 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, p. S71, POM-126 ("Senate Joint Resolution No. 42") | V |
South Dakota | Balanced Federal Budget | February 17, 2015 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, p. S6550, POM-255 ("House Joint Resolution No. 1001") | V |
New Jersey | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | February 23, 2015 | SCR 132 | V |
Utah | Balanced Federal Budget | March 6, 2015 | HJR 7 | V |
North Dakota | Balanced Federal Budget | March 24, 2015 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 161, pp. S2399-S2400, POM-17 ("House Concurrent Resolution 3015") remainder of text p. S2400 | V |
Alabama | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | May 21, 2015 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 161 pp. S8601-S8602, POM-124 ("House Joint Resolution 112") remainder of text p. S8602 | V |
Tennessee | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | February 4, 2016 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, p. S6534, POM-117 ("Senate Joint Resolution No. 67") | V |
Florida | Term limits on Members of Congress | February 10, 2016 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, p. S112, POM-6 ("House Memorial 417") | V |
Indiana | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | February 29, 2016 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, p. S6663, POM-256 ("Senate Enrolled Joint Resolution No. 14") | V |
West Virginia | Balanced Federal Budget | March 12, 2016 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, p. S5277, POM-201 and POM-202 ("House Concurrent Resolution 36") | V |
Alaska | Countermand Amendment | April 16, 2016 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 164, p. S703, POM-164 (HJR 14, also referred to as "Legislative Resolve No. 49") | V |
Oklahoma | Combination of: (1) Balanced Federal Budget; and (2) Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | April 18, 2016 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, pp. S6354-6355, POM-213 ("Senate Joint Resolution No. 4") remainder of text p. S6355 | V |
Louisiana | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | May 25, 2016 | SCR 52 | V |
Rhode Island | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Rhode Island lawmakers chose to approve two separate unicameral resolutions, rather than to adopt a single bicameral resolution. The validity of this approach is subject to question). | June 16, 2016 (R.I. House version) and June 17, 2016 (R.I. Senate version) | Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, p. S5276, POM-198 (R 326—H 7670) and Cong. Rec. Vol. 162, pp. S5276-S5277, POM-199 (R 327—S 2589) remainder of text p. S5277 | V |
Wyoming | Balanced Federal Budget | February 27, 2017 | "House Enrolled Joint Resolution No. 2" | V |
Arizona | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | March 13, 2017 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, pp. S6534-S6535, POM-118 and POM-120 ("House Concurrent Resolution 2010") remainder of text p. S6535 | V |
North Dakota | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | March 24, 2017 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, p. S2527, POM-16 ("House Concurrent Resolution No. 3006") | V |
Arizona | Balanced Federal Budget | March 27, 2017 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, p. S6535, POM-119 and POM-121 ("House Concurrent Resolution 2013") | V |
Texas | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | May 10, 2017 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, p. S4056, POM-65 ("Senate Joint Resolution No. 2") | V |
Missouri | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress | May 12, 2017 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 163, pp. S3361-S3362, POM-40 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4") | V |
Wisconsin | Balanced Federal Budget | November 7, 2017 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 164, pp. S109-S110, POM-154 ("Assembly Joint Resolution No. 21") remainder of text p. S110 | V |
Alabama | Term Limits on Members of Congress | January 25, 2018 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 164, pp. S3759-S3760, POM-243 ("House Joint Resolution No. 23") | V |
Missouri | Term Limits on Members of Congress | May 17, 2018 | Cong. Rec. Vol. 164, p. S5422, POM-278 ("Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 40") | V |
Counts by states
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.[7] 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, 27 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) have outstanding applications for an amendment to establish a balanced budget. Eight more states have rescinded their application (Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon, South Carolina, and Virginia). 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.
Proportional Electoral College
On December 7, 2015, Lawrence Lessig argued in favor of invocation of an Article V convention with the objective of altering the operation of the Electoral College.[8]
Political Campaign Finance Reform
Five states (Vermont, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island) have thus far[9] 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.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2016) |
Social Issues
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2012) |
Anti-Polygamy
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2012) |
Anti-Prohibition
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2012) |
Right to Life
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2012) |
School Management
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2012) |
Paulsen style application counts
Michael Stokes Paulsen holds that the applications for a convention alone should govern the convention.[10] 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.[11] He lists the following counts in the introduction to his claim:
- 450 applications through 1980, plus 25 more since 1980, gives 475 total applications
- Applications from every state in the union (Hawaii's expired and did not call for a convention, 8 states have rescinded all applications, leaving 41.)
- 36 states with more than six or more separate applications (Ten of those have since rescinded all or most of their applications, and five are not identified in the table above, but several states have five applications listed here.)
See also
- List of rescissions of Article V Convention applications
- Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution
- Second Constitutional Convention of the United States
References
- ^ http://www.foavc.org/reference/file59.pdf
- ^ http://www.foavc.org/reference/1930.pdf
- ^ http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm
- ^ http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm
- ^ http://www.foavc.org/reference/file85.pdf
- ^ Judge Bruce Van Sickle and attorney Lynn Boughey M. (Fall 1990). "A Lawful and Peaceful Revolution: Article V and Congress' Present Duty to Call a Convention for Proposing Amendments". Hamline Law Review, Volume 14, p. 1.
- ^ Rogers, James The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 30: 1005.
- ^ "Should states call a convention to amend the Constitution? Lessig debates". Harvard Law Today. December 7, 2015. Retrieved 6 October 2017.
- ^ http://www.wolf-pac.com
- ^ Paulson, Michael "A General Theory of Article V: The Constitutional Lessons of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment". Yale Law Journal 103: 677.
- ^ Brennan, Thomas E., "Return to Philadelphia: A Case for Calling of an Amendatory Convention Under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution,'"1 Cooley Law Review 1 (1982).