List of state applications for an Article V Convention

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 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.[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, 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.

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.

State Applications for an Article V Convention
State Issue/Subject Date of State's Approval Reference to Proposal's Text Class
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 II 2004
South Carolina Clarify Amendment X December 19, 1832 J HR V22.2 219-220 II 2004
Alabama Limitation on Tariffs January 12, 1833 J HR V22.2 361-362 II
Indiana General March 13, 1861? CG V.37.S 1465-6 I
Ohio General 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 Convention June 5, 1899 CR V.33 p.219 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 III 2000
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		 (III) 2007
(III) 2007
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		 (III) 2000
(III) 2000
(III) 2000
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		 (III) 2010
(III)
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		 (II)
(III)
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 (III) 2001
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 III 2016
Missouri General 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 (II) 1990
Oklahoma Direct Election of Senators, Other January 20, 1908 CR V.45 p.7117-8 (II) 2009
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 (II) 2007
Maine Direct Election of Senators, Other February 22, 1911 CR V.46 p.4280 (III)
Tennessee Anti-Polygamy February 17, 1911 CR V.47 p.187 III 2010
Montana Anti-Polygamy March 1, 1911 CR V.47 p.98-9 III 2007
Nebraska Anti-Polygamy March 14, 1911 CR V.47 p.99 III
Ohio Anti-Polygamy March 15, 1911 CR V.47 p.660-1 III
Illinois Anti-Monopoly May 11, 1911 CR V.47 p.1298 III
Wisconsin General Convention June 12, 1911? CR V.47 p.1873 I
California Direct Election of Senators, I June 13, 1911? CR V.47 p.2000 (??)
Vermont Anti-Polygamy December 18, 1912 CR V.49 p.1433 III
Illinois Anti-Polygamy March 12, 1913 CR V.50 p.121 III
Oregon Anti-Polygamy January 20, 1913 CR V.49 p.2463 III 2000
Wisconsin Anti-Polygamy March 26, 1913 CR V.50 p.42-3 III
Missouri Supreme Court Jurisdiction April 15, 1913 CR V.50 p.2428 III
Michigan Anti-Polygamy July 2, 1913 CR V.50 p.2290 III
South Carolina Anti-Polygamy February 15, 1915 CR V.53 p.242 III 2004
Louisiana Mode of Amendment, Other January 12, 1920? CR V.60 p.31 ?? 1990
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 Article V Conditions Met September 23, 1929? CR V.71 p.3856
Wisconsin Anti-Prohibition December 23, 1931? CR V.75 p.57 (III)
New Jersey Anti-Prohibition February 1, 1931? CR V.75 p.3299 (III)
Massachusetts Anti-Prohibition March 13, 1931? CR V.75 p.45 (III)
New York Anti-Prohibition December 8, 1931? CR V.75 p.48 (IV)
California Tax on Government Securities January 7, 1935 CR V.79 p.10814 III
California Federal Labor Laws January 7, 1935 CR V.79 p.10814 III
Oregon General Welfare Act of 1937 January 7, 1939? CR V.84 p.985 III 2000
Wyoming Income Tax, Limit II March 8, 1939? CR V.84 p.2509-10 III 2009
Maryland Income Tax, Limit II March 27, 1939? CR V.84 p.3320 III
Rhode Island Income Tax, Limit I March 26, 1940? CR V.86 p.3407 III
Iowa Income Tax, Limit II April 18, 1941? CR V.87 p.3172 III
Maine Income Tax, Limit I April 17, 1941 CR V.87 p.3370-1 III 1953
Massachusetts Income Tax, Limit I April 29, 1941 CR V.87 p.3812-3 III 1952
Michigan Income Tax, Limit I May 16, 1941? CR V.87 p.4537 III
Iowa Presidential Term Limits March 26, 1943? CR V.89 p.2516 (III)
Illinois Presidential Term Limits March 26, 1943? CR V.89 p.2516-7 (III)
Michigan Presidential Term Limits March 26, 1943? CR V.89 p.2944 (III)
New Hampshire Income Tax, II April 29, 1943? CR V.89 p.3761-2 III 2010
Delaware Income Tax, Limit I May 3, 1943? CR V.89 p.4017 III 2016
Illinois Income Tax, Limit II May 26, 1943 CR V.98 p.742-3 III 1952
Pennsylvania Limited Funding Mandates, Various May 27, 1943 CR V.89 p.8220 III
Pennsylvania Income Tax, Limit II May 27, 1943? CR V.89 p.8220 III
Alabama Income Tax, Limit I June 8, 1943 CR V.89 p.7523-4 III
Wisconsin Income Tax, Limit I September 14, 1943? CR V.89 p.7524 III
Wisconsin Presidential Term Limits September 14, 1943? CR V.89 p.7525 (III)
Kentucky Income Tax, Limit I March 20, 1944 CR V.90 p.4040-1 III 1951
New Jersey Income Tax, Limit I February 25, 1944 CR V.97 p.10973 III 1954
Arkansas Income Tax, Limit II March 28, 1945 CR V.98 p.742 III
California World Federation April 19, 1949? CR V.95 p.4568-9 IV
New Jersey World Federation April 20, 1949? CR V.95 p.4571 IV
North Carolina World Federation April 20, 1949 CR V.95 p.6587-8 IV
Michigan Revenue Sharing, II May 5, 1949? CR V.89 p.5628-9 IV
Florida World Federation May 16, 1949 CR V.95 p.7000 III 2010
Nebraska Revenue Sharing, II May 25, 1949 CR V.95 p.7893-4 IV 1953
Connecticut World Federation June 1, 1949 CR V.95 p.7689 IV
Kansas Income Tax, Limit I March 8, 1951 CR V.97 p.2936 III
Iowa Revenue Sharing, II May 9, 1951? CR V.97 p.3939-40 IV
Florida Income Tax, Limit I May 10, 1951? CR V.97 p.5155-6 III 2010
New Hampshire Revenue Sharing, II August 28, 1951 CR V.97 p.10716 IV 2010
Maine Revenue Sharing, II June 4, 1951? CR V.97 p.6033-4 IV
Utah Income Tax, Limit I February 11, 1952? CR V.98 p.947 III 2001
New Mexico Revenue Sharing, II February 11, 1952? CR V.98 p.947-8 IV
Georgia Limited Treaty Powers, Various January 29, 1952 CR V.98 p.1057 III 2004
Georgia Income Tax, Limit I February 6, 1952 CR V.98 p.1057 III 2004
Indiana Income Tax, Limit II
Income Tax, Limit II		 February 18, 1952?
May 12, 1957		 CR V.98 p.1056-7
CR V.103 p.6474		 III
III
Virginia Income Tax, Limit I February 21, 1952 CR V.98 p.1496 III
California Motor Vehicle Tax Distribution February 22, 1952? CR V.98 p.4003-4 III
Louisiana Income Tax, Limit I January 13, 1953? CR V.99 p.320 III 1954
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		 CR V.99 p.9180-1
CR V.101 p.2861-2
CR V.109 p.14638-9		 IV 2010
IV 2010
III 2010
Illinois Mode of Amendment, Other
Mode of Amendment, Identical Text		 June 25, 1953
March 5, 1963?		 CR V.97 p.9864
CR V.109 p.3788		 IV
III
Georgia School Management, States' Right
School Management, States' Right
School Management, States' Right		 January 31, 1955
February 5, 1959
March 4, 1965		 CR V.101 p.1532
CR V.105 p.1834
CR V.111 p.5817		 III 2004
III 2004
III 2004
Texas Mode of Amendment, by 12 States
Mode of Amendment, Identical Text		 March 14, 1955?
April 4, 1963		 CR V.101 p.2770-1
CR V.109 p.11852		 IV
III
Oklahoma Income Tax, Limit Other May 23, 1955 CR V.101 p.8397-8 III 2009
Michigan Mode of Amendment, by 12 States April 4, 1956 CR V.102 p.7241 IV
Idaho Mode of Amendment, by 12 States April 1, 1956? CR V.103 p.4831 IV 2000
Indiana Mode of Amendment, by 12 States March 12, 1957 CR V.103 p.6471-2 IV
Indiana Limited Treaty Powers, Various May 12, 1957 CR V.103 p.6472-3 III
Indiana Proportional Electoral College, Other May 12, 1957 CR V.103 p.6473 III
Indiana Balanced Budget, Other
Balanced Budget, Other		 May 12, 1957
January 26, 1976?		 CR V.103 p.6475
CR V.122 p.931		 III
III
Florida Supreme Court Review, Other June 5, 1957 CR V.103 p.12787 III 2010
Alabama Judicial Term Limits June 25, 1957 CR V.103 p.10863 III
Connecticut Prohibit Interstate Income Tax May 6, 1958? CR V.104 p.8085-6 III
Alabama Limited Federal Preemption January 1, 1959? CR V.105 p.3083 III
Wyoming Limit Federal Powers February 20, 1959? CR V.105 p.3085 III 2009
Arkansas Validity of 14th Amendment March 18, 1959? CR V.105 p.4398 III
Nevada Limit Federal Powers March 11, 1960 CR V.105 p.10749 III
Louisiana Limit Federal Powers June 11, 1960? CR V.105 p.14401 III 1990
Arkansas Supreme Court Review, Other February 2, 1961 CR V.107 p.2154 III
Wyoming Balanced Budget, Other
Balanced Budget, Emergency		 February 21, 1961
February 8, 1979?		 CR V.107 p.2759
CR V.125 p.2116		 III 2009
IV 2009
Georgia Supreme Court Review, Other March 9, 1961? CR V.107 p.4715 III 2004
South Carolina Limit Federal Powers March 11, 1962? CR V.108 p.5051 III 2004
Oklahoma Mode of Amendment, Identical Text January 21, 1963 CR V.109 p.1172 III 2009
Oklahoma Apportionment of Legislature, I January 21, 1963 CR V.109 p.1172-3 III 2009
Kansas Mode of Amendment, Identical Text January 31, 1963 CR V.109 p.2769 III 1970
Kansas Apportionment of Legislature, I January 31, 1963 CR V.109 p.2769 III 1970
Florida Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union February 5, 1963 CR V.109 p.2071-2 III 2010
Florida Mode of Amendment, Identical Text February 5, 1963 CR V.109 p.2072 III 2010
Idaho Apportionment of Legislature, I
Apportionment of Legislature, II		 February 14, 1963?
January 26, 1965?		 CR V.109 p.2281
CR V.111 p.1229		 III 2000
III 2000
Arkansas Mode of Amendment, Identical Text February 21, 1963? CR V.109 p.2768 III
Arkansas Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union February 21, 1963? CR V.109 p.2768-9 III
Arkansas Apportionment of Legislature, I
Apportionment of Legislature, II		 February 21, 1963?
April 5, 1965?		 CR V.109 p.2769
CR V.111 p.6917-8		 III
III
Arkansas Proportional Electoral College, Other February 21, 1963? CR V.109 p.2769 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 15, 1965?		 CR V.109 p.3854
CR V.111 p.2777		 III 2007
III 2007
Idaho Balanced Budget, Other March 11, 1963? CR V.109 p.3855 III 2000
Montana Proportional Electoral College, I March 25, 1963? CR V.109 p.4469 III 2007
Wyoming Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union February 14, 1963 CR V.109 p.4778-9 III 2009
Wyoming Apportionment of Legislature, I February 9, 1963 CR V.109 p.4779 III 2009
Wyoming Mode of Amendment, Identical Text February 15, 1963 CR V.109 p.4779 III 2009
Alabama Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union March 13, 1963 CR V.109 p.5250 III
Washington Apportionment of Legislature, I March 30, 1963 CR V.109 p.5867 III
Missouri Apportionment of Legislature, I
Apportionment of Legislature, II		 April 8, 1963?
February 18, 1965?		 CR V.109 p.5868
CR V.111 p.3304		 III
III
Missouri Mode of Amendment, Identical Text April 8, 1963? CR V.109 p.5868 III
Utah Proportional Electoral College, I April 8, 1963? CR V.109 p.5947 III 2001
Colorado Proportional Electoral College, I April 11, 1963? CR V.109 p.6659 III
Colorado Income Tax, Limit Other April 25, 1963? CR V.109 p.7060 III
Nevada Apportionment of Legislature, I February 12, 1963
February 17, 1965?		 CR V.109 p.9942 III
South Carolina Apportionment of Legislature, I
Apportionment of Legislature, II		 June 10, 1963?
February 18, 1965?		 CR V.109 p.10441
CR V.111 p.3304		 III 2004
South Carolina Mode of Amendment, Identical Text June 10, 1963? CR V.109 p.10441 III 2004
South Carolina Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union June 10, 1963? CR V.109 p.10441-2 III 2004
Texas Apportionment of Legislature, I
Apportionment of Legislature, II		 April 4, 1963
July 26, 1965		 CR V.109 p.11852
CR V.111 p.18171		 III
III
Texas Proportional Electoral College, I May 22, 1963 CR V.109 p.11852-3 III
South Dakota Apportionment of Legislature, I
Apportionment of Legislature, II		 March 2, 1963
March 1, 1965?		 CR V.109 p.14639
CR V.111 p.3722-3		 III 2010
III
Wisconsin Proportional Electoral College, I March 2, 1963 CR V.109 p.14808 III
Virginia Apportionment of Legislature, I
Apportionment of Legislature, II		 March 15, 1964?
December 3, 1964		 CR V.110 p.5659
CR V.108 p.880-1		 III
III
Massachusetts School Management, Other March 18, 1964 CR V.110 p.7616 III
Massachusetts Senior Pensions April 23, 1964 CR V.110 p.9875 III
Virginia Mode of Amendment, Identical Text December 3, 1964 CR V.111 p.880 III
Louisiana School Management, States' Right January 6, 1965 CR V.111 p.165 III 1990
Arizona Apportionment of Legislature, II February 15, 1965? CR V.111 p.3061 III 2003
Kansas Apportionment of Legislature, II January 27, 1965 CR V.111 p.3061-2 III 1970
South Carolina School Management, States' Right February 18, 1965 CR V.111 p.3304 III 2004
Alabama Apportionment of Legislature, II February 25, 1965 CR V.112 p.200-1 III
Utah Apportionment of Legislature, II March 8, 1965 CR V.111 p.4320 III 2001
Maryland Apportionment of Legislature, II March 25, 1965 CR V.111 p.5820 III
North Carolina Apportionment of Legislature, II May 12, 1964 CR V.111 p.10673 III 1969-Not Joint
Minnesota Apportionment of Legislature, II May 12, 1965 CR V.111 p.10673 III
Oklahoma Proportional Electoral College, I May 12, 1965 CR V.111 p.11488 III 2009
Louisiana Apportionment of Legislature, II June 1, 1965 CR V.111 p.12110 III 1990
New Hampshire Apportionment of Legislature, II June 8, 1965 CR V.111 p.12853 III 2010
Illinois Revenue Sharing, Other June 9, 1965 CR V.111 p.14144 III
Florida Apportionment of Legislature, II June 15, 1965 CR V.111 p.14163 III 2010
Mississippi Apportionment of Legislature, II July 7, 1965? CR V.111 p.15769 III
Mississippi School Management, States' Right July 7, 1965? CR V.111 p.15769-70 III
Mississippi Anti-Subversion July 7, 1965? CR V.111 p.15770 III
Illinois Apportionment of Legislature, II
Apportionment of Legislature, Other		 June 22, 1965
March 13, 1967		 CR V.109 p.19379
CR V.113 p.8004		 III 1969-Not Joint
III
Nebraska Proportional Electoral College, I August 10, 1965 CR V.109 p.19775 III
Nebraska Apportionment of Legislature, I September 22, 1965 CR V.109 p.24723 III
Ohio Revenue Sharing, Other July 29, 1965 CR V.109 p.25237 III
Kentucky Apportionment of Legislature, II October 6, 1965? CR V.111 p.26074 III
New Mexico Apportionment of Legislature, II January 14, 1966? CR V.112 p.199 III
Tennessee Apportionment of Legislature, II February 23, 1965 CR V.112 p.200 III 2010
Indiana Apportionment of Legislature, II March 13, 1967? CR V.113 p.6384 III
Alabama Revenue Sharing, Other April 5, 1967 CR V.113 p.10118-9 III
North Dakota Apportionment of Legislature, Other April 28, 1967 CR V.113 p.11175 III 2001
Georgia Revenue Sharing, Other May 4, 1967 CR V.113 p.11743 III 2004
Texas Revenue Sharing, Other June 28, 1967 CR V.113 p.17634 III
Illinois Revenue Sharing, Other June 28, 1967 CR V.113 p.17634-5 III 1969-Not Joint
Iowa Apportionment of Legislature, Other April 13, 1969? CR V.115 p.12249 III
Florida Revenue Sharing, Other September 3, 1969 CR V.115 p.24116 III 2010
New Hampshire Revenue Sharing, I February 25, 1970 CR V.115 p.36154 III 2010
Mississippi School Management, Other
School Management, No Assignment		 March 5, 1970?
March 2, 1973?		 CR V.113 p.17634
CR V.119 p.8089		 III
IV
Louisiana Anti-Subversion June 22, 1970? CR V.116 p.20673 III 1990
Louisiana Income Tax, Limit Other July 7, 1970? CR V.116 p.22906 III 1990
Louisiana Revenue Sharing, Other July 10, 1970? CR V.116 p.23765 III 1990
New Jersey Revenue Sharing, I December 16, 1970? CR V.116 p.41879 IV
West Virginia Revenue Sharing, I January 26, 1971? CR V.117 p.541-2 IV
Massachusetts Revenue Sharing, I March 4, 1971 CR V.117 p.5020 IV
South Dakota Revenue Sharing, I March 8, 1971 CR V.117 p.5303 IV
North Dakota Revenue Sharing, I April 26, 1971? CR V.117 p.11841 IV 2001
Louisiana Revenue Sharing, I June 15, 1971? CR V.117 p.19801-2 IV 2000
Ohio Revenue Sharing, I June 28, 1971? CR V.117 p.22280 IV
Delaware Revenue Sharing, I February 18, 1971? CR V.117 p.3175 ?? 2016
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		 CR V.117 p.30905
CR V.119 p.12408-9		 IV
IV
Michigan School Management, No Assignment October 28, 1971 CR V.117 p.41598-9 IV
Iowa Revenue Sharing, I March 2, 1972? CR V.118 p.6501-2 IV
Florida Senate Control of Presiding Officer April 4, 1972? CR V.118 p.11444 IV 2010
Arizona School Management, Prayer April 4, 1972? CR V.118 p.11445 III 2003
Tennessee School management, No Assignment May 8, 1972? CR V.118 p.16214 ?? 2010
New York School Management, Other October 2, 1972? CR V.118 p.33047-8 IV
Virginia Balanced Federal Budget February 23, 1973
March 10, 1975?
March 29, 1976?		 CR V.119 p.8091
CR V.121 p.5793
CR V.122 p.8335-6		 IV
III
IV
Mississippi Prayer in Public Buildings March 20, 1973? CR V.119 p.8689 IV
New Jersey School Management, Other April 9, 1973? CR V.119 p.11446 ??
Maryland School Management, Other May 7, 1973? CR V.119 p.14421 ??
New Hampshire School Management, Other June 5, 1973? CR V.119 p.18190 ?? 2010
Texas School Management, No Assignment April 10, 1973? CR V.119 p.11515 IV
Virginia School management, No Assignment April 3, 1973? CR V.119 p.10675 ??
Oklahoma School Management, No Assignment April 25, 1973 CR V.119 p.14428 III 2009
Nevada School Management, No Assignment May 29, 1973? CR V.119 p.17022-3 IV
Arkansas Balanced Federal Budget March 10, 1975?
March 8, 1979?		 CR V.121 p.5793
CR V.125 p.4372		 III
IV
Mississippi Balanced Federal Budget April 29, 1975? CR V.121 p.12175-6 III
Missouri Right to Life, Various May 5, 1975? CR V.121 p.12867 III
Nevada Limited Funding Mandates, Various June 26, 1975? CR V.121 p.21065 III
Louisiana Balanced Federal Budget July 28, 1975?
February 8, 1979?
July 19, 1979?		 CR V.121 p.25312
CR V.125 p.2110-1
CR V.125 p.19470-1		 III 2000
IV 2000
V 1990
Kentucky School Management, No Assignment September 8, 1975? CR V.121 p.27821 III
Alabama Balanced Federal Budget September 10, 1975? CR V.121 p.28347 IV 1989
Georgia Balanced Federal Budget February 6, 1976? CR V.122 p.2740 IV 2004
Delaware Balanced Federal Budget February 25, 1976? CR V.122 p.4329 IV 2016
South Carolina Balanced Federal Budget February 25, 1976?
February 8, 1979?		 CR V.122 p.4329
CR V.125 p.2114		 IV 2004
IV 2004
Massachusetts School Management, No Assignment April 7, 1976? CR V.122 p.9735 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 IV 1990
Maryland Balanced Federal Budget January 28, 1977? CR V.123 p.2545-6 IV
Texas Balanced Federal Budget March 15, 1977?
February 8, 1979?		 CR V.125 p.5224 IV
Virginia Line Item Veto, Various March 28, 1977? CR V.123 p.9289 ??
New Jersey Right to Life, Various April 5, 1977? CR V.123 p.10481 IV
South Dakota Right to Life, Unborn
Right to Life, Sacred Life		 April 18, 1977?
April 18, 1980?		 CR V.123 p.11048 IV 2010
Utah Right to Life, Various May 2, 1977? CR V.123 p.13057-8 III 2001
Arkansas Right to Life, Various May 20, 1977? CR V.123 p.15808-9 IV
Rhode Island Right to Life, Various May 20, 1977? CR V.123 p.15809 IV
Arizona Balanced Federal Budget June 14, 1977? CR V.123 p.18873-4 III 2003
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 ??
Tennessee Judicial Term Limits April 25, 1978? CR V.124 p.11437 III 2010
Tennessee Balanced Federal Budget April 25, 1978? CR V.124 p.11438 III 2010
Pennsylvania Right to Life, Various April 25, 1978? CR V.124 p.11438 IV
Nebraska Right to Life, Various April 21, 1978 CR V.124 p.12215 IV
Kansas Balanced Federal Budget May 19, 1978? CR V.124 p.14584 IV
Delaware Right to Life, Various June 9, 1978? CR V.124 p.17055 III 2016
Colorado Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.2109 V
Florida Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979?
June 21, 1988?		 CR V.125 p.2109-10
CR V.134 p.15363		 IV 1988
VI 2010
Nevada Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979?
January 29, 1980?		 CR V.125 p.2112
CR V.126 p.1104-5		 III
V 1989-Not Joint
Nebraska Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.2112 IV
New Mexico Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.2112-3 IV
North Dakota Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.2113 II 2001
Oklahoma Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.2113 IV 2009
Oregon Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.2113 IV 2000
Pennsylvania Balanced Federal Budget February 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.2113-4 IV
North Carolina Balanced Federal Budget February 22, 1979? CR V.125 p.2113-4 ??
Mississippi Right to Life, Various February 26, 1979? CR V.125 p.3196 IV
South Dakota Balanced Federal Budget March 1, 1979? CR V.125 p.3656 V 2010
Idaho Balanced Federal Budget March 1, 1979? CR V.125 p.3657 V 2000
Georgia Right to Life, Various March 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.4372 IV 2004
Utah Balanced Federal Budget March 8, 1979? CR V.125 p.4372-3 V 2001
Indiana Balanced Federal Budget May 1, 1979? CR V.125 p.9188 IV
New Hampshire Balanced Federal Budget May 16, 1979? CR V.125 p.11584 IV 2010
Iowa Balanced Federal Budget June 18, 1979? CR V.125 p.15227 IV
Nevada Right to Life, Various June 25, 1979? CR V.125 p.16350 V
Idaho Right to Life, Various March 21, 1980? CR V.126 p.6172 V 2000
Oklahoma Right to Life, Various April 24, 1980? CR V.126 p.8972 IV 2009
Tennessee Right to Life, Various May 2, 1980? CR V.126 p.9765 IV 2010
Alabama Right to Life, Various May 8, 1980? CR V.126 p.10650 IV
North Dakota Right to Life, Various April 27, 1981? CR V.127 p.10650 ??
Arizona Limited Funding Mandates, Various July 19, 1979? CR V.126 p.11389 III 2003
Alaska Balanced Federal Budget February 3, 1982? CR V.128 p.798 ??
Missouri Balanced Federal Budget July 21, 1983? CR V.129 p.20352 V
Arizona Line Item Veto, Various June 5, 1984? CR V.130 p.14956 III 2003
South Dakota Line Item Veto, Various March 12, 1986? CR V.132 p.4473 V 2010
Utah Income Tax, Limit Other March 30, 1987? CR V.133 p.7299 IV 2001
South Dakota Term Limits on Members of Congress April 4, 1989? CR V.135 p.5396 IV 2010
Idaho Income Tax, Limit Other April 10, 1989? CR V.135 p.5895 ??
Georgia Flag Desecration April 16, 1991? CR Vol. 137, pp. 8085-8086, POM-26 (Resolution No. 105) IV 2004
Colorado Limited Funded Mandates, Various June 26, 1992? CR Vol. 138, p. 16552, POM-428 (SJM 92-3) V
South Dakota Limited Funded Mandates, Various March 22, 1993? CR Vol. 139, p. 5905, POM-50 (SJR 3) V 2010
Missouri No Judicial Taxing Power June 29, 1993? CR Vol. 139, p. 14565, POM-175 (SCR 9) V
Delaware Income Tax, Limit Other June 28, 1994? CR Vol. 140, p. 14718, POM-554 (HCR 56) IV 2016
Missouri Limited Funding Mandates, Various June 29, 1994? CR Vol. 140, p. 15072, POM-575 (SCR 21) V
Arizona No Judicial Taxing Power March 27, 1996? CR Vol. 142, pp. S3012-S3013, POM-523 (SCR 1014) III 2003
South Dakota No Judicial Taxing Power March 27, 1996? CR 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? CR Vol. 147, p. S3705, POM-7 (HCR 3031) III
Louisiana Posse Comitatus April 29, 2008? CR Vol. 154, p. S3504, POM-329 (HCR 38) IV
Florida Balanced Federal Budget April 19, 2010 CR Vol. 160, pp. S5563-S5564, POM-323 (SCR 10) V
Nebraska Balanced Federal Budget (Reaffirmation of 1976 LR 106) April 13, 2010 LR 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 CR Vol. 158, p. S1459, POM-66 (SCR 4007) IV
Alabama Balanced Federal Budget June 1, 2011 CR Vol. 160, pp. S3666-S3667, POM-251 (SJR 100) V
Louisiana Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures June 21, 2011 CR Vol. 158, p. S2241, POM-69 (HCR 87) IV
New Hampshire Balanced Federal Budget May 16, 2012 CR Vol. 162, p. S5153, POM-197 (HCR 40) V
Ohio Balanced Federal Budget November 20, 2013 CR Vol. 160, p. S1174, POM-197 (SJR 5) V
Georgia Balanced Federal Budget February 20, 2014 CR Vol. 160, pp. S3667-S3668, POM-254 (SR 371) 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 CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-285 (SR 736) V
Michigan Balanced Federal Budget March 26, 2014 SJR "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 CR Vol. 160, p. S6021, POM-345 (HJR 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 CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-286 (SM 476) V
Florida Balanced Federal Budget April 21, 2014 CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-288 (SM 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 CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-289 (HM 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 CR Vol. 160, p. S4331, POM-284 ("Joint Senate Resolution" No. 27) V
Louisiana Balanced Federal Budget May 15, 2014 CR Vol. 160, p. S5563, POM-322 (HCR 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 CR Vol. 160, p. S5507, POM-320 (AJR 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 CR Vol. 162, p. S71, POM-126 (SJR 42) V
South Dakota Balanced Federal Budget February 17, 2015 CR Vol. 162, p. S6550, POM-255 (HJR 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 CR Vol. 161, pp. S2399-S2400, POM-17 (HCR 3015) 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 CR Vol. 161 pp. S8601-S8602, POM-124 (HJR 112) 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 SJR 67 V
Florida Term limits on Members of Congress February 10, 2016 HM 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 CR Vol. 162, p. S6663, POM-256 (SJR 14) V
West Virginia Balanced Federal Budget March 12, 2016 CR Vol. 162, p. S5277, POM-201 and POM-202 (HCR 36) V
Alaska Countermand Amendment April 16, 2016 HJR 14 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 CR Vol. 162, pp. S6354-6355, POM-213 (SJR 4) 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) CR Vol. 162, p. S5276, POM-198 (R 326—H 7670) and POM-199 (R 327—S 2589) 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, 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[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] He lists the following counts in the introduction to his claim.

See Also

References

  1. ↑ http://www.foavc.org/reference/file59.pdf
  2. ↑ http://www.foavc.org/reference/1930.pdf
  3. ↑ http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Numeric.htm
  4. ↑ http://www.foavc.org/StateApplications/Amendment_Subject.htm
  5. ↑ http://www.foavc.org/reference/file85.pdf
  6. ↑ 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.
  7. ↑ 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.
  8. ↑ http://www.wolf-pac.com
  9. ↑ Paulson, Michael "A General Theory of Article V: The Constitutional Lessons of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment". Yale Law Journal 103: 677.
  10. ↑ 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).
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.