This measure would rescind, nullify, and supersede all applications previously made by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

This measure would rescind, nullify, and supersede all applications previously made by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

This measure would rescind, nullify, and supersede all applications previously made by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

This measure would rescind, nullify, and supersede all applications previously made by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That all applications previously made by the Legislature of the State of California for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution are hereby rescinded, nullified, and superseded; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the United States Congress; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate and Assembly of the State of California request that this resolution be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the official tally of state legislative applications for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That all applications previously made by the Legislature of the State of California for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution are hereby rescinded, nullified, and superseded; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the United States Congress; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate and Assembly of the State of California request that this resolution be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the official tally of state legislative applications for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That all applications previously made by the Legislature of the State of California for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution are hereby rescinded, nullified, and superseded; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the United States Congress; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate and Assembly of the State of California request that this resolution be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the official tally of state legislative applications for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That all applications previously made by the Legislature of the State of California for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution are hereby rescinded, nullified, and superseded; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the United States Congress; and be it further

Resolved, That the Senate and Assembly of the State of California request that this resolution be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the official tally of state legislative applications for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SJR 1

Author:(Wiener) – As Amended Ver:March 20, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 28-0

SUBJECT: Rescinding previous applications for a federal constitutional convention

KEY ISSUE: should the legislature rescind all prior resolutions calling for An article V convention to amend the U.S. Constitution?

SYNOPSIS

Article V of the United States Constitution provides four possible paths to amend the Constitution: two means of proposal and two means of ratification. Congress may propose amendments on its own initiative by a two-thirds vote; or Congress may, upon application by two-thirds of the states, call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. Once amendments are proposed by one of these two methods, the amendments are submitted to the states for ratification by either three-quarters of the state legislatures, or by a convention in three-quarters of the states. Of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution, all have been initiated by Congress. All but one of the twenty-seven amendments were ratified by state legislatures; only the 21st Amendment (repealing the 18th) was ratified by state conventions.

Since 2012, the California Legislature has considered at least five resolutions submitting an application for an Article V convention, though only two were adopted. In the 20^th century, between 1911 and 1952, at least five resolutions were chaptered and, in theory, are still pending. This resolution purports to rescind, nullify, and supersede all five of these prior resolutions.

The resolution is supported by several political reform organizations, including Common Cause, which has spearheaded a national campaign for states to reject any new Article V applications and rescind any already adopted. There is no known opposition to this resolution.

SUMMARY: Rescinds all applications previously made by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, this resolution:

1. Resolves that all applications previously made by the Legislature of the State of California for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution are hereby rescinded, nullified, and superseded.
2. Resolves that the Secretary of the Senate shall transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the United States Congress.
3. Resolves that the Senate and Assembly of the State of California request that this resolution be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the official tally of state legislative applications for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

EXISTING LAW: Requires Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, or, upon the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states, to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, which shall be valid when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification that may be proposed by the Congress. (Article V of the United States Constitution.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this measure is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the author, this resolution “proactively protects our civil rights and liberties, a measure that is more important than ever given that the Trump Administration is hostile to critical freedoms the state of California has sought to protect.” The author further explains:

The damage a Constitutional Convention could do to Californians’ basic rights is off the charts. There are no guardrails once a Constitutional Convention has been triggered: Once it begins, extremists could easily hijack it and drive the Convention to strip protections for women, LGBTQ people, workers, immigrants, or any number of other groups, while undermining democracy and locking in the power of the largest corporations on the planet. California must do its part to prevent this chaos, and we must not allow our state’s previous calls for a Constitutional Convention to be co-opted by efforts to throw out the Constitution in pursuit of an extreme right-wing agenda.

Like most other provisions in the U.S. Constitution, the paragraph that constitutes Article V poses as many questions as it answers. It warrants quoting in full:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Uncertainty of Article V Conventions. Article V of the United States Constitution provides four possible paths to amend the document: two means of proposal, and two means of ratification. Congress may propose amendments on its own initiative by a two-thirds vote, or Congress may, upon application by two-thirds of the states, call a convention for proposing amendments. Once amendments are proposed by one of these two methods, the amendments are submitted to the states for ratification either by three-quarters of the state legislatures, or by a convention in three-quarters of the states. Of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution, all have been initiated by Congress. All but one of these twenty-seven amendments were ratified by state legislatures; only the 21st Amendment (repealing the 18th) was ratified by state conventions.

Because a convention by application of the several states has never occurred – and because Article V is light on detail – it is unclear how the process would unfold. Do the applications by states need to be identical, or at least on the same subject matter? Would Congress have the power (or duty) to limit the scope of the convention to that subject only? Would delegates to the convention be selected by Congress or by the states? Would each state have an equal number of delegates, or would the number of delegates be based on a state's population? Given that none of these questions are answered by the text of Article V, some scholars warn of the dangers of an unlimited, "runaway convention" that could radically alter the Constitution. Other scholars argue that Congress could, and likely would, limit the convention to a single subject and, at any rate, anything proposed by the convention requires ratification by three-quarters of the states.

Neither the text, nor its history, provides much insight on what happens, beyond the calling of a convention, once two-thirds of the states have submitted applications. According to the record of the 1787 debates, the convention first considered a draft of Article V that would have limited the power of Congress over state proposals. Under this early draft, once two-thirds of the states had submitted proposed amendments, Congress would have the largely ministerial task of sending the amendments out to the states for ratification. Under this draft, Congress would not call for convention at all; it would simply pass the amendments along once there was a sufficient number. However, the drafters rejected this approach and opted instead for the current version, which requires Congress “to call a Convention” to propose amendments once two thirds of the states have submitted applications. It is this requirement that Congress “call a convention” that raises most of the concerns about the Article V applications.

The prospects of a “runaway convention.” While the final version of Article V requires Congress to call a convention, it says nothing about how Congress would structure the Convention or limit its scope. This lack of clarity has prompted some scholars to warn of the dangers of an unlimited, "runaway convention." This concern emerged in the 1970s when two issues in particular – abortion and the federal debt – prompted dozens of state applications. Responding to these developments, Professors William Van Alstyne and Walter Dellinger, both of Duke University Law School, engaged in a series of law review exchanges on the "recurring question" of the "limited" vs. “runaway” constitutional convention. Van Alstyne argued that both the history and the text support the view that Article V provides for a "limited" convention, noting that Article V gives Congress the power to call the convention and implicitly the power to structure it and rein it in. Dellinger, on the other hand, argued that Article V places no limits on the convention and even suggested that a limited convention might be unconstitutional. According to his theory, Article V gives Congress the power to propose specific amendments, but it gives the states the power to request a convention. Nothing in Article V suggests that either Congress or the states could limit the convention's scope. In the final exchange, the two scholars sharply disagreed as to whom (if anyone) has the power to control the constitutional convention. Van Alstyne insisted that it could be limited by the application of the states or by Congress. Dellinger insisted that the convention process was envisioned as an alternative to Congress proposing single amendments, and that the convention, once created, is designed to operate independently "of both the possible self-interest of Congress and the potential parochialism of the state legislatures." (Van Alstyne, Does Article V Restrict the States to Calling Unlimited Conventions Only: A Letter to a Colleague, 1978 Duke L. J. 1295 (Jan. 1979); Dellinger, The Recurring Question of the 'Limited' Constitutional Convention, 88 Yale L. J. 1623 (July 1979); Van Alstyne, The Limited Constitutional Convention: The Recurring Answer, 1979 Duke L. J. 985 (Sept. 1979) and Dellinger, Who Controls a Constitutional Convention? A Response 1979 Duke L. J. 999 (Sept. 1979), quote at p. 1000.)

For those who doubt the prospects of a "runaway convention," one need look no further than the first and only constitutional convention in 1787. Delegates from twelve of the thirteen states – Rhode Island declined the invitation – met for the ostensible purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Not only did the Framers jettison this idea and instead draft an entirely new document, they changed the rules of ratification. By its terms, the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by a unanimous vote. But the Framers decided to replace the Articles with an entirely new Constitution and only required that nine of the thirteen states ratify the document. One of the strongest arguments against the fear of a runaway convention is that, whatever the runaway convention produces, will need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. However, that assumes the constitutional convention does not, like the first convention, change the ratification requirement.

California’s prior applications for an Article V Convention. Since 2012, the California Legislature has considered at least five resolutions submitting an application for an Article V convention, though only two were adopted. Three of these resolutions responded to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, AJR 32 (2012) and AJR 1 (2014) sought to effectively overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 130 S. Ct. 876, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down key provisions of the federal campaign finance reform law and, in the process, overturning several prior decisions upholding the right of Congress and the states to impose reasonable limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. Both resolutions constituted an Article V application for the “sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech.” AJR 32 failed to reach the Senate. AJR 1 (Res. Chap 77, Stats. 2014), which was almost identical to AJR 32, was adopted in 2014. At least ten other states submitted Article V applications to address Citizens United in 2014, but according to a list of applications maintained by the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, the movement apparently did not come close to generating the two-thirds threshold to force a convention. (See https://clerk.house.gov/SelectedMemorial.)

More recently, the Legislature adopted SJR 7 (Res. Chap. 175, Stats. 2023), largely in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2111. The Bruen decision greatly limited the ability of states to enact gun safety regulations by requiring a state to show that the regulation was deeply rooted in “history and tradition.” SJR 7 called for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment affirming the ability of local, state, and federal governments to adopt gun safety regulations. However, the Committee is not aware of other states that have joined this effort by submitting applications on the subject.

Two relatively recent failed efforts include AJR 10 (2015) and AJR 30 (2016). Both measures sought to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, and limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” At least a half-dozen other states adopted Article V resolutions along these lines, however, both of these measures failed in this Committee, and the efforts of other states have failed to approach the required two-thirds threshold.

In the 20th century, between 1911 and 1952, at least five resolutions were adopted by the Legislature and, in theory, are still pending. The proposed amendments include a 1952 application relating to federal taxes on the sale, distribution, or use of motor vehicles; a 1949 application authorizing U.S. participation in a world federal government; a 1935 application relating to the taxation of government securities; a 1935 application giving Congress express power to regulate hours and wages; and a 1911 application to provide for the election of U.S. Senators by popular vote. The last two in this list are particularly interesting. Even without an amendment granting such authority, Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, regulating wages and hours, and three years later the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Act in Darby v United States (1941) 32 U.S. 100. In short, the change desired by California’s application was achieved by legislative enactment and constitutional interpretation, rather than formal amendment. The 1911 application called for an amendment providing for popular election of U.S. Senators, since at the time U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures. While the state-initiated effort failed, Congress upon its own initiative enacted, and three-quarters of the states ratified, the Seventeenth Amendment providing for the direct election of U.S. Senators.

In sum, while the author fears that the Article V application process will be co-opted on behalf of the “an extreme right wing agenda,” most of the resolutions introduced – and especially those adopted – sought moderate to liberal political ends.

The practical effect of rescinding Article V applications. As noted above, the general language of Article V and the lack of precedents creates a great deal of uncertainty, and this uncertainty may justify the author’s concern that an extremist group could somehow gain control of a constitutional convention—regardless of its stated purpose--and radically eviscerate the Constitution and the important rights that it protects. However, if this were the concern, it is not entirely clear how rescinding all prior resolutions will do anything to prevent future resolutions by California or other states. Apparently, the author’s reasoning – like that of the Common Cause campaign – is that an extremist group will some-how “co-opt” one of the pending applications – regardless of its subject – and use it to trigger a constitutional convention that would dangerously alter the Constitution. Under the current political climate, the author contends, such a convention could pose a dire threat to the rights of women, people of color, immigrants, working people, and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

There are at least three possible responses to this reasoning. First, it seems highly unlikely – though admittedly not impossible – that an extremist group could somehow capture one of the resolutions adopted by the California Legislature and use it to advance ends that have nothing to do with the subjects stipulated in those resolutions. The author claims that “failing to rescind” the prior applications “would empower the Trump Administration to dismantle many of the civil rights and liberties we hold dear.” The Trump Administration may yet achieve those ends, but suggesting that failing to pass this resolution will aid it in that effort seems speculative at best.

Second, even if California rescinds its prior applications, there is nothing to stop a group from introducing new resolutions in other states (or even in this state). Third, some of the scenarios raised by the author and supporters may come to pass without a constitutional convention. For example, the author contends that President Trump “has even appeared to call for rewriting the Constitution to strip people born in the U.S. of citizenship if their parents were not citizens.” However, one could argue that Trump is more likely to “rewrite” the Constitution by issuing an executive order and having it upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, than by hijacking one of California’s Article V resolutions. Arguably, as demonstrated by recent actions by the Supreme Court, including allowing deportations to occur without due process and sanctioning deportation to prisons in “third party countries,” where deportees have no connection, such as Sudan and El Salvador, this feared outcome has already taken place and is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Finally, while rescinding the propositions might remove a possible tool for a group bent on imposing an extreme agenda – assuming that the group could, in fact, capture one of our propositions – it will also rescind propositions that seek to address important issues. SJR 7 (Res. Chap. Stats 2023) thoughtfully seeks to address a real policy dilemma: that recent Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment threaten California’s ability to enact sensible gun safety laws. Polls show that most Americans – even gun owners who support the Second Amendment – support sensible gun safety laws (e.g. bans on assault weapons and background checks). However, notwithstanding mass shootings at schools, the lobbying and litigation efforts of the National Rifle Association make the United States an outlier both in terms of gun regulations and gun-related deaths. It may be that so long as prevailing interpretations of the Second Amendment stand, we will continue to outpace every other nation in gun deaths and mass shootings. (See e.g. Pew Research Center, “Key facts about Americans and guns,” at https://pewresearch.org; and “U.S. remains outlier in Firearm possession and gun-related deaths,” US News and World Report, January 30, 2023.) SJR 7 did not call for repealing the Second Amendment; it simply would clarify that nothing in the text or history of the Second Amendment prevents local, state, and federal governments from democratically enacted meaningful gun safety laws. Article V may or may not pose the dangers that its critics assert, but it is also there for a purpose. It may also allow the people to act, through their state legislatures, when a small group like the NRA and crabbed judicial opinions frustrate the democratic process.

Much the same could be said of AJR 1 (Res. Chap 77, Stats. 2014), which seeks to address an activist Supreme Court decision that expanded the reach of the First Amendment to allow unlimited campaign spending by corporations, when a long line of prior cases had found unlimited corporate spending “distorted” political speech rather than protected it.

To be sure, the author may be correct that rescinding prior resolutions may be the sensible thing to do in these politically fraught times, but it is also possible that achieving a progressive, diverse, humane, and democratic polity will require constitutional change, if not through congressional action and constitutional interpretation, then by constitutional amendment.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Common Cause:

We currently have a total absence of constitutional boundaries, case law, or statute around an Article V convention. A federal constitutional convention was last held in 1787, when the Constitution itself was drafted. At that convention, those gathered “threw out” the rules that were intended to govern their purpose and authority (limited to amending the Articles of Confederation) and instead crafted an entirely new document.

The same total remaking and reshaping is possible again. Questions raised by Common Cause in a recent report, “Constitutional Chaos,” include: “Could a convention be limited to one issue? What rules, if any, would be in place to govern a convention? What role would outside special interest groups have in influencing a convention’s agenda? Who would choose delegates to send to the convention? What would happen in the case of legal disputes about the convention? What role would the courts play? How would votes be delegated by state, and would the American people really be equally represented?”

None of these questions have clear legal answers.

While SJR 7 contained language indicating it should not count as an application for a constitutional convention for any other purpose, it is not clear that such a declaration has legal effect. Efforts already exist around the country to try and group together calls for conventions on different subjects to reach the two-thirds threshold of states needed to trigger a convention.

We are in dangerous territory, especially because of the ascendant forces in American politics that stand ready to remake democratic institutions and basic civil and human rights.

SJR 1, if passed, would rescind all of California's previous calls for an Article V constitutional convention, thus preventing California from being included in the count toward the constitution's two-thirds threshold.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Common Cause

California Nurses Association

Common Cause

Courage California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Hmong Innovating Politics

Indivisible CA State Strong

Inland Empire United

League of Women Voters of California

Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee

Starting Over Strong

Voices for Progress

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SJR 1

Author: Wiener (D), et al.

Amended: 3/20/25

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-0, 4/1/25

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares

SUBJECT: Rescinding previous applications for a federal constitutional convention

SOURCE: League of Women Voters of California

DIGEST:

This resolution rescinds, nullifies, and supersedes all prior calls by this Legislature for a constitutional convention, thereby preventing California from being counted as one of the 34 state applications necessary to convene a constitutional convention under Article V of the United States Constitution.

ANALYSIS:

Existing constitutional law:

1. Provides two procedures by which amendments to the United States Constitution may be proposed:
   1. The United States Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution with a two-thirds vote; or
   2. On application from the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states, the United States Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. (United States Constitution, article V.)
2. Provides that amendments proposed pursuant to either of the procedures in 1) shall be adopted with the assent of three-fourths of the states; assent may be made through ratification by the state Legislatures or through constitutional conventions held in each state, as determined by the United States Congress. (United States Constitution article V.)

This resolution:

1. Resolves, by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, that all applications previously made by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution are hereby rescinded, nullified, and superseded.
2. Resolves that the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of the resolution to specified members of the United States Congress.
3. Resolves that the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California request that this resolution be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the official tally of state legislative applications for the United States Congress to convene a constitutional convention.

Comments

Article V of the United States Constitution sets forth two procedures by which the United States Constitution may be amended. In the first, two-thirds of the members of both Houses of the United States Congress may propose an amendment; the proposed amendment is adopted if the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states subsequently ratify the amendment.^[1] In the second, the United States Congress is required to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments when the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply for a convention.^[2] An amendment proposed at the constitutional convention is adopted if three-fourths of the states agree to its adoption; Congress may elect to require states to signal agreement through either state Legislative action or by holding state constitutional conventions.^[3]

The second process—through which Congress must hold a constitutional convention at the behest of two-thirds of the state Legislatures—has never been used to amend the United States Constitution.^[4] And because “Article V‘s barebones provisions provide little guidance as to the general role of Congress in the convention process,”^[5] there are a number of open legal questions about Congress’s authority once a convention has been called. Of particular relevance for this resolution is the question of whether Congress would be restricted to proposing amendments on the topics listed in the state Legislatures’ applications, or whether, once a convention was called, Congress could propose amendments on any topic.

This resolution rescinds all of the Legislature’s outstanding calls for a constitutional convention. By rescinding all of the Legislature’s calls for a constitutional convention, the Legislature will ensure that California will not be counted as one of the 34 states needed to call for a constitutional convention under Article V.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/2/25)

League of Women Voters of California (source)

California Common Cause

California Nurses Association/National Nurses United

Courage California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Hmong Innovating Politics

Inland Empire United

Starting Over Strong

2 individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/2/25)

1 individual

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the League of Women Voters of California:

The uncertainty surrounding the nature of a constitutional convention cannot be understated. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger once expressed concerns about the ambiguity and danger, noting, “[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”…

We live in perilous political times where many of our most fundamental rights are at risk. In recent years, congressional leaders and Trump administration allies have repeatedly called for an Article V Convention. They have rallied dozens of states to their cause, presenting an incalculable threat to the Constitutional protections that safeguard the rights of Californians. SJR-1 protects our rights proactively. It’s a measure that is especially critical given a federal administration hostile to, and intent on undermining, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. California’s seven open calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention create a pathway to do just that at a scale that could prove truly catastrophic. As just one example, in the first day of his administration, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 that aims to rewrite the Constitution to strip people born in the U.S. of citizenship if their parents were not citizens.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to an individual opponent:

Just last year, with support from Governor Newsom, Senator Wahab proposed another convention call, this time to address gun rights. Once again, the state acted bravely. This time, the state was protected by an additional level of certainty, a unanimous Supreme Court ruling from 2020 that affirmed that the electoral college can be limited by their states to vote as instructed. The language affirmed by the Court came directly from a law that restricted the votes of delegates to the Article V Ratification Convention to ratify the 21st Amendment in Arizona, which was the first time we held conventions in this country under Article V. These conventions, held under the very same article of the Constitution as is being discussed at present, are the best analogue for an Article V Proposing Convention, not the Convention in 1987, which was held when there was no Convention provision in our governing documents at all. These conventions ran smoothly and held their delegates to follow the will of the people. And even the current divided Supreme Court was unanimous in supporting their strategy.

It is time for the current legislature of Massachusetts [sic] to act boldly again in the face of fear mongering and reject SJR 1.

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

4/2/25 16:10:15

**** END ****

1. U.S. Const., art. V. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Congressional Research Service, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress, R42589 (updated Mar. 29, 2016), p. 3, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42589/15 (link current as of March 28, 2025). ↑

5. Id. at p. 6. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SJR 1 (Author:Wiener)

Version: March 20, 2025

Hearing Date: April 1, 2025

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Rescinding previous applications for a federal constitutional convention

DIGEST

This resolution rescinds all applications by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under Article V of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress must convene a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (currently, 34 states) apply for a convention. Article V is unclear as to whether the state legislatures’ applications can limit the subject matter of amendments proposed once a constitutional convention has been called. Thus, for example, it is unknown whether, if 34 state legislatures called for a constitutional convention to amend the Fourth Amendment, Congress could nevertheless propose amendments on any or all topics. This Legislature has at least seven outstanding applications to Congress for constitutional conventions on specific topics.

This resolution rescinds, nullifies, and supersedes all prior calls by this Legislature for a constitutional convention, thereby preventing California from being counted as one of the 34 state applications necessary to convene a constitutional convention under Article V.

This bill is sponsored by the League of Women Voters of California and is supported by California Common Cause, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United, Courage California, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Hmong Innovating Politics, Inland Empire United, Starting Over Strong, and two individuals. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing constitutional law:

1. Provides two procedures by which amendments to the United States Constitution may be proposed:
   1. The United States Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution with a two-thirds vote; or
   2. On application from the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states, the United States Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. (U.S. Const., art. V.)
2. Provides that amendments proposed pursuant to either of the procedures in 1) shall be adopted with the assent of three-fourths of the states; assent may be made through ratification by the state Legislatures or through constitutional conventions held in each state, as determined by the United States Congress. (U.S. Const. art. V.)

This resolution:

1. Resolves, by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, that all applications previously made by the Legislature for the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution are hereby rescinded, nullified, and superseded.
2. Resolves that the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of the resolution to specified members of the United States Congress.
3. Resolves that the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California request that this resolution be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the official tally of state legislative applications for the United States Congress to convene a constitutional convention.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

The damage a Constitutional Convention could do to Californians’ basic rights is off the charts. There are no guardrails once a Constitutional Convention has been triggered: Once it begins, extremists could easily hijack it and drive the Convention to strip protections for women, LGBTQ people, workers, immigrants, or any number of other groups, while undermining democracy and locking in the power of the largest corporations on the planet. California must do its part to prevent this chaos, and we must not allow our state’s previous calls for a Constitutional Convention to be co-opted by efforts to throw out the Constitution in pursuit of an extreme right-wing agenda.

2. Article V: how to amend the United States Constitution

Article V of the United States Constitution sets forth two procedures by which the United States Constitution may be amended. In the first, two-thirds of the members of both Houses of the United States Congress may propose an amendment; the proposed amendment is adopted if the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states subsequently ratify the amendment.^[1] In the second, the United States Congress is required to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments when the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply for a convention.^[2] An amendment proposed at the constitutional convention is adopted if three-fourths of the states agree to its adoption; Congress may elect to require states to signal agreement through either state Legislative action or by holding state constitutional conventions.^[3]

The second process—in which Congress must hold a constitutional convention at the behest of two-thirds of the state Legislatures—has never been used to amend the United States Constitution.^[4] And because “Article V‘s barebones provisions provide little guidance as to the general role of Congress in the convention process,”^[5] there are a number of open legal questions about Congress’s authority once a convention has been called. Of particular relevance for this resolution is the question of whether Congress would be restricted to proposing amendments on the topics listed in the state Legislatures’ applications, or whether, once a convention was called, Congress could propose amendments on any topic.^[6]

3. This resolution rescinds all prior calls for Congress to hold a constitutional convention made by the Legislature

Committee staff are aware of seven outstanding calls for a constitutional convention made by this Legislature:

• SJR 7 (Wahab, Res. Ch. 175, Stats. 2023), calling for a convention for an amendment relating to firearms;
• AJR 1 (Gatto, Res. Ch. 77, Stats. 2014), calling for a convention for an amendment relating to corporate personhood, following the Citizens United v. FEC^[7] decision.
• AJRx1 8 (Dickey, Res. Ch. 8, Stats. 1952), calling for a convention for an amendment mandating the apportionment of federal taxes imposed on the sale, distribution, or use of motor vehicles;
• AJR 26 (Maloney, Res. Ch. 96, Stats. 1949), calling for a convention for an amendment authorizing the United States’ participation in a world federal government;
• SJR 22 (Biggar, Res. Ch. 144, Stats. 1935), calling for a convention for an amendment providing that no securities issued by the federal, or any state, government may be exempted from taxation;
• SJR 23 (Olson, Res. Ch. 144, Stats. 1935), calling for a convention for an amendment providing that Congress has the power to regulate hours of labor and set minimum wages; and
• SJR 25 (Sanford, Res. Ch. 73, Stats. 1911), calling for a convention for an amendment authorizing the states to provide for election of senators to the United States Congress by a popular vote.^[8]

This resolution rescinds all of these calls for a constitutional convention, along with any other outstanding calls not set forth in this analysis. By rescinding all of the Legislature’s calls for a constitutional convention, the Legislature will ensure that California will not be counted as one of the 34 states needed to call for a constitutional convention under Article V.

4. Arguments in support

According to the bill’s sponsor, the League of Women Voters of California:

The League of Women Voters has long warned about the inherently dangerous nature of Article V Constitutional Conventions. They come without a clear structure or guidelines, and put every right, civil liberty, and underlying value of our country at risk. There are no limits or guardrails as to what can be changed in the process, and the voices of politicians and well-funded special interests would be elevated above those of ordinary people, opening the door to radical anti-democratic forces and buying access to change the Constitution. Even if called for a limited purpose, there’s nothing to guarantee that a Constitutional Convention could be restricted to its original mandate.

The uncertainty surrounding the nature of a constitutional convention cannot be understated. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger once expressed concerns about the ambiguity and danger, noting, “[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”…

We live in perilous political times where many of our most fundamental rights are at risk. In recent years, congressional leaders and Trump administration allies have repeatedly called for an Article V Convention. They have rallied dozens of states to their cause, presenting an incalculable threat to the Constitutional protections that safeguard the rights of Californians. SJR-1 protects our rights proactively. It’s a measure that is especially critical given a federal administration hostile to, and intent on undermining, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. California’s seven open calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention create a pathway to do just that at a scale that could prove truly catastrophic. As just one example, in the first day of his administration, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 that aims to rewrite the Constitution to strip people born in the U.S. of citizenship if their parents were not citizens.

California’s seven previous calls for Article V Constitutional Conventions may be well-intentioned. However, if these calls are not rescinded in the face of a federal administration intent on asserting white supremacy, rolling back progress toward racial justice, and eradicating rights of BIPOC communities, immigrants, LGBTQI+ people, people with disabilities, and women, it would empower the current federal government to dismantle many of the civil rights and liberties that California prioritizes and seeks to protect.

SUPPORT

League of Women Voters of California (sponsor)

California Common Cause

California Nurses Association/National Nurses United

Courage California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Hmong Innovating Politics

Inland Empire United

Starting Over Strong

Two individuals

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation: See the bullet-pointed list in Part 3 of this analysis.

**************

1. U.S. Const., art. V. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Congressional Research Service, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress, R42589 (updated Mar. 29, 2016), p. 3, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42589/15 (link current as of March 28, 2025). ↑

5. Id. at p. 6. ↑

6. Id. at pp. 10-16. ↑

7. 558 U.S. 310 (2010). ↑

8. This call was arguably mooted by the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators (see U.S. Const., amend. XVII), but given Article V’s lack of specificity, better safe than sorry. ↑