Throughout our nation’s history, states have applied to Congress for an Article V Constitutional Convention seeking to propose various amendments. A 1990 Hamline Law Review Article lists the historical applications from each state. Today, though 34 states have not applied for a convention, by some estimates and interpretations, we are merely two states away.
Since the 1970’s thirty two states have applied for a con-con specifically to propose a balanced budget amendment. However, of those states, 15 have rescinded all of their outstanding calls for an Article V Convention. See chart and links in the sidebar.
Ohio has applied for an Aricle V Convention three times
1911 – Anti-Polygamy
To define the law against polygamy as clearly as the law is defined against bigamy (HJR 13 | 3/15/1911)
1965 – Refund of Federal Taxes to States
Joint resolution to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to return a portion of the income tax to the political subdivision in which it is collected.( SJ Res 15 | 7/29/1965)
1971 – Revenue Sharing
An application to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States to call a convention for the purpose of proposing to te several states a constitutional amendment to make available the states and their subdivisions a portion of the taxes on income levied by Congress.
Since then, Ohio has rejected at least four more attempts to call an Article V Convention
In 1987, Ohio was set to be one of the final two states to apply for an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment. Despite the fact that the resolution passed in the House, grassroots efforts defeated it in the Senate.
In 1995, Ohio passed SCR 3, a Conference of the States Participation Resolution. With 26 other states, our state legislature sent delegates to a “Conference of the States” which many believed was a veiled attempt to convene or promote a Constitutional Convention. In fact, one of the Conference’s “proposed remedies ” to the frustration with federal mandates and pre-emption of state authority was a “mechanism that would allow the states to propose specific amendments to the U.S. Constitution, subject to ratification by Congress.” Wide opposition prevented this proposal from going forth.
On Dec. 3, 2008 the Ohio House introduced HJR 8, “Applying to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments.” An AP article had stated that there could be a “possible vote” on the resolution at the first hearing which was scheduled for one week after its introduction. On December 9, 2008 the Ohio Senate introduced its companion legislation, SJR 9.
On December 10, 2008, ten Ohio citizens gave public testimony before the House Judicial Committee against the application for a Constitutional Convention. This testimony and the pressure from citizens across the state and even others across the country, succeeded in stopping both resolutions by the end of the week.
On September 1, 2011, The Ohio Senate Introduced SJR 2 applying to Congress to call a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments – specifically a balanced budget amendment and the line item veto. SJR 2 was subsequently referred to the Senate Finance Committee and after one hearing wherein the sponsor testified, the legislation died in committee.
On November 1, 2011, The Ohio House Introduced HJR 3 applying to Congress to call a Constitutional for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states. HJR 3 was subsequently referred to the House State Government and Elections Committee and after three hearing which included public testimony the legislation died in committee.
Latest Con-Con Legislation in Ohio
On February 5, 2013 The Ohio House Introduced HJR 3 applying to Congress to call a Constitutional for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states. HJR 3 was subsequently referred to the House State and Local Government Committee.
Please see our Resolutions Page for updated information on the status of this legislation.