November 2015

The Article V Movement:
A Comprehensive Assessment to Date and
Suggested Approach for State Legislators and Advocacy Groups
Moving Forward
by David F. Guldenschuh*
Introduction
In early November 2013, this author hosted a
telephone conference with all the major
stakeholders in the Article V movement. It
was not the first time the leadership of the
various groups had spoken with each other,
but it was certainly one of the more
well-attended meetings of the groups. After
an hour-and-a-half discussion during which
each group described its vision for
successfully pursuing an Article V
convention, we discussed whether there were
ways for the groups to work together and
support each other.
The consensus was that it was too soon to
begin merging efforts. At that point, four
major groups – the Balanced Budget
Amendment Task Force (BBATF),
Convention of States Project (CoS), Compact

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 The Primary Article V Advocacy Groups . . 2
2 Educational Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Organizations of State Legislators . . . . . 17
4 Successes and Disappointments . . . . . . 20
5 Legislators and Other Roadblocks . . . . . 25
6 Approach for Moving Forward . . . . . . . . 31
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
APPENDIX A: The Article V Convention
Legislative Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . 38
APPENDIX B: BBATF Map of
Successful and Targeted States . . . . . . . 39

*

David F. Guldenschuh is an attorney, publisher of the Article V Convention Legislative Progress Report,
and a policy advisor to the Center for Constitutional Reform at The Heartland Institute. For a more
complete bio, see page 37.

© 2015 The Heartland Institute. Nothing in this report should be construed as supporting or opposing any
proposed or pending legislation, or as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heartland Institute.

 for America (Compact), and Wolf-PAC – Free and Fair Elections (Wolf-PAC) – were each in
their adolescence. Each group desired to test the landscape to see how successfully it could bring
its individual Article V application to passage within its targeted states. Although all agreed to
continue their efforts to educate state legislators and the public on the safeness of the Article V
movement, the groups agreed it would take a couple of years to determine the effectiveness of
each organization’s strategy and likelihood for success of the entire Article V movement.
The time has come for an assessment of
progress since that conference call. Each of
the four major groups has had nearly two
years during which to test its strategy. There
were initial successes, but each group has
faced struggles. This study is intended to
provide a comprehensive assessment of the
Article V movement in general and of each group’s success to date. It concludes by proposing a
strategy for the Article V movement for the next 12 to 24 months.

This study is intended to provide a
comprehensive assessment of the
Article V movement in general and of
each group’s success to date.

Part One
The Primary Article V Convention Advocacy Groups
This author has been able to identify 10 groups that purport to be advocating for an Article V
convention of states on one or more subjects. Only five of those groups are actively identifying
sponsors for their respective amendment convention proposals, and only four have actually
succeeded in getting their resolution passed by three or more states.1 These four major players
are identified below.

1

In addition to the four set forth in the text, the others are: (a) Citizens Initiative, founded and largely
operated by longtime Article V advocate Charles Kacprowicz, which seeks a countermand (or nullification)
amendments convention [http://citizeninitiatives.org]. Although active, it has been unsuccessful in getting
its resolution passed to date, and it is therefore not included here as a primary player; (b) Americans for
Congressional Reform, a relatively new organization founded by several prominent Texans promoting a
package of two amendments for proposal via Article V: one for equal application of the laws to Congress
as to the people and one for term limits for Congress [http://americansforcongressionalreform.org]; (c)
Single Subject Amendment PAC, a super PAC promoting an amendment, which successfully passed a
resolution in Florida, providing a law cannot be enacted by Congress unless it pertains to a single subject
[http://singlesubjectamendment.com]; (d) Term Limits for Congress, a grassroots group seeking signatures
for online petitions for a 12-year term limit amendment for submission to individual state legislatures
[http://singlesubjectamendment.com]; (e) Term-Limit Convention, another online term-limits-oriented
advocacy group [http://termlimitconvention.org]; and (f) RestoringFreedom.Org, Inc., formerly headed by
retired North Dakota Sen. Curtis Olafson. It passed a national debt limit amendments convention
resolution in North Dakota and Louisiana in 2011 [www.restoringfreedom.org]. Olafson has since joined
Compact for America to promote its legislation. At least two other groups view the Article V convention
process as a useful tool in their efforts to amend the Constitution: The Act 2 Movement
[http://www.act2movement.org/] and The American Opportunity Project
[http://www.americanopportunityproject.org/]. Still another group, U.S. Term Limits, led by Floridian Philip
Blumel, announced on August 31, 2015 a campaign for an Article V term limits convention; see
https://www.termlimits.org/huge-term-limits-announcement/.

2

 A. The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force
The Balanced Budget Amendment Task
Force (BBATF) is a collection of national and
state organizations and individuals dedicated
to adding a balanced budget amendment
(BBA) to the Constitution of the United
States by way of a convention convened
under Article V. In addition to multiple state
legislators from across the country, among its
many cofounders are the following prominent
leaders:2

The Balanced Budget Amendment
Task Force is dedicated to adding a
balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution of the United States by
way of a convention convened under
Article V.

David Biddulph, a semi-retired entrepreneur and citizen activist, perhaps best known until
recently for leading a citizens initiative in Florida that capped the rate of increase in property
taxes through passage of a state constitutional amendment;
Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, author, and frequent television
political commentator and guest;
Barry W. Poulson, a professor of economics at the University of Colorado, adjunct scholar of
The Heritage Foundation, senior fellow of the Independence Institute, and policy advisor to
The Heartland Institute;
Scott Rogers, executive director of BBATF and a West Virginia native with 15 years of
experience in government affairs and campaign management;
Bill Fruth, president of Policom Corporation, an independent economics research firm
located in Palm City, Florida, which specializes in studying the dynamics of local economies.
Fruth is author of the book 10 Amendments for Freedom3 and in 2010 led a nationwide effort
to pass a 10-amendment Article V resolution;
Lew Uhler, a California attorney, former Reagan confidante, and founder and president of the
National Tax Limitation Committee, one of the nation’s leading grassroots taxpayer lobbies;
Fritz Pettyjohn, a California lawyer, former Alaska state legislator, political columnist, radio
talk show host, and writer of a blog at reaganproject.com;
Lou Marin, Florida businessman and leader of IAmAmerican.org, a nationwide organization
supporting a balanced budget and fair tax amendment, which provide the grassroots support
for the BBATF in targeted states;
2

"Meet Our Cofounders," Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force,
http://www.bba4usa.org/meet-our-team.html.

3

William H. Fruth, 10 Amendments to Freedom (Palm City, FL: Policom Corporation, 2010),
https://books.google.com/books/about/10_Amendments_for_Freedom.html?id=bqgKtwAACAAJ.

3

 Loren Enns, a network engineering instructor and author of an Article V novel, The Sword of
Liberty.4 He was a leader in the successful campaign to get Florida to adopt a BBA
resolution;
Michael Stern, former senior counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives and a published
legal scholar on the Article V convention of states process;
Stu MacPhail, small businessman, community leader, and conservative activist in Denver,
Colorado and editor of The State Legislators’ Article V Caucus Newsletter; and
Mark Guyer, a former legislative assistant to the U.S. House of Representatives, author, and
director of BBATF donor fundraising.

BBATF came together in 2008 at an
Article V conference hosted by David
Biddulph in Florida. The original cofounders
were Biddulph, Rogers, Sepp, and Poulsen.
Simultaneously, Bill Fruth was promoting his
concept for a multi-amendment convention
set forth in his book, 10 Amendments for
Freedom. Following a series of meetings of
the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC) where various Article V resolutions were considered, the groups merged their talents
and efforts to focus primarily on a single-subject balanced budget amendment. The merge
resulted in Florida passing a two-subject resolution to address federal mandates and a balanced
budget in 2010. In 2011, Alabama passed the first new-generation single-subject BBA
resolution. Ten states have since followed.

Florida passed a two-subject resolution
to address federal mandates and a
balanced budget in 2010. In 2011,
Alabama passed the first newgeneration single-subject BBA
resolution.

The affiliation of BBATF with such national and grassroots organizations as I Am
American.org,5 the National Federation of Independent Business,6 Tea Party Express,7 and the
National Tax Limitation Committee8 has provided it with a formidable ground game as the
groups work together to lobby targeted state legislatures.

4

Loren Enns, The Sword of Liberty (Harrisonburg, VA: Liberty Press Inc. 2009).

5

I Am American.org, http://iamamerican.org/.

6

National Federation of Independent Business, http://www.nfib.com/.

7

Tea party Express, http://www.teapartyexpress.org/.

8

National Tax Limitation Committee, http://limittaxes.org/.

4

 B. The Convention of States Project
The Convention of States Project9 is the brainchild of constitutional lawyer Michael Farris and
former Tea Party leader Mark Meckler. Farris is chancellor of Patrick Henry College in Virginia
and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He is founder of both
organizations.10 Meckler is a California attorney and was a cofounder of the Tea Party Patriots
(TPP) national organization. Meckler split from TPP in 2012 to found Citizens for Self
Governance (CSG) with the mission of broadening the philosophical reach of the idea of
“self-governance” outside of the Tea Party movement.11
In 2013, CSG announced the launch of the
The Convention of States Project aims
Convention of States Project (CoS). Having
to call a convention on the topic of
considered the different single-issue Article V
reining in and limiting the power and
advocacy groups in place, Farris concluded
the problems in the structure of the federal
jurisdiction of the federal government.
government had become so serious that a
single subject amendment application was
insufficient to address the concerns. Thus, CoS was designed to come up with “a solution big
enough to solve the problem,” which consisted of calling a convention on the topic of reining in
and limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.12
To accomplish that task, CoS began promoting an Article V application for adoption by 34 states
on three related subjects: “to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power
and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials.”13
Coincidentally, CoS was launched at roughly the same time conservative radio host Mark Levin
published his bestseller The Liberty Amendments, which called for the adoption of
11 constitutional amendments designed largely to reduce the power of the federal government
through the Article V convention process.14 The book and CoS, though formulated
independently of each other, quickly became synonymous, and Levin’s nationwide radio show
quickly endorsed and became a vast marketing resource for CoS.15
9

Information regarding the Convention of States Project comes from the author's personal discussions
with Michael Farris as well as the CoS Project's website at http://www.conventionofstates.com/.
10

"National Leadership," Convention of States, http://www.conventionofstates.com/national_leadership.

11

"Mark Meckler," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meckler.

12

"Volunteer," Convention of States Action, http://www.cosaction.com/strategy.

13
Application for a Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution of the United States,
Convention of States, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/142/
attachments/original/1410009563/Application-for-a-Convention-of-States-v.5.pdf?1410009563.
14

Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster 2013).
15

"Endorsements," Convention of States, http://www.conventionofstates.com/endorsements.

5

 As both Farris and Meckler came from huge grassroots organizations, the strategy of CoS was to
develop citizen leadership and volunteer teams in at least 40 target states.16 In 75 percent, or
approximately 3,000, of the House Districts within each of those states, district captains were
recruited who in turn were responsible for recruiting an additional 100 volunteers in each district
to make telephone calls, send e-mails, and personally appear at state legislative committee
hearings and rallies to promote and support the CoS resolution.17 With generous funding
provided by CSG and the equivalent of 300,000 grassroots supporters nationwide, CoS
communicated the message that state legislators would be hard-pressed not to support its
resolution.

C. Wolf-PAC – Free and Fair Elections
Wolf-PAC is the “super-PAC to end all
super-PACs.” It was established by
progressive political activist and talk show
host Cenk Uygur.18 In late 2011, after seeing
the momentum of Occupy Wall Street, Uygur
launched Wolf-PAC, which uses an extensive
online network of volunteers to lobby state legislators to pass resolutions calling for an Article V
convention of the states to overturn the portion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s campaign finance
decision in Citizens United v. FEC protecting corporate contributions.19

Wolf-PAC, rebranded as “Free and
Fair Elections,” claims to have more
than 20,000 volunteers in every state.

Wolf-PAC has since rebranded itself as “Free and Fair Elections.” It claims to have more than
20,000 volunteers in every state.20 It provides those volunteers with a “toolbox” consisting of
educational materials and suggestions for contacting state legislators to inquire about their
openness to an Article V convention and Wolf-PAC resolution.21 Volunteers can record each of
their legislative contacts online, and the information is used to target specific states where
success is most likely. Uygur provides regular updates on Wolf-PAC’s progress through his
Internet talk show, The Young Turks.22

16

"Volunteer," supra note 12.

17

Ibid.

18

"The Plan," WolfPAC, http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan.

19

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753, 558 U.S. 310, 78 USLW
4078 (2010)
20
"States," WolfPAC, http://www.wolf-pac.com/states; "Wolf PAC Hawaii Unanimously Takes House Of
Representatives," The Young Turks, March 19, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bur32yOxmg8.
21

WolfPAC toolbox, https://docs.google.com/document/d/
1gBwusEsdUgrrqYA1i_bfUqtu1BhPqGiKjfFViQsOJOg/edit (access by permission only).
22

"New Jersey Becomes 4th State To Call For An Article V Convention," The Young Turks, February 24,
2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCtZKOkqpBI.

6

 D. Compact for America
The Compact for America is a hybrid Article V convention movement, or as it describes itself,
“Article V 2.0.”23 The initiative condenses four state legislative acts (the Article V application,
delegate appointment, prohibition of an invalid convention conducted without authority, and
ratification) into one legislative act: Compact for America.24
The compact consists of two pieces of legislation.25 The first is a state legislative bill that calls
for an Article V convention for the limited purpose of proposing a specific balanced budget
amendment, the text of which is in the bill.26 It simultaneously appoints the state’s governor as a
delegate to the convention and adopts the rules of the convention, which preclude any deviation
from an up-or-down vote on the specific BBA proposal.27 Finally, it ratifies in advance the BBA,
assuming it is referred out to the states by the convention and Congress.28 The second piece of
legislation is a congressional resolution approving the states’ use of the compact mechanism to
propose the amendment, calls the convention upon adoption of the compact by a 38th state, and
then refers the BBA to the state legislatures for ratification, assuming it is adopted at the
convention of governors.29
This state compact approach to Article V was
The Compact for America’s
designed principally by Nick Dranias, former
“all-in-one” concept was intended to
general counsel and constitutional policy
put to rest the concerns of the John
director for the Goldwater Institute. Unlike
the other Article V movements, the compact
Birch Society and Eagle Forum
is not triggered at the two-thirds or 34 state
regarding the alleged “runaway
application threshold for calling a convention,
convention” scenario.
but rather at the three-fourths or 38 state
threshold for ratifying a constitutional
amendment. The “all-in-one” concept was intended to put to rest the concerns of the John Birch
Society and Eagle Forum regarding the alleged “runaway convention” scenario and to offer up
front a very specific, effective BBA that would rein in federal spending without the unintended
consequences of a massive tax increase or destruction of the economy.

23

"Compact for America Asks: Are You Ready to Upgrade? "Article V 2.0" is Here," Compact for America,
August 15, 2014, http://www.compactforamerica.org/#!Compact-for-America-Asks-Are-YouReady-to-Upgrade- Article-V-20-is-Here/c213a/971A0C4D-110E-4546-A3D4-3FD9CCBE5197.
24

"Compact for America: Balanced Budget Amendment," American Legislative Exchange Council,
January 28, 2013, http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-to-effectuate-the-compact-for-america.
25

"The Solution," Compact for America, http://www.compactforamerica.org/#!solution/c1flq.

26

Ibid.

27

Ibid.

28

Ibid.

29

Ibid.

7

 The compact is designed to give the states a more convenient, targeted, and powerful vehicle to
originate constitutional amendments than the ordinary Article V process. It is intended to resolve
many of the scholarly disputes and minimize court interference by providing an allegedly clearer
legal framework to govern the Article V process, regardless of the observer’s jurisprudential
view on the process.30

Part Two
Educational Efforts
With the growth of the Article V movement,
the need for educational efforts to develop
grassroots support and legislative passage has
also grown. The movement’s educational
efforts to date are described below.

With the growth of the Article V
movement, the need for educational
efforts to develop grassroots support
and legislative passage has also grown.
A. The Work of Professor Rob Natelson

Perhaps more than any other individual, professor Rob Natelson is most responsible for the
reemergence of the Article V convention movement in the twenty-first century. Natelson is
especially known for his studies of the Constitution’s original meaning, and he is widely
acknowledged to be the country’s leading scholar on Article V of the U.S. Constitution.31
As a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute, Natelson researched and published a series of three
articles in 2010–11 that brought new light and perspective to the safeness and propriety of an
Article V convention, such that state legislators and advocacy groups were willing to give it a
renewed look.32
Natelson’s 2011 article, “Amending the Constitution by Convention: Practical Guidance for
Citizens and Policymakers,” led to his authorship of Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a
Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers published by the American
30

"Compact for America: Balanced Budget Amendment," supra note 24.

31

"Freedom's Front Line," Independence Institute, http://www.i2i.org/robnatelson.php.

32

Robert G. Natelson, "Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders'
Plan" (Phoenix, AZ: Goldwater Institute, 2010),
https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2015/4/30/091010%2C%20Article%20V%2
0Policy%20Report%20FINAL.pdf; Robert G. Natelson, "Learning from Experience: How the States Used
Article V Applications in America’s First Century" (Phoenix, AZ: Goldwater Institute, 2010),
https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2015/4/30/Final%20110310%2C%20Articl
e%20V%20Part%202%20FINAL.pdf; and Robert G. Natelson, "Amending the Constitution by Convention:
Practical Guidance for Citizens and Policymakers” (Phoenix, AZ: Goldwater Institute, 2011),
https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2015/2/2/PB%2011-02%20Article%20V%2
0Part%203%20of%203_0.pdf.

8

 Legislative Exchange Council in 2011.33 Through ALEC, state legislators have come to learn
more about the Article V process and advocacy groups have had the opportunity to network with
them, thereby bringing the movement to its current pace.
Since his entry into the Article V arena in
Through the American Legislative
2010, Natelson has spoken before and
Exchange Council, state legislators
moderated or served on panels at numerous
have come to learn more about the
Article V convention seminars and
34
symposiums. He has continued to research
Article V process and advocacy groups
and write extensively on the subject and to
have had the opportunity to network
debunk many of the opposition arguments
with them.
posed by such groups as the John Birch
Society and Eagle Forum.35 One of his more
recent and prominent efforts is the legal treatise State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A
Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters, prepared in 2014 and since updated for the
Convention of States.36
Natelson is the Independence Institute’s senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence and heads
the institute’s new Article V Information Center, a website designed to provide journalists, state
lawmakers, and other citizens with up-to-date, accurate, and unbiased information on the Article
V movement.37 He was a law professor for 25 years, serving at three universities. He is also
senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Montana Policy Institute and a policy advisor
to The Heartland Institute.38

33

Robert G. Natelson, Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook
for State Lawmakers (Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, 2011),
http://www.alec.org/docs/ArticleVHandbook.pdf.
34

Google and YouTube search of "Rob Natelson Article V convention" results in hundreds of hits
reflecting the many seminars in which Natelson has participated.
35
A sampling of Natelson's research is listed at http://www.articlevinfocenter.com/researchresources. His
continuing updates on Article V can be found at http://www.articlevinfocenter.com/. His most recent
rebuttal of the frivolous claims of the naysayers can be found at: "A Response to the 'Runaway Scenario,'"
Independence Institute, February 15, 2013,
http://constitution.i2i.org/2013/02/15/a-response-to-the-%E2%80%9Crunaway-scenario%E2%80%9D/.
36

Robert G. Natelson, State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative
Drafters, Convention of States, third edition, April 2014,
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/state-initiation-constitutional-amendments-guide-lawyers-andlegislative-drafters.
37

"Freedom's Front Line," supra note 31; "New “Article V Information Center” Helps Federal Reform
Efforts," Article V Information Center, April 16, 2015, http://www.articlevinfocenter.com/
new-article-v-information-center-helps-federal-reform-efforts/.

38

"About Rob Natelson," Independence Institute, http://constitution.i2i.org/about/.

9

 B. The Article V Debates and Educational Efforts
With the renewed interest in the Article V convention process, many advocacy groups, think
tanks, and law schools have sponsored seminars and debates designed to discuss and educate the
public and state legislators on this constitutional process.39 It would not be possible to list or
describe all such efforts here; however, three are notable for the presenters and organizations
involved.
The first occurred at the Council for National
Policy meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida on
February 7–8, 2014. CNP is an exclusive
organization of many of the wealthiest
conservative individuals in the country.40 The
Article V debate occurred between Michael
Farris of CoS and Trent England of the
Freedom Foundation.41

Many advocacy groups, think tanks,
and law schools have sponsored
seminars and debates designed to
discuss and educate the public and
state legislators on the Article V
convention process.

The debate was first notable because, at the outset, England virtually conceded the likelihood of
a “runaway” convention was remote. His chief argument against an Article V convention was
that the Constitution was a sacred document that should not readily or easily be amended; to hold
a convention to propose multiple amendments to the Constitution was not in the best interests of
the document or the country. Asked by a member of the audience to identify “the worst case
amendment that he believed an Article V convention could realistically adopt and that could get
ratified by 38 states,” England deemed the worst case scenario to be an amendment eliminating
the Electoral College.42 Given the presence of two of the finer constitutional scholars in the
Article V arena, one would have expected the runaway convention scenario to have been fully
explored, but that discussion never materialized given England’s concession.
39

Among the many not addressed in the text above are: The Cooley Law School Article V Symposium,
September 16, 2010 (http://www.cooley.edu/news/2010/091710_ArticleV_Symposium.html); Conference
on the Constitutional Convention, Harvard Law School, September 24, 2011
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivdnxcVS5U0); Goldwater Institute Article V Seminar, September 25,
2011 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR1nY-t-Cws); Colorado First Committee Article V Symposium,
March 27, 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hHSv0nC7Q); Federalist Society Debate on an
Article V Convention of States, April 15, 2015 (http://www.fed-soc.org/events/detail/a-debateon-an-article-v-convention-of-the-states); and Hillsdale College, "The Practicality and Desirability of an
Article V Convention," September 8, 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhzgA_k6XrE).
40

"Council for National Policy," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy.

41

Because of the Council for National Policy's exclusivity, there is no available video or audio of the
debate; however, this author was in attendance to hear the presentation.
42

Of course, it is highly unlikely liberals or progressives would in the current environment push for the
elimination of the Electoral College. In the past six presidential elections dating back to 1992, 19 states
totaling 242 electoral votes have voted for the Democratic candidate, just 28 votes shy of the number
necessary for election. See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/07/1349409/-Democrats-havea-built-in-edge-in-the-Electoral-College-But-it-guarantees-them-nothing-for-2016. With such a stranglehold
on the Electoral College, the left would be foolish to propose such an amendment. Thus, even Mr.
England's worst-case scenario does not seem currently plausible.

10

 A second notable debate occurred in Norman, Oklahoma in March 2014 between Michael Farris
and Oklahoma state Sen. Rob Standridge (R-Norman) on the pro-Article V side and Oklahoma
John Birch Society (JBS) leaders Bob Donahoo and Charlie Meadows on the anti-Article V
side.43 At the outset, both sides described the problems facing the country and its federal
government as “severe”; however, as is typically the case, they differed over how to solve them.
The JBS team argued in favor of nullification, despite conceding nullification has never
systemically succeeded among the states. JBS argued the people are the ultimate check and
balance on the federal government, but they conceded an important point that voters are not
sufficiently engaged to exercise the needed check. In a surprising final argument, JBS argued if
nullification were not effective, the next step would be secession.
The primary argument opposing an Article V
The primary argument made by the
convention was that Congress would interject
John Birch Society opposing an
itself into the process and take control of the
Article V convention was that
convention away from the states: “[W]hoever
sets the rules controls the convention.” JBS
Congress would interject itself into the
pointed to 41 bills regarding Article V that
process and take control of the
had unsuccessfully been introduced into
convention away from the states.
Congress during the late twentieth century.
JBS did not address the fact none of those
bills came close to passing in a primarily Democratic-controlled Congress and would be much
less likely to pass in the current Republican-controlled Congress. In the absence of further
explanation, JBS failed to persuasively argue the present Congress would intervene in a
convention’s proceedings.
In summary, JBS offered no plausible argument as to how to solve this country’s “severe”
problems, nor could it offer a politically realistic argument as to why a convention would not be
controlled by the states. Nevertheless, its arguments have for the time being played a role in
keeping Oklahoma from voting to support an Article V resolution.
The third most notable debate regarding the efficacy of the Article V convention process
occurred in Hillsborough, New Jersey on May 13, 2014, when Michael Farris squared off against
Andy Schlafly of Eagle Forum.44
Schlafly argued, as had England earlier, the Constitution is a magnificent document crafted by
Christian conservative men of a character that no longer exists today. He too claimed Congress
would insert itself into the process and choose the delegates for the convention, write the rules,

43

"Michael Farris Debates Leaders of John Birch Society in Oklahoma," Convention of States, April 15,
2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HBVzS9c8ZQ.
44

"Michael Farris Debates Andy Schlafly in New Jersey," Convention of States, June 9, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHd1xUo-_XE.

11

 and appoint retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens45 to be convention chair. He argued
liberals, with the support of the media, would hijack the convention, that voice votes would be
used to push the liberal agenda, and that Republicans and conservatives would wilt under the
bright lights of the media. He cited the 17th Amendment and the Arizona governor’s veto of
religious freedom legislation as evidence of how Republicans are unwilling to take on the media.
He argued if conservatives fought back, the media would perform background checks and run
smear campaigns against them. The momentum, he claimed, would cause the states to ratify
amendments repealing the Second Amendment and guaranteeing abortion on demand.46
Farris systematically pointed out the errors in
Schlafly’s arguments: Congress has never
successfully passed an Article V bill; a
conservative Congress will not interject itself
into a convention called by conservative
states; historical and legal precedent establish
that states control a convention; Congress’s
authority under Article V is purely
ministerial; and the ratification requirement
eliminates pragmatically any chance of a harmful amendment ever passing.

The best way to eliminate arguments
against an Article V convention is to
get a popular single-subject
amendment to the 34-state threshold,
call and then convene a convention,
and show the world it can stick to task.

Schlafly did not offer a realistic solution to the serious problems everyone on the right agrees
afflict the national government. Instead, Schlafly supported the tried and failed practice of
winning supermajorities through elections and implementing change one small step at a time. In
closing, Farris perhaps fortuitously called for the solution all Article V advocates need to
support, the solution this study ultimately proposes. In explaining what needs to happen with the
movement to resolve first the political problems facing our country and then subsequently the
social ills, Farris proposed the following:
The best thing we can possibly do is to validate this process on something the American
public is united behind: People want to fix the fiscal problems, and then we can come
right back after it. Once we validate this process, we can use it again to fix [other
problems].47

45

It is ironic that Schlafly would cite Justice Stevens, who as an appellate judge interpreted Article V to
hold that conventions thereunder are responsible for setting their own rules and are not subject to the kind
of external interference Schlafly claimed a Stevens-chaired convention would invite. See Dyer v. Blair, 390
F.Supp. 1291, 1307 (N.D. Ill. 1975) ("Article V identifies the body – either a legislature or a convention –
which must ratify a proposed amendment. The act of ratification is an expression of consent to the
amendment by that body. By what means that body shall decide to consent or not to consent is a matter
for that body to determine for itself.”). While Dyer addresses ratifying conventions, the same rule applies to
a proposing convention.
46

"Michael Farris Debates Andy Schlafly," supra note 44.

47

"Convention of States New Jersey Debate," Convention of States, May 14, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUXQvOTkr4 [at 1:31:08 mark].

12

 Indeed, the best way to eliminate the argument against an Article V convention is to get a
popular single-subject amendment to the 34-state threshold, call and then convene a convention,
and show the world it can stick to task: one state/one vote/one amendment.

C. Media and High-Profile Endorsements
Perhaps the single greatest boost to the Article V movement over the past few years has been the
publication of Mark Levin’s best-seller The Liberty Amendments, which called for the adoption
of 11 constitutional amendments designed largely to reduce the power of the federal government
through the Article V convention process.48 Levin’s book burst onto the scene while BBATF
was picking up steam in passing its resolution among the states, CoS and the Compact were
commencing their programs, and the educative efforts of state legislators at ALEC and other
efforts were reaching a critical mass. The resulting convergence of these events brought the
Article V movement into the forefront.
Endorsements by numerous high-profile
Perhaps the single greatest boost to the
politicians and conservative pundits soon
Article V movement over the past few
followed. CoS got the endorsement of Levin
years has been the publication of Mark
and also received the support of then-Fox
49
television host Mike Huckabee. Others
Levin’s The Liberty Amendments.
offering support include Glenn Beck, former
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn (R), Sean
Hannity, former Alaska Gov. Sara Palin (R), and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R), among
others.50 In September 2014, CoS established a Legal Board of Reference consisting of several
highly recognized legal figures who signed what is known as The Jefferson Statement, a
document endorsing the use and safeness of the Article V convention process.51
The BBA resolution similarly has received the support and endorsement of several high-profile
politicians and public figures. Among its endorsers are Gov. John Kasich (R) of Ohio, Gov.
Bobby Jindal (R) of Louisiana, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, Dr. Ben Carson, and nationally
syndicated talk show host Herman Cain.52 It received its most significant endorsement in the
1980s, from President Ronald Reagan.53

48

Mark Levin, supra note 14.

49

"Endorsements," supra note 15.

50

Ibid.

51
"The Jefferson Statement," Convention of States, September 11, 2014,
http://www.conventionofstates.com/the_jefferson_statement.
52

Garrett Humbertson, "Conservative Leaders Unite Behind Convention of States Movement," Red
Millennial, June 6, 2014, http://redmillennial.com/2014/06/06/conservative-figuresunite-around-convention-of-states-movement/.
53

Ibid.

13

 Finally, the Compact for America effort has been endorsed by author and syndicated columnist
George Will, judicial analyst and scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals senior Judge Harold DeMoss, national radio personality Mike Church, the Cato
Institute’s senior fellow in constitutional studies, Ilya Shapiro, who is editor-in-chief of the Cato
Supreme Court Review, and Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of the New York Times bestseller James
Madison and the Making of America.54

D. Friends of the Article V Convention
It would not be possible to record the
development of the Article V movement
without reference to one of the seminal
groups formed to promote its benefits:
Friends of the Article V Convention. FOAVC
was founded in 2007 by several political
activists, including (in alphabetical order):

It would not be possible to record the
development of the Article V
movement without reference to
Friends of the Article V Convention.

Judge Thomas Brennan, former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and a founder
and first dean of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, the largest accredited college of law in
the United States. Brennan has advocated for the calling of an Article V convention since
publishing his seminal article on the topic in 1982.55 Given the number of state
applications that have been submitted to Congress and Congress’s failure to count them,
much less call a convention, Brennan has more recently begun leading an effort to organize a
virtual Article V Convention on the Internet. That parallel effort is known as
ConventionUSA.56 Most recently, Brennan authored the book The Article V Amendatory
Constitutional Convention;57
Byron Delear, CEO of Energy Equity Funding, LLC, an energy equity funding service. He is
a national columnist for Examiner.com, a past candidate for the U.S. House of
Representatives, an independent media producer, and a political activist on multiple other
projects;
Joel Hirschhorn, author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without

54

"Compact for a Balanced Budget Now!" Compact for America, August 23, 2014,
http://www.compactforamerica.org/#!Compact-for-a-Balanced-Budget-Now/c213a/F5AAFF64-D733-4916A47D-914B44072BA1.
55

Thomas E. Brennan, "Return to Philadelphia," Cooley Law Review 1 (1982),
http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/return_to_philadelphia.pdf.
56

"The Constitutional Convention of 2017," Convention USA, http://www.conventionusa.org/.

57

Thomas E. Brennan, The Article V Amendatory Constitutional Convention: Keeping the Republic in the
Twenty-First Century (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2014).

14

 Overthrowing the Government,58 which advocates the calling of an Article V convention. He
is a former senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association;
Dennis Murphy, a Nebraska business owner and longtime political activist. He has served as
state director of the Nebraska Minutemen and as chairperson of the Nevada Reform Party,
and he is an active member of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary; and
Bill Walker, a former journalist and newspaper publisher. He graduated from Washington
State University with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has brought two federal lawsuits,
Walker v. United States (2000) and Walker v. Members of Congress (2004), the latter
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both suits sought to compel Congress to call an Article
V Convention. The courts never reached a decision on the merits of his claims. Walker is the
face of FOAVC and has been a guest speaker at numerous events on Article V.59

FOAVC is a nonpartisan organization that
Since more than 34 states have passed
does not support any specific subject matter
some form of an application, FOAVC
or topic for the call of an Article V
advocates that Congress immediately
convention. Instead, based on its reading of
the Article V historical record, it believes any
call a convention.
application passed by a state, regardless of the
subject matter, should be counted toward the
two-thirds threshold. Since more than 34 states have passed some form of an application,
FOAVC advocates that Congress immediately call a convention. For the first time in history,
FOAVC has gathered into a photographic collection taken from official government records the
actual texts of hundreds of applications for Article V conventions from 49 states. Its website
provides a wealth of articles, videos, and other information for Article V activists.60

E. The Article V Library
Still another excellent resource for Article V information has been provided online by Robert
Biggerstaff, a South Carolina attorney and Article V researcher. Biggerstaff has created an
enormous repository of Article V information known as the Article V Library.61 The library
contains a searchable database of virtually every Article V application known to have been
passed. It likewise contains links to a wealth of Article V materials.
58

Joel E. Hirschhorn, Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government
(Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2006).
59
See Cooley Symposium September 10, 2010: part 1, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNZxlpxyxSg;
Harvard Conference on the Constitutional Convention 2011,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO5I0isDEtY.
60

"Images of Article V Applications," Friends of the Article V Convention,
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments.
61

"Welcome to the Article V Library," http://www.article5library.org./.

15

 F. The Article V Convention Legislative Progress Report
In January 2015, it became apparent that before the legislative season was over, more than 200
Article V-related pieces of legislation would be introduced in the 99 Senate and House chambers
across the country. Although each of the advocacy groups was quick to tout its own successes, it
was unclear what successes and failures were in fact occurring within the movement.
Accordingly, this author undertook to
research and identify every Article V-related
piece of legislation pending in the 50 states.
The time and effort to track down that volume
of legislation was not inconsequential, and
requests to several of the advocacy groups for
their cooperation went unanswered.
Nevertheless, by the end of January, the
Article V Convention (AVC) Legislative Progress Report began to publish weekly updates on the
status and progress of each of the Article V advocacy groups.

In January 2015, The Article V
Convention Legislative Progress
Report began to publish weekly
updates on the status and progress of
each of the Article V advocacy groups.

The Progress Report provides a listing of all states where each advocacy group’s resolution has
been either introduced or passed. It also tracks the movement of pending legislation through
committee and floor votes in each chamber. Finally, in an effort to provide meaning to each
group’s progress, the Progress Report attaches a total score and percentage-of-completion score
to each group’s efforts. As of the date of publication of this article, the major groups compare as
follows:
Group

Score

Percentage to Goal

BBATF

172

83%

CoS

54

27%

WP-FFE

40

20%

Compact

30

15%

The AVC Legislative Progress Report is the only nationally recognized tracker of the status of all
Article V legislation in the country. It is now published by the State Legislators Article V
Caucus,62 the Independence Institute’s Article V Information Center,63 and Friends of Article V
Convention.org.64 A copy of the AVC Legislative Progress Report appears below as
Appendix A.

62

"Progress Report," State Legislators Article V Caucus, http://articlevcaucus.org/?p=148.

63

David F. Guldenschuh, "Article V Convention Legislative Progress Report," 2015
http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2015/06/AVC-Progress-Report-6-15.pdf.
64

Bill Walker, "FOAVC Presents New AVC Feature," www.foavc.org/reference/file62.pdf.

16

 Part Three
Article V Organizations of State Legislators
At the same time different advocacy groups
Four groups of state legislators have
have arisen within the Article V movement,
formed or are in the process of
state legislators – no doubt spurred on by the
forming to discuss and plan for an
workshops and training provided by ALEC –
have begun to coalesce to discuss and plan for
eventual Article V convention.
an eventual Article V convention. At present,
four groups have formed or are in the process
of forming, with a number of legislators participating in more than one group.

A. The State Legislators Article V Caucus
The State Legislators Article V Caucus was founded in 2013 after the annual meeting of ALEC
in Chicago, the same week CoS was launched. The stated purpose of the Article V Caucus is to
encourage state legislators to “re-establish federalism as our Founders intended, and limit the
runaway growth of the Federal Government.”65 It is the oldest of the four established state
legislative groups. Its founding members, all Republicans, include Sen. Kevin Lundberg
(Colorado), Sen. Bill Cowsert (Georgia), Sen. Bill Coley (Ohio), Rep. Yvette Herrell (New
Mexico), Rep. Lori Saine (Colorado), Rep. Lynne Riley (Georgia), Rep. Manny Steele (South
Dakota), Rep. Gary Banz (Oklahoma), Rep. Robert Thorpe (Arizona), Rep. Chris Kapenga
(Wisconsin), Rep. Jordan Ulery (New Hampshire), and Rep. Andrew Welch (Georgia). The
caucus, co-chaired by Lundberg and Herrell, has grown to number more than 90 state legislators
from 32 states.66
The caucus states it believes an Article V convention is the most efficacious means of meeting
its goals, and it is encouraging the states to adopt resolutions to call for an Article V convention.
It also states a convention is only the means to that end, and thus its focus remains on the goal of
federalism and limited government.67 The Article V Caucus seeks to encourage state legislators
to uphold its founding principles, using web-based information, model legislation, and strategic
meetings.68 It publishes a monthly newsletter updating its members and the public on recent
developments in the Article V movement.69

65

"About," State Legislators Article V Caucus, http://articlevcaucus.com/about/.

66

Ibid.

67

Ibid.

68

Ibid.

69

"Article V News," State Legislators Article V Caucus, http://articlevcaucus.com/news/.

17

 B. The Assembly of State Legislatures
The Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL) was formed in December 2013 at the call of five state
legislators: Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R-Fort Wayne), Wisconsin state Rep.
[now Sen.] Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), Ohio Speaker Pro Tem Matt Huffman (R-Lima),
Oklahoma state Rep. Gary Banz (R-Midwest City), and Kansas state Sen. Caryn Tyson (RParker). It considers itself a bipartisan group of currently serving state legislators from across the
country who recognize the states have a responsibility under a federalist system to work together
to solve problems of national concern.70
Just over 100 legislators from 32 states
initially met at Mt. Vernon in December 2013
and adopted a resolution putting into place
committees to plan for an anticipated call of
an Article V convention. Among other things,
the committees are assigned to draft model rules for the convention, examine the status and
content of applications passed by the states to date with a mind toward notifying Congress as
appropriate when they believe the threshold of 34 state applications has been met, and plan for
credentialing, scheduling, financing, and facilitating of such a convention.71

The Assembly of State Legislatures
was formed in December 2013.

ASL has since met twice: In June 2014 in Indianapolis, where 33 states were again represented,
and in December 2014 just outside Washington, DC, where 29 states were represented.72 Its
executive committee met in Denver in June 2015, and the next scheduled full meeting will be in
Salt Lake City in November 2015, where ASL is expected to adopt a set of model rules for any
future Article V convention.73
In order to avoid any appearance of bias or political affiliation, ASL has steadfastly declined any
efforts of advocacy or other groups to interject themselves into the organization’s work.74

70

Mount Vernon Assembly, https://www.facebook.com/mountvernonassembly/info?tab=page_info; Brian
A. Howey, "Sen. Long calls for bipartisan 'Mount Vernon Assembly'," Howey Politics Indiana, October 22,
2013, http://howeypolitics.com/Content/HPI-News/HPI-News/Article/Sen-Long-calls-forbipartisan-Mount-Vernon-Assembly-/39/123/10497; The Assembly of State Legislatures,
http://www.theassemblyofstatelegislatures.org/index.html.
71

"Resolution of The Mount Vernon Assembly - December 7, 2013," The Assembly of State Legislatures,
http://www.assemblystatelegislatures.com/mount-vernon-assembly-resolution.html.
72

Matthew Butler and Brian A. Howey, "'Assembly of State Legislatures' plots Article V Convention in
Indy," June 12, 2014, http://howeypolitics.com/Content/Default/Lead-Story/Article/-Assembly-ofState-Legislatures-plots-Article-V-Convention-in-Indy/-3/346/11483; Chris Kapenga, "The Assembly of
State Legislatures to Meet at the Naval Heritage Center on December 8 and 9," December 5, 2014,
http://www.thewheelerreport.com/wheeler_docs/files/1205kapenga.pdf.
73

The Assembly of State Legislatures, http://www.theassemblyofstatelegislatures.org/.

74

Garrett Humbertson, "State Legislators Lay Groundwork for a Convention of States," Red Millennial,
December 8, 2014, http://redmillennial.com/2014/12/08/state-legislators-lay-groundwork-for-aconvention-of-states/.

18

 Although it remains a heavily conservative assemblage, it has actively reached and recruited
across the aisle to maintain a bipartisan presence. Three Democrats sit on its Executive
Committee.75

C. Newest Groups: The Federal Assembly and CoS Caucus
At the annual ALEC meeting held in San Diego in July 2015, two new groups were created. The
Federal Assembly of State Presiding Officers was formed following a day-long meeting hosted
by the National Tax Limitation Foundation, in coordination with BBATF. The BBA-focused
event, announced by Ohio Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina), extended a personal
invitation to the Senate president and House speaker in each of the 50 states. The principal
purpose of the Federal Assembly is to get state presiding officers from 26 or more states to go on
the record in favor of a “one state/one vote/one amendment” resolution should an Article V
convention be called to consider a BBA.
Simultaneously, CoS announced the formation of the COS Caucus. It purports to have more than
200 members, and its first order of business will be to review a proposed set of convention rules
drafted by professor Rob Natelson.76

D. Faithful Delegate Limitation Bills
In an effort to further assert their control over
the Article V process, seven states have
adopted some form of “delegate limitation” or
“faithful delegate” legislation.77

Many states have adopted or are
considering enactment of “delegate
limitation” or “faithful delegate”
legislation to address concerns about a
runaway convention.

It is widely acknowledged states may limit
the authority of their delegates to an Article V
convention. During the founding era, a state
typically would provide its delegates with a commission setting forth the scope of authority
delegated. These delegate bills are intended to address the concerns about a runaway convention
and to enforce the legal obligation of delegates to act only within the scope of their commissions.
These acts typically bind a delegate to act only on those matters within the scope of the call of
the convention and to support the one state/one vote mechanism for voting at the convention. A
75

Matthew Butler and Brian A. Howey, supra note 72; see also Byron DeLear, "State legislators lead effort
to diversify Article V Convention movement," Examiner, November 17, 2014,
http://www.examiner.com/article/state-legislators-lead-effort-to-diversify-article-v-convention-movement.
76
See Tamara Colbert, "Convention of States Project launches legislator caucus and website at American
Legislative Exchange Council meeting July 23–24," Convention of States, July 23, 2015,
http://www.conventionofstates.com/convention_of_states_project_launches_legislator_caucus.
77

Georgia: O.C.G.A. § 50-1-30 et seq.; Florida: Fla. Stat. § 11.93; Indiana: IC 2-8-1-1 et seq.; North
Dakota: NDCC § 54-03-01 et seq.; South Dakota: HB 1069 (signed March 8, 2015); Tennessee: Tenn.
Code Ann. § 3-1-1801 et seq.; Utah Code 20A-17-101.

19

 delegate who acts outside the scope of commission is automatically recalled and in some cases
replaced with a substitute delegate.

Part Four
Successes and Disappointments of the
Primary Advocacy Groups
Each of the primary Article V advocacy groups has experienced success and failures in the past
two years. Here is a quick glance at their efforts.

A. Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force
Thanks to 16 BBA resolutions still alive from
the Reagan-era push for a balanced budget
amendment, BBATF had a healthy start
toward reaching its goal of 34 states
submitting applications to Congress on the
same or similar subject, in this case a BBA.78
With 11 modern-era applications having
passed, BBATF is well on its way to 34.79
Attached as Appendix B is a map designating states where the BBA has passed and targeted
states.

The Balanced Budget Amendment
Task Force has experienced multiple
successes. It has passed more modernera applications (11) than the next
closest group (4).

BBATF has experienced multiple successes. It has passed more modern-era applications (11)
than the next closest group (4). In 2013 and 2014, respectively, it passed applications in
Michigan and Ohio, two states that had declined to pass BBA resolutions during the Reagan-era
push. BBA resolutions passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes in Louisiana and Tennessee,
and BBATF is the only group to have garnered significant bipartisanship in other states as well.
It was successful in getting its application passed in South Dakota and Utah, where other groups
failed. It has passed at least one chamber in six other target states: Arizona, Oklahoma, South
78

There exists the question of whether these 16 applications passed primarily between 1976 and 1983 will
aggregate with each other and with modern-era applications. Congress will have the duty of initially
making that assessment. To date, we have limited indications of how inclusive Congress will be in its
counting of applications. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which
has been assigned the task of tracking state applications, has been quoted as at least unofficially agreeing
with BBATF's count of 27 to date. See Samantha Ellis, "Virginia house representative Bob Goodlatte visits
JMU SGA," The Breeze, April 1, 2015, http://www.breezejmu.org/news/virginia-house-representativebob-goodlatte-visits-jmu-sga/article_7547c20e-d877-11e4-b877-5f3e9a9813c8.html.
79
In 2011, Alabama passed the first new-generation single-subject BBA resolution. New Hampshire,
which had rescinded its application just two years before, passed a BBA in 2012. In 2013, Ohio, having
rejected a BBA resolution three times, passed the BBA. Five states (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan,
and Tennessee) passed the BBA resolution in 2014, and three more (North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Utah) passed in 2015, bringing the count to 27, including all non-rescinded resolutions passed during the
1970s and 1980s.

20

 Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. It appears to have the votes to pass in Idaho,
is very close in Virginia, and despite the strength of the John Birch Society in Montana, its
prospects there remain attainable. In each of those nine target states, the GOP controls both
legislative chambers, typically by healthy margins; thus, BBATF’s path to 34 remains realistic
and easily represents the best opportunity among the advocacy groups to reach a convention.

B. The Convention of States Project
CoS rang in 2014 with a bang. During its first
The interactive website and numerous
full year of legislative activity, CoS
educational events held by the
introduced its resolution in approximately 15
Convention of States Project across the
states. Its first success came in Georgia,
where in just 52 calendar days the resolution
country did much to advance the cause
swept through both chambers of the
of the entire Article V movement.
legislature, and Georgia became the first state
in the country to pass a historic call for an
Article V convention to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Before the
year was over, Alaska and Florida also had passed the CoS resolution.
Of perhaps greater significance, CoS spent much of that first year establishing grassroots
organizations, eventually in all 50 states. Its interactive website and numerous educational events
across the country did much to advance the cause of the entire Article V movement. It received
numerous endorsements from high-profile politicians and pundits, and as evidenced by the
consistent support shown for CoS at state legislative committee hearings, CoS made its
grassroots presence known throughout the country.
In 2015, Alabama became the fourth state to pass the CoS resolution. The CoS application was
filed in 36 other state legislatures. Of those 36 states, 19 passed initial committee votes. Three
state Senate chambers and eight House chambers passed the resolution on a floor vote.
Despite the successes of its first two years of efforts, CoS had its setbacks. It dramatically failed
to meet its very lofty and optimistic goal of getting 34 states to adopt its convention resolution
by the end of 2015.80 Of greater concern is that on multiple occasions in Louisiana, North
Dakota, Texas, and other states that have shown friendliness toward the Article V Convention
movement, CoS came up short.
One of the most consistently cited hesitations about CoS is that its application seeks to do too
much at once. Given the common fear of a runaway convention, legislative opponents of CoS
have in several states been able to successfully argue its general call on the subject matter of
reducing the power and jurisdiction of the federal government is nothing more than a

80

CoS projected reaching the 34-state threshold by passing its resolution in 14 or 15 states in 2014 with
19 or 20 to follow in 2015. "Jacqueline Peterson State Director Convention of States Georgia 7/13/14,"
MeatandPotatoes2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQ1DEPJL4c&list=
PLnUqWRlNGMAjCVlXFT6Yw9cuxndE-rlp&index=68 [30:25 – 30:50].

21

 smokescreen for an open convention.81 However unfounded the criticism, it has slowed down the
initial momentum established by CoS.

C. Wolf-PAC – Free and Fair Elections (“WP-FFE”)
With money and power creating scandal in the federal government every day, WP-FFE’s
campaign finance reform resolution would appear to be gaining momentum. Working with
volunteers on a shoestring budget and making optimal use of the Internet, WP-FFE has passed its
resolution in four states, large and small, east and west, but all Democratically controlled. It has
taken a very low-key, under-the-radar approach to advocacy, which to date has proved every bit
as successful as that of the higher-profile advocacy groups.
It appears to be part of the group’s strategy to gather momentum as Washington self-destructs,
and again, there is some wisdom in this approach. To get ultimately to 34 states anywhere in the
near future, WP-FFE is going to have to find ways to build coalitions in more moderate and
conservative states where campaign finance reform is likely popular among the citizenry but less
so among the politicians. It has the opportunity to build those coalitions in the next two years as
BBATF approaches its 34-state threshold. Despite early indications to the contrary, one hopes
WP-FFE’s leadership will see fit to take that step.

D. Compact for America
In October 2014, Nick Dranias left his
position at the Goldwater Institute to work
full time for the Compact for America
Educational Fund, Inc.82 This was
undoubtedly the most important move
forward for the Compact since its founding.
Dranias is the architect of the Compact, and
his full-time attention to the cause is critical to its ultimate success.

Nick Dranias is the architect of the
Compact, and his full-time attention to
the cause is critical to its ultimate
success.

As for the legislative landscape, the Compact has spent much of its first two years organizing the
grassroots and educating legislators about its concept. Because of its all-in-one approach, the
Compact requires far more educating of state leaders than do the other Article V resolutions. The
energy and time put in on the front end with the Compact stands to reap tremendous benefits on
81

See, e.g., hearing before Louisiana Senate Judiciary Committee B on June 2, 2015 at
http://senate.la.gov/video/videoarchive.asp?v=senate/2015/06/060215JUDB_0; hearing before Texas
Senate Committee on State Affairs on May 25, 2015 at http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?
view_id=30&clip_id=10305 (commencing approximately at 7:45 mark); and Oklahoma House debate on
SJR4 on April 21, 2015 at http://okhouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=1838.
82

"Nick Dranias Joins Compact for America's Educational Foundation as its Vice President!," Compact for
America, October 10, 2014, http://www.compactforamerica.org/#!Nick-Dranias-Joins-Compact-forAmericas-Educational-Foundation-as-its-Vice-President/c213a/788E1806-766D-417F-B2F4-E6AE76217A
45.

22

 the back end, where concerns of a runaway convention, drafting of an amendment, and difficulty
of ratification are all put to rest.
As is discussed in more detail below, the Compact has taken a more targeted approach to its
introduction into the states. It has passed in four of 16 states where it has been introduced.
However, it faces numerous institutional difficulties in “must have” states83 that will be difficult
if not impossible to overcome. There is a significant and narrow road ahead for the Compact to
get to its ultimate goal of 38 states.

E. An Overall Recap of Legislative Progress Through 2015
The Article V movement had an encouraging
At least one Article V resolution was
run through the various state legislatures in
introduced into 47 of the 50 states in
the first half of 2015, with potentially a
2015. One inactive state, Georgia,
success or two left to come in the final
months of the year. At least one Article V
passed three Article V resolutions in
resolution was introduced into 47 of the 50
2014.
states in 2015. One inactive state, Georgia,
passed three Article V resolutions in 2014;
thus, it had nothing left to address this year. A second state, Colorado,84 considered but elected
to postpone action on two Article V resolutions during 2014. The third state, Wisconsin, passed a
BBA resolution in 2014 in its House85 and is likely to have at least one resolution introduced
before the end of the year. Thus, all 50 states have engaged in Article V activity over the past
two years.
Six states passed seven Article V resolutions or bills in 2015. BBATF led the way, passing in
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah. The Compact passed in North Dakota and Mississippi.
The CoS resolution passed in Alabama, and the WP-FFE resolution passed in New Jersey.
Each of the Article V advocacy groups had successes in getting its resolutions passed in at least
one chamber of a legislature, creating the opportunity to finish passage in 2016 in those states
where legislation carries over from one year to the next.
BBATF, which needs only seven more states to meet the 34-state constitutional threshold for
calling a convention, passed in the West Virginia Senate, the Oklahoma House, and the
Wyoming House, although only the first two will carry over to 2016. CoS passed and will carry
83

"The Solution," supra note 25.

84

Colorado considered two different Article V resolutions during 2014 and voted to postpone both
indefinitely: SJR 14-023, the CoS resolution sponsored primarily by state Sen. Kevin Lundberg (RBerthoud), and HR 14-1016, the National Debt Relief Amendment resolution sponsored by state Rep. Lori
Saine (R-Dacono). See http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2014A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersAll?
OpenFrameSet and http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2014A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersAll?OpenFrameSet.
85

"Assembly Joint Resolution 81," Wisconsin State Legislature, 2013–2014,
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ajr81.

23

 over in the Iowa House and likely in the New Mexico House, and in the Oklahoma and
Tennessee Senates. CoS passed in one chamber in seven other states, but it will have to restart its
efforts in those states in 2016. The Compact passed in one chamber in five states, but none
carries over to 2016. WP-FFA passed different versions of its resolution in both the Maryland
House and Senate, but because they could not iron out the differences before the legislative
session concluded, they will have to start over in 2016. WP-FFA also passed and will carry over
in the Hawaii House and the Delaware Senate. Thus, eight resolutions remain pending at the end
of 2015, having passed one chamber and requiring but passage in the other chamber to become
final.
In the final analysis, it was a productive year in terms of introducing Article V resolutions, but
significant challenges remain, as evidenced by the overall success or “passage rate” of
resolutions.
Since 2010, 17 states have passed a total of
26 Article V resolutions. Over the past two
years, CoS introduced its resolution in 40
total states, and it passed in four. That gives
CoS an overall passage rate of 10 percent.
Given the “low-hanging fruit” one would
have expected CoS to pluck during its first
two years, particularly given its initial
successes in Alaska, Florida, and Georgia, the
one-state gain in 2015 suggests the hurdles
contemplated at the announcement of the
project in 2013 are proving to be much higher than originally anticipated. The same holds true
for both the Compact and WP-FFE. The latter has been introduced in 30 states so far and passed
in four, for a passage rate of 13 percent. The Compact has been much more targeted in its efforts,
passing in four of 16 states for a 25 percent passage rate.

Since Alabama passed the first newgeneration single-subject balanced
budget amendment resolution in 2011,
the Balanced Budget Amendment Task
Force has targeted 23 states and
obtained passage in 11, for a passage
rate of 48 percent.

Unquestionably, BBATF, with the benefit of the momentum established by 16 applications
surviving from the Reagan-era BBA surge, has led the way in successfully passing its singlesubject resolution. Since Alabama passed the first new-generation single-subject BBA resolution
in 2011, BBATF has targeted 23 states and obtained passage in 11, for a passage rate of 48
percent. This is particularly impressive given BBATF had far fewer jurisdictions to choose from,
with the available states being the more difficult ones in which to obtain passage. For example,
passage in Arizona is virtually impossible as long as anti-Article V Senate Majority Leader Andy
Biggs remains in authority, although it remained on the targeted list of states.
Thus, although each of the groups has enjoyed successes over the past two years, it is undeniable
BBATF has shown the most resiliency and acceptability within the movement, and that has
translated into success in getting its Article V resolutions passed.

24

 Part Five
Individual Legislators and Other Roadblocks
Within Specific States
The road to passing an Article V convention resolution is steep with hurdles and pitfalls.
The starting point is finding one or more key
There remain several legislators in
legislators willing to introduce and carry the
important positions of leadership who,
legislation through their respective chamber
for a variety of reasons – some good
and across the capitol building to their fellow
chamber. It requires educating colleagues and
and some not so good – are unwilling
obtaining cosponsors for the resolution. Once
or unable to allow debate and an
introduced, the resolution goes through one or
up-or-down vote in their chambers.
more committees, where an affirmative vote
is usually required to move the resolution to
the floor. Often legislative maneuvers by a single individual or threats of filibuster can keep the
resolution from coming up on the calendar for a vote. Because these are resolutions, they are
often viewed as secondary pieces of legislation and must take a back seat to more pressing
budget, transportation, and other matters. Assuming a resolution gets to the floor and obtains a
favorable vote, it must then start the process over in the corresponding chamber. All of this has
to be done within a limited number of days on a legislative calendar containing crossover and
other potentially killer deadlines.
It is thus truly remarkable the Article V movement has enjoyed the success it has over the past
few years. Although the momentum is building, the opportunities for failure are numerous.
During the past year, the movement experienced those pitfalls in multiple states. There remain
several legislators in important positions of leadership who, for a variety of reasons – some good
and some not so good – are unwilling or unable to allow debate and an up-or-down vote in their
chambers. Set forth below is a sampling of the concerns these legislators have raised about
Article V, which the advocacy groups must ultimately address to continue their successes.

A. Sen. Majority Leader Andy Biggs of Arizona
No legislator in the country has proved to be a more determined skeptic of the Article V
movement than Arizona Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs (R). BBATF, CoS, and Compact
have all successfully passed their legislation in the Arizona House with seemingly the requisite
votes needed for passage in the Senate, only to be thwarted by Biggs.
As Senate Majority Leader, Biggs is responsible for assigning bills to committee and for
deciding what resolutions come up for a vote. He has steadfastly refused to allow any Article V
legislation to be finally considered in the Arizona Senate.
Biggs is a retired attorney who has scored well with conservative groups, having been designated
“Champion of the Taxpayer” by Americans for Prosperity for his cumulative service in the state
25

 legislature. He has similarly been honored by the Goldwater Institute as a “Friend of Liberty.”86
He is well-respected and admired by his colleagues. When it comes to Article V, however, he
strongly opposes a convention, citing fears of its potential harming of the Constitution.
In 2015, Biggs authored the paperback The Con of the Con Con, in which he argued if the
Constitution isn’t the problem, then there’s no need to fix it, and if it is the problem, then we
shouldn’t trust its own provisions to fix it.87 Biggs is likely immovable, but there is
overwhelming support in Arizona and in his district for, at a minimum, a federal balanced budget
amendment. The hope is that with all of the efforts to eliminate the chance of a runaway
convention through delegate limitation bills and model convention rules, he will eventually
allow at least one of the advocacy groups to obtain a test vote in the Arizona Senate.

B. Sen. Bart Davis in Idaho
In Idaho, resolutions such as those involving Article V often do not get introduced into either
chamber unless it can be shown the votes exist to pass them first. In the Idaho House, it appeared
there were ample votes to pass both the BBA and CoS resolutions in 2015.
On the other side of the capitol, Senate
Majority Leader Bart Davis (R) is a
well-respected, thoughtful lawyer from Idaho
Falls.88 He is viewed by his colleagues as
reliable on matters of constitutional
significance. Thus, his support for any Article
V resolution is critical to its success. In 2015,
however, the advocacy groups were unable to
provide Davis with sufficient comfort about
the safeness of the Article V process and the ability of the states to control the convention to
allow their resolutions to come up for vote. Movement leaders hope the efforts of such groups as
ASL and the Federal Assembly, as well as continuing educational efforts, can convince Davis to
allow a vote in 2016.

In 2015, advocacy groups were unable
to provide Senate Majority Leader
Bart Davis with sufficient comfort
about the safeness of the Article V
process and the ability of the states to
control the convention.

86

Andy Biggs, Arizona State Legislature,
http://www.azleg.gov/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=88&Legislature=51&Session_ID=110.
87

Andy Biggs, The Con of the Con-Con: The Case Against the States Amending the U. S. Constitution
(Gilbert, AZ: Free Man Press 2015). Reviews of the book have alternatively described it as "silly rhetoric"
and "unseemly" and "misleading." See Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "Review: Andy Biggs' The Con of the Con
Con," Arizona Daily Independent, July 2, 2015,
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/07/02/review-andy-biggs-the-con-of-the-con-con/; and Jeff
Utsch and Barney Brenner, "Book review of ‘The Con of the Con Con,’ by Arizona Senate President Andy
Biggs," Western Free Press, June 15, 2015, http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/06/15/
book-review-of-the-con-of-the-con-con-by-arizona-senate-president-andy-biggs/.
88

Senator Bart M. Davis, http://www.senatordavis.com/about.html.

26

 C. The South Carolina Minority Report
South Carolina appeared ripe in 2015 to pass at least one of the Article V resolutions. It is the
only Deep South state that has not passed a BBA resolution, having come close in 2014 when it
passed the House but fell short in the Senate. In 2015, BBATF and CoS introduced applications
in both chambers. Both resolutions passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but state Sen. Bart
Hutto (D) pulled a legislative maneuver by assigning a “minority report” to the votes, thereby
removing the resolutions from further consideration in the Senate absent a supermajority “special
orders” vote.89 Thereafter, arguments in the Senate over an ethics bill and a transportation bill
effectively killed the resolutions for the remainder of the session. Senate President Hugh
Leatherman (R) either declined or simply could not find a way to place the resolutions on
“special orders” before the session ended.
In the House, the resolutions were assigned to a Judiciary subcommittee, which held five
hearings. The subcommittee chose not to vote on the resolutions.90 Despite a promise from
House leadership to vote on the resolutions in 2015, it appears the lack of a clear path to passage
in the Senate spilled over to the House, making what was perceived by some as a controversial
vote seem undesirable and ultimately unnecessary.

D. Threats of Filibuster in West Virginia House
For the first time in 80 years, the West
In the Judiciary Committee of the
Virginia House convened in 2015 under the
West Virginia Senate, Democrats
control of a Republican majority. Spurred on
threatened to filibuster other
by the strong support of neighboring Ohio
91
Gov. John Kasich (R), the BBA resolution
legislation if the balanced budget
passed the Senate on a voice vote and moved
amendment resolution were brought to
to the House, where it was assigned to the
the floor for a vote.
Judiciary Committee.92 The West Virginia
House has 100 delegates, 64 of whom were
Republican in 2015. Of those, 56 had expressed support for the BBA resolution. On the last day
of the session, SCR 13 came before the Judiciary Committee, where Democrats threatened to
filibuster other legislation if the BBA resolution were brought to the floor for a vote. Speaker of
the House Tim Armistead (R) thus decided not to allow the BBA resolution to go to vote, despite
overwhelming support for it.
89

See BBA SCR30 at https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/S0030/2015; CoS SCR198 at
https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/S0198/2015.
90
See BBA HCR3096 at https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/H3096/2015; CoS HCR3177 at
https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/H3177/2015.
91

Jonathan Mattise, "John Kasich touts federal balanced budget amendment in West Virginia," Associated
Press, The Morning Journal News, February 20, 2015, http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/
20150220/john-kasich-touts-federal-balanced-budget-amendment-in-west-virginia.
92

See SCR 13 at https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/SCR13/2015.

27

 E. Wyoming Fears Loss of Federal Subsidies
Wyoming is a conservative Western state under GOP control, which makes it a likely target for
conservative advocacy groups. In 2015, CoS was unsuccessful in getting its resolution out of
Senate committee, with attorney and Senate Majority Leader Phil Nicholas (R) being the crucial
swing vote against it.93 The BBA resolution was introduced in the House, where it sailed through
committee and passed on the House floor by a 44–16 vote.94
The Wyoming Senate consists of 26
Republicans and four Democrats, so
prospects for success of the BBA resolution
in the Senate appeared to be high. In the
Senate committee, however, Nicholas moved
to amend the resolution to attach a series of
riders providing Wyoming’s participation in a
BBA convention would not be used to penalize the state in its federal subsidies, which make up a
substantial portion of Wyoming’s annual budget. Although the resolution passed out of
committee, the amendments effectively doomed the resolution, and it failed in a 22–7 vote.95

The Wyoming Senate consists of 26
Republicans and four Democrats, so
prospects for success of the BBA
resolution should have been high.

F. Oklahoma – One Resolution’s Impact on Another
Oklahoma in 2015 proved to be an example of how one group’s success or failure can directly
impact another. Both BBATF and CoS were actively pursuing their resolutions, CoS having filed
in the Senate under Senate sponsor Rob Standridge (R)96 and the BBA filing in the House under
the sponsorship of state Rep. Gary Banz (R),97 a national leader among legislators in the
Article V movement. Each resolution passed a test vote in their respective chambers of
introduction and moved to the opposite chamber for a record vote.
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, each chamber was scheduled to debate and vote on its respective
resolution, but the Oklahoma House got to the CoS resolution before the Senate reached the
BBA resolution. The CoS narrowly lost in the House, appearing to fall approximately four votes
shy.98 Even though the whip count in the Senate showed 32 of 48 Senators in favor of the BBA

93

See SCR4 at https://legiscan.com/WY/rollcall/SJ0004/id/403696.

94

See HJR4 at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Digest/HJ0004.pdf.

95

Ibid.

96

SJR4 at https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/SJR4/2015.

97

HJR1018 at https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HJR1018/2015.

98

The final recorded vote on SJR4 was 56–42 against; however, the Yea votes reached 47 of the 51
required votes for passage before five representative changed their votes to No, presumably for political
cover, before the final vote was locked out. See Oklahoma House Floor Debate and Vote of April 21, 2015
at http://okhouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=1838 [2:46:20 mark].

28

 resolution, Senate leadership pulled BBA from further debate and carried it over to the 2016
session. Ironically, a motion to reconsider the CoS resolution passed the House two days later,99
thus leaving both efforts with nothing tangible to show in 2015, but both alive for 2016.

G. Kansas – Speaker of the House Ray Merrick
According to CoS, Kansas Speaker of the House Ray Merrick (R) chose to squash attempts in
Kansas in 2015.100 CoS-sponsored resolution HCR 5010 was introduced into the Kansas House
with 41 cosponsors, including most of the leadership.101 After receiving a favorable committee
report recommendation, Merrick, a former chairman of ALEC, refused to allow HCR 5010 to
come to a vote on the House floor and apparently offered no reason to CoS state leadership.102
Despite endorsements from the Kansas National Federation of Independent Business and the
Kansas Association of Counties, no vote was taken, causing CoS to conclude Merrick was
simply “running out the clock.”103

H. Texas – GOP Senator Craig Estes Threatens Filibuster
One of the longest-serving state senators in
One of the longest-serving senators in
Texas personally threatened a filibuster to
Texas personally threatened a
shut down the Texas Senate if the CoS
filibuster to shut down the Texas
resolution were allowed to go to the Senate
floor.104 As a result, the State Affairs
Senate if the CoS resolution were
Committee left the resolution on the table and
allowed to go to the Senate floor.
refused to vote on it.105 GOP Sen. Craig Estes
(R) succumbed to the fearmongering of
naysayers, saying he was convinced an Article V convention could not be controlled.106
Ironically, a single legislator was able to control the agenda in Texas using the argument the
agenda could not be controlled at an Article V convention.
99

See CoS SJR4 at https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/SJR4/2015.

100

David Schneider, "Call To Action Kansas & American Patriots!," Convention of States, May 21, 2015,
http://www.conventionofstates.com/call_to_action_kansas_american_patriots.

101

See HCR5010 at https://legiscan.com/KS/bill/HCR5010/2015.

102

David Schneider, supra note 100.

103

Ibid.

104

See Hearing before Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs on May 25, 2015,
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=10305 [7:45 mark].

105

Ibid.

106

Ibid. As Texas does not have a general legislative session in 2016 and as it is unlikely that a special
Article V session will be called by the governor, CoS will have to wait until 2017 to target Texas again.

29

 I. Louisiana Sen. President John Alario Accused of Sabotaging CoS Bill
Louisiana is a conservative state that in 2014 passed the BBA resolution by a nearly unanimous
vote. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has endorsed the Article V convention movement.
Louisiana should have been a low-hanging fruit state for CoS.
In 2015, CoS resolution HCR2 was introduced in the House, where it passed comfortably by a
60–38 vote.107 When it crossed over to the Senate, it was assigned by Senate President John
Alario (R) to the Senate Judiciary B committee, which is majority-Democrat. CoS cried foul,
reporting, “According to Senate rules, any bills or resolutions dealing with ‘intergovernmental
relations between the state and the United States or other states’ must go to Senate and
Governmental Affairs, where other Article V applications in the past have always been
assigned.”108 According to CoS, Alario “colluded with Senate Democrats JP Morrell and Karen
Carter Peterson to assign the CoS resolution to the Judiciary B committee, so they could
effectively kill HCR2 and prevent it from getting to the floor, where it appeared there were
sufficient votes to pass it.”109 CoS claimed Alario, a longtime Democrat turned Republican in
2010, teamed with his former Senate Democratic colleagues and deviated from Senate protocol
to stop the CoS resolution.110

The above-mentioned are by no means the
only examples of Article V resolutions
seemingly destined for passage being
sidetracked by clever legislative tactics or
individual power moves. They signify,
however, the extreme difficulty the Article V
movement faces in getting resolutions to the
34-state threshold for calling a convention. They strongly counsel all aspects of the movement
that coordination and cooperation are critical among the advocacy groups and with the state
legislator groups, if the movement is ultimately to succeed.

Coordination and cooperation are
critical among the advocacy groups
and with the state legislator groups, if
the movement is ultimately to succeed.

107

See HCR2 at https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/HCR2/2015.

108

Bryce Barras, "Louisiana Senate President sabotages Convention of States resolution," Convention of
States, June 4, 2015, http://www.conventionofstates.com/louisiana_senate_president_sabotages.

109

Ibid.

110

Ibid.

30

 Part Six
A Suggested Approach
for State Legislators and Advocacy Groups
Moving Forward
Over the past two years, this author has supported all the active advocacy groups as a volunteer
either in a leadership position or by working at the grassroots level on their behalf. I have spent
hours testifying and observing committee and floor debates on all of the active Article V
resolutions across the country. I have had the opportunity to listen to numerous legislators and
answer the most basic to the most complex questions about Article V and the movement. I have
made presentations to and listened to literally thousands of activists at the grassroots level. I
have spoken with and offered my support to leadership in all of the groups, and my
communications have spread across the entire Article V spectrum, from conservative to liberal.
The thoughts set forth in this section
The thoughts set forth in this section
represent not only my own but those of many
represent not only my own but those of
legislators, grassroots activists, and legal
many legislators, grassroots activists,
experts and scholars within the movement. It
might fairly be described as a developing
and legal experts and scholars within
consensus. To the extent that leadership of the
the movement. It might fairly be
active advocacy groups might read these
described as a developing consensus.
suggestions, I ask that you do so with an open
mind, focusing on the landscape of the
movement as a whole, not the trees and shrubs that make up your portion of the movement,
valuable though they are.

A. Lessons Learned
There are several lessons to be learned from the 2015 Article V convention performance in the
state legislatures.
# First, the single-subject popular amendment strategy adopted by BBATF continues to find
more acceptance and smoother sailing than the other, more complicated proposals. This is
likely a response to the fearmongering of such groups as Eagle Forum and the John Birch
Society regarding the runaway convention scenario. The 70 to 80 percent polling support for
a balanced budget amendment makes it easier for a concerned legislator to support that
simple proposal than the multi-subject strategy of CoS or the more complicated Compact
multi-front legislative approach.
# Second, the average window from introduction to passage of an Article V resolution in a
state is longer than some had anticipated, as it appears to average out to three to four years
even in the “low-hanging fruit” states. No group has captured more than five states in any
one year, that occurring once by BBATF in 2014, so progress toward 34 is slow.

31

 # Third, although the advocacy groups have to some extent supported each other in states
where multiple resolutions have been introduced, their multi-resolution presence has caused
and is causing confusion among legislators and reducing the effort’s overall success rate.
We are now two full years into the Article V movement, and there is sufficient evidence
available from which to draw a more fundamental conclusion. The difficulty of passing Article V
resolutions in the states is much greater than was envisioned just two years ago, when the
movement began in full measure. Despite the voluminous legal scholarship establishing the
numerous checks and balances in place to avoid a runaway convention, and despite the work of
the state legislator groups to exercise control and authority over the Article V process, the
fearmongering of Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society still holds a strong grip on some state
legislators. The naysayers have made some of the most conservative states, including Idaho,
Montana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, difficult targets for passage of Article V resolutions.
Individuals in leadership positions, such as Andy Biggs in Arizona and John Alario in Louisiana,
have blocked or killed votes on Article V resolutions that would almost certainly have passed but
for their personal opposition.
In speaking with legislators and Article V
activists across the country, one recurring
theme appears to be almost universally
viewed as the guiding principle to success for
the Article V movement: We need to get at
least one of the advocacy groups to 34 states,
so a convention can be called. Holding a
convention can show America such a
gathering can stick to the guiding principle of
one state/one vote/one amendment. If we can show an Article V convention can meet, stay on
task, propose a single amendment, and go home, that success will open the floodgates for the
states to exercise their newly discovered Article V powers in the future.

One recurring theme appears to be
almost universally viewed as the
guiding principle to success for the
Article V movement: We need to get at
least one of the advocacy groups to 34
states, so a convention can be called.

Only one group stands a realistic chance of reaching the 34-state threshold within the next two
years, and that is the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force.111 Were the BBA to pass in
111

Some will argue the present 27 applications won’t aggregate and will lead to litigation, thus
endangering the success of the movement. The fact is, we don’t know what Congress will do when
confronted with 34 or even 35 or 36 applications. There are reasons to believe Congress will take an
inclusive approach to aggregation. See note 78 supra. A review of the BBA applications shows there are
likely no more than three that may require some modification to aggregate. To the extent there may be one
or more problematic applications, the BBATF strategy needs to clean up the most obvious problematic
ones and work to pass resolutions in more than 34 states to moot out any others. Regardless of the
outcome of aggregation, media attention and focus on such a convention can only help the Article V
movement. Moreover, if the aggregation were to lead to litigation, that could turn out to be positive in
allowing for the lingering questions about the role of the courts in the Article V process to be addressed.
This would eliminate an argument that is routinely used by naysayers to reject a convention. It should
further be noted there already are differences at some level in the applications passed to date for both
CoS and WP-FFE. Litigation can perhaps provide a standard these groups can use as they move through
the process of getting to 34. Finally, should the BBA call end up in litigation, it would not sideline the other
movements. There would be one fewer player to deal with, and the newer movements could focus
legislators on the benefits of their strategies. All of these are positive reasons to pursue this strategy.

32

 seven or more states in 2016 and were Congress to aggregate the applications and call a
convention, the entire focus of the 2016 presidential election cycle would change. Using the state
convention method for ratification, it might be possible to have a balanced budget amendment
measure on the presidential election ballot in November 2016. If a BBA convention were called,
convened, and stayed on task, it would be markedly easier for the other groups eventually to
reach a convention.112 This is such a significant window of opportunity that all groups should
consider what efforts they might be able to offer, without significantly sacrificing their own
strategies, to make this happen.

B. Specific Suggestions for Coordination and Cooperation
There are several ways the groups can
There are several ways the groups can
coordinate their efforts to seize the
coordinate their efforts to seize the
opportunity that exists for the Article V
opportunity that exists for the Article
movement. The target states for BBA in 2016
are likely to be Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky,
V movement.
Maine, Minnesota, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The starting point for coordination would be an agreement
among the advocacy groups that in these target states all the groups will on the record endorse
and speak favorably of the others as they pursue their efforts. Such a symbolic showing of
support and unanimity might very well make a difference in states where passage might be
close.113
BBATF and CoS can mutually support each other in several key states. Both groups have
resolutions introduced in Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia, which carry over to
2016. Both groups will be reintroducing their resolutions in 2016 in Arizona, Virginia, and

112

In a recent speech in Dallas, former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), speaking on behalf of the CoS Project,
suggested an Article V convention limited to a balanced budget amendment could take away momentum
from the Article V movement because a single amendment would not implement enough of the many
structural changes needed in Washington. The suggestion was citizens would be let down if the
convention didn't do more and would somehow lose confidence in the process. It is difficult to perceive
how an Article V convention, which virtually all in the movement concede would be one of the most historic
political events in our nation's history, could create such a result. First, even Coburn conceded a balanced
budget amendment would solve, by his estimate, approximately 40 percent of the problem in Washington.
That is significantly better than any other political efforts have accomplished. Second, such a limited
convention would arm legislatures with precedent that their ultimate check on Washington overreach could
be used safely, thus spurring the passage of more applications to address subjects such as term limits
and other matters within the scope of the CoS resolution. Finally, as has happened in the past, an
Article V convention would force Washington to step back and proceed far more cautiously because of its
recognition that the states do ultimately possess through Article V the power to rein in Washington.
113

Unfortunately, at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual meeting July 22–24, 2015, the
Compact challenged the efforts of the CoS and to a lesser degree the BBATF. Based on feedback from
the various audiences, this likely backfired. At least one effort by the Compact to have its standard bill
adopted as a "model application" by ALEC was tabled. The Compact has since adopted a formal policy
not to criticize other groups.

33

 Wyoming. CoS will no doubt reintroduce its resolution in 2016 in Mississippi, where a
BBA-specific resolution passed in 1979 but could use some cleaning up for aggregation
purposes. In each of these states, it would potentially be beneficial to CoS to add a
severability/aggregation provision to their resolution, similar to the one added by amendment to
the CoS resolution in Georgia, the first state to pass the CoS resolution.114 The following
language, which closely tracks the Georgia amendment, should be considered:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application shall be deemed an application for a
convention to address each or all of the subjects herein stated. For the purposes of
determining whether two-thirds of the states have applied for a convention addressing
any of the subjects stated herein, this application is to be aggregated separately with the
applications of any other state legislatures for the single subjects of balancing the federal
budget and/or imposing other fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the
power and jurisdiction of the federal government, or limiting the terms of federal
officials.

The addition of such language in Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia would not affect
the status of CoS’s resolutions pending there, because CoS still needs floor passage in each
chamber in those states. It would, however, send a powerful message of unanimity within the
Article V movement. Furthermore, based on debate and feedback in several states where certain
legislators expressed concerns about the CoS term limits provision, it might also give CoS an
additional argument for support with those legislators voicing those specific concerns, because
the amendment would render that provision severable from the other two amendment topics.
Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, and
Washington are “split states,” in which one
chamber has a Republican majority and the
other a Democratic majority. Since BBA
support tends to come from the conservative
side and campaign finance reform from the
more liberal side, such states present an
opportunity for BBATF and WP-FFE to
pursue passage of a resolution beneficial to
both groups. It might very well be possible for each group to use its influence with its respective
side of the aisle to adopt a joint Article V resolution calling for both a BBA and campaign
finance reform amendment convention or to adopt separate resolutions, with each requiring
adoption of the other to become final. With such coordination of efforts, it might be possible for
both groups to accomplish a “win-win.”

In some states, it might very well be
possible to call for a BBA and
campaign finance reform amendment
convention or to adopt separate
resolutions, with each requiring
adoption of the other to become final.

114

See Ga. SR 736 (2014), http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20132014/SR/736, lines
24–29. It should be noted the 2015 CoS resolution introduced in Mississippi contained a severability
provision for a balanced budget amendment application. See Mississippi HCR 78 (introduced March 2,
2015), copy available at http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2015/html/HC/HC0078IN.htm.

34

 The strategies proposed here are not intended to permanently commit the advocacy groups to
focusing on BBA. Instead, they are merely suggestions for emphasis for the next two years, and
in particular for the 2016 state legislative sessions. If they do not work, a reassessment would be
appropriate, perhaps as soon as 12 months from now.

C. The Role of the State Legislator Groups
The establishment of state legislator groups
The willingness of the states to begin
has been an extremely positive development
organizing for an Article V convention
for the Article V movement. The willingness
preempts Congress from interjecting
of the states to begin organizing for an Article
V convention preempts Congress from
itself into the process.
interjecting itself into the process. Feedback
from some in Congress makes it clear many
want to see the Article V movement succeed because they recognize Congress and the federal
government are far too broken to fix themselves.115 There are thus important roles for each of the
state legislator groups to play.
# First, the Federal Assembly of State Presiding Officers should continue its drive to get
presiding officers from a majority of states to commit to the one state/one vote/one
amendment proposal for any BBA convention that might be called. Such an agreement can
provide important assurances to leaders in the targeted states that BBATF needs to reach its
34-state threshold.
# Second, it is extremely important ASL adopt a model set of rules for an Article V convention
at its November 2015 meeting. Such a set of rules can reiterate assurances to leaders in states
where resolutions are under consideration that any convention will be controlled by the
delegates, not Congress, will operate on a one state/one vote rule, will not allow for
consideration of matters not germane to its limited call, and will be transparent and open to
the public in its deliberations.116
# Finally, there remains an important role for the State Legislators Article V Caucus. The
Article V movement would be well-served if a group of state leaders could offer guidance to
the advocacy groups on how they might better present their resolutions in 2016, and, in
particular in those states where multiple resolutions are to be introduced, how the groups
might better work together. As the Federal Assembly and COS Caucus are in their infancies

115

See, e.g., Barbara Hollingsworth, "Coburn: Convention of States Needed Because Washington Will
Never Fix Itself," CNSNews, March 5, 2015, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/
coburn-convention-states-needed-because-washington-will-never-fix.
116

At the July 2015 ALEC annual meeting, Professor Rob Natelson drafted and released to a group of
legislators and attendees (including this author) a set of proposed rules for an amendments convention
called to address the subject matter set forth in the CoS application and presumably adaptable to any
convention. Those rules are expected to be published shortly for public comment by CoS. See
www.conventionofstates.com/.

35

 and as ASL has steadfastly sought not to interject itself into the affairs of the advocacy
groups so as to remain accountable only to itself, the more senior Article V Caucus is in a
unique position to assist. It is my hope this study might spur legislators to consider acting in
this regard.

Conclusion
For decades, the American people and their
state legislatures have watched as
Washington, DC has expanded its power and
increasingly asserted itself into the privacy
and everyday lives of American citizens.
Despite multiple “wave elections,” changes in
leadership and party control in Washington,
DC have not lessened the overreach of the
federal government. The United States
continues to spend and borrow money at an
ever-increasing rate, such that this country is
approaching bankruptcy and economic
collapse. The desire for power and the influence of special-interest money has so utterly
corrupted Washington, DC that citizens no longer feel their leaders and representatives are
looking out for the nation’s best interests. The Article V convention movement may be the last
opportunity for this country to right itself. The Founders certainly foresaw a time when our
national government would overreach its authority and impose upon the sovereignty of the states
and the privacy and freedom of its citizens. That is precisely why they gave the states the Article
V power to rein in the national government.

The Founders certainly foresaw a time
when our national government would
overreach its authority and impose
upon the sovereignty of the states and
the privacy and freedom of its citizens.
That is precisely why they gave the
states the Article V power to rein in
the national government.

The Article V movement has the resources, the grassroots support, and the ability to accomplish
this task. The question is, can leaders within the movement coordinate their efforts and cooperate
with each other to accomplish this mighty goal, or will the movement devolve into a circular
firing squad as unfortunately happens all too often among conservative groups?
Time will tell, if it doesn’t first run out on us all.

© 2015 The Heartland Institute. Distributed by The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit and nonpartisan public policy
research organization. Nothing in this report should be construed as reflecting the views of The Heartland Institute,
nor as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of legislation. Additional copies of this Policy Brief are available for
$6.95 from The Heartland Institute, phone 312/377-4000; fax 312/275-7942; email think@heartland.org; Web
http://www.heartland.org.

36

 About the Author
David Guldenschuh is an attorney and publisher of the Article V Convention Legislative
Progress Report, the only nationally recognized tracker of the status of all Article V legislation
in the country. He is the former legislative liaison director for the Convention of States Project,
where in 2014 he led Georgia to become the first state in the country to pass the CoS Article V
application for a convention of states.
Guldenschuh currently serves as special counsel to the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force
and was recently named to the Board of Policy Advisors of The Heartland Institute’s Center for
Constitutional Reform. Perhaps more than any other individual in the country, Guldenschuh has
established working relationships with virtually all groups and individuals in the Article V
movement. He is a 1981 cum laude graduate of the University of Notre Dame Law School, a
member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, and has on multiple occasions been named one of
Georgia’s “Top Lawyers” by Atlanta Magazine.

37

 ARTICLE CONVENTION LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS REPORT

{as qf?orober?. 20H)
AVG Group Egon (luminous

 

 

Appendix A

BRA Task Force

 

COS Pro'ect . . 19 ameaa?mrcm


I7DNPJ- AR AZIN KY- LA


 

meme? ..

WP Free and
Fair Elections

 

E2251: for 4. MS no (205). AREA $1?ngsz QEL 9150
TX WY

Restoring Freedom, 

01'; Inc.

Sin?e Subject

Amendment PAC

Citizens Initiative

 

Term Limits for Cong-e83 abutment harem
Term Limit Convention 11111113 111 1113 C305 resolutlm?

 

Americans for
Congressional Reform

 

?Each group receives 1 point for each state into which their Article resolution is introduced; 1 point in each chamber if it passes all committees {2 for unicameral 1 point in each chamber when it passes on the ?oor {2 pt:
- and 1 point when the application is ?nal. Thus, a total of 6 points can be earned in each state. The completion goal is 20:! points [34 states passed at 6 If an applioation dies during or at the end of a non-carryover
legislative session, then points generated for that cede are not oomted. NOTE: DNP voted down. tabled. withdrawn, died on calendar, not reached, or otherwise did not progress. Underseored states carry leg'slation over to
2016. Some groups did not respond to contact efforts so scoring is based on available public infonnation and matt have some inacwracies. General or open comention calls are not megaled in this report.

copyright 2015 David F. Guidensciruh, Attornerot-taw, 5.12 E. Rome GA, 30151; (706) 3416-3633. To join mailing list or for corrections, contact: 

Balanced Budget Amendment Convention

Appendix 

39

 

 

Active

Balanced Targeted in Needed fur a
Budget 2?15.3?13_ - I Genventian.
Amendment 3 .
Resulutiuns. 

 

About The Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute is an independent national nonprofit research
organization founded in Chicago in 1984. It is a tax-exempt charity under
Section 501(c)(3).
The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions
to social and economic problems. Three things make Heartland unique among free-market think
tanks:
# We communicate with more national and state elected officials, more often, than any other
think tank in the U.S. In 2014 we recorded more than 1.1 million contacts with elected
officials.
# We produce four monthly public policy newspapers – Budget & Tax News, Environment &
Climate News, Health Care News, and School Reform News – which present free-market
ideas as news rather than research or opinion.
# We promote the work of other free-market think tanks on our Web sites, in our newspapers,
at our events, and through our extensive Government Relations and Media Relations efforts.
Nobody else does more to promote the work of other think tanks than we do.
A telephone survey of randomly selected state and local elected officials conducted in 2014 found
74 percent of state legislators read at least one of our publications. Sixty-six percent say
Heartland publications are a useful source of information.
We appeared in print and online, and on television or radio, nearly 3,300 times in 2014. Our
Facebook page has nearly 100,000 fans. Heartland uses Twitter to promote its events and
free-market mission to nearly 10,000 followers every day.
Heartland’s annual budget of nearly $7 million supports a full-time staff of 37. Approximately
250 academics and professional economists participate in our peer-review process, and nearly
200 elected officials serve on our Legislative Forum. We are supported by the voluntary
contributions of approximately 5,500 supporters. We do not accept government funding.
Heartland is rigorously nonpartisan, working closely with Democrats and Republicans alike to
solve public policy problems. While our focus is on market-based solutions, 72 percent of state
Democratic legislators said they read at least one Heartland publication sometimes or always,
62 percent of those legislators said they consider one or more publications a useful source of
information, and 30 percent said a Heartland publication influenced their opinions or led to a
change in public policy.
For more information, please visit our Web site at www.heartland.org or call 312/377-4000.