Committee hears sponsor testimony for resolution calling an Article V convention to propose congressional term limits

Representative Jason Workman presented sponsor testimony for House Joint Resolution 3 to the House Government Oversight Committee, asking Ohio to join other states in using Article V of the U.S. Constitution to pursue a single-subject amendment that would impose term limits on members of the United States Congress.

Workman told the committee the resolution is intended to "apply meaningful pressure on Washington" and said the measure is limited to a single subject to prevent an open-ended convention. He cited a January 2025 RMG Research poll he said found 78% of Ohio voters support placing term limits on Congress and 77% favor Ohio calling for a convention to enact those limits. "This resolution is not about punishing experience. It is about restoring opportunity," Workman said.

The nut graf: the resolution would be a state-level request that, if adopted by 34 states, could trigger an Article V convention to propose a constitutional amendment on congressional term limits. Workman told the committee 11 states have passed similar resolutions and argued Congress has historically responded before a full convention was convened.

Committee members pressed Workman on the legal and practical risks of a convention. Representative Groves asked how a convention would be limited to a single subject when the Constitution does not explicitly provide that limitation. Workman responded that delegates would "be required to be sovereign to their state because the state legislators select their delegates," and that the sponsors expect Congress to act preemptively as states approach the 34-state threshold, citing past constitutional changes when states pressured Congress.

Several committee members raised the historical and structural questions repeatedly discussed in debates over Article V, including whether delegates would be bound by state instructions and whether a convention could become "runaway." Workman reiterated his view that the measure functions primarily as a tool to encourage congressional action rather than to guarantee a convention will convene.

No vote or formal committee action occurred; the hearing concluded after the sponsor's testimony and questions. The committee moved on to the next agenda item.

Ending: The committee recorded the first hearing on HJR 3 and took no final action at the session; proponents and opponents may present further testimony or amendments at later committee meetings if the bill advances.