Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Convention Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects Senate bill creating Article V delegate selection rules
Summary
The House declined to concur with Senate Bill 120, a measure that would have established qualifications, selection rules and oversight for commissioners to attend a potential Article V convention. The motion to concur failed 41–59 after floor debate raised constitutional and practical objections.
The Montana House of Representatives on the floor voted not to concur with Senate Bill 120, legislation that would have created a framework for selecting, monitoring and removing commissioners who might attend a future Article V convention to propose constitutional amendments.
Why it matters: SB120 would have set qualifications, selection procedures, gift limits and recall rules for Article V commissioners. Supporters said the bill prepares the state for the possibility of an Article V convention; opponents said the bill exceeds the powers reserved to Congress and risks creating a false sense of security about controlling delegates at a constitutional convention.
Representative Clacken moved concurrence of SB120 on behalf of the Senate sponsor and described the bill as a “preparation bill” that includes qualifications, rules about quorum and a $200 gift limit. “This bill is a preparation bill,” Clacken said on the House floor, outlining provisions that define commissioners, address vacancies, require an odd number of commissioners and limit gifts to $200.
Opponents argued the measure was unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional. Representative Love said states have limited powers in Article V and that Congress retains authority to set rules for a convention, including the selection and qualifications of delegates. “How can a state decide what the delegation nomination will be for an Article V convention when the state does not have the authority in the U.S. Constitution or an Article 5 to make the rules?” Love asked.
Representative Mallette described SB120 as “deceptive, unnecessary, structurally flawed, and a waste of our time,” arguing the bill could be used to ease passage of future convention applications by creating the impression that a state can fully control commissioners’ behavior.
On the roll call, the House recorded 41 votes to concur and 59 to not concur; the motion to concur therefore failed and the House did not accept the Senate amendments embodied in SB120.
What the bill would have done: Floor discussion outlined several substantive provisions in the bill — nine stated qualifications for commissioners, a requirement that the delegation include an odd number of commissioners, procedures for filling vacancies, a $200 cap on gifts and emoluments, quorum and voting rules for the delegation, and a section describing removal or recall procedures for commissioners that critics said acknowledged the risk of a “runaway convention.”
Next steps: Because the House did not concur, SB120’s proposed statutory scheme for Article V commissioners will not take effect via House concurrence. Any further action would require reconsideration, amendment, or a different legislative vehicle. The vote leaves Montana’s statutory approach to a potential Article V convention unchanged.
