Idaho House rejects resolution calling for an Article V convention after hours of debate

The Idaho House voted down House Concurrent Resolution 10, a measure calling on Congress to convene a convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, after extended floor debate on March 12, 2025. The roll-call result recorded in the House was 26 ayes and 44 nays, meaning the resolution failed to win a majority.

Supporters said the resolution would pressure Congress to act on structural federal problems, including the federal budget. “We have to stop this spending of money we don't have and keep borrowing,” said Representative, District 7, arguing the country’s fiscal trajectory justified the measure. Representative, District 3, who presented the resolution, described it as a three-part call — for a balanced-budget amendment, congressional term limits and a convention of states — and said the resolution included a seven-year sunset and allowed the legislature to rescind the call.

Opponents warned a convention could be open-ended and risk changing other constitutional protections. “There is absolutely no way to confine this convention to any topics whatsoever,” said Representative, District 19, citing a Congressional Research Service legal analysis and Supreme Court and historical precedents in arguing that limits on a convention’s scope would be difficult to enforce. Representative, District 13 said history shows conventions can deviate from their original mandate and that the country’s current political divisions raise the risk of “a runaway convention.”

Speakers on both sides invoked historical records and constitutional theory. Several members cautioned that even if a convention were intended for specific amendments, delegates chosen and procedures set by Congress and large states could produce outcomes that smaller states or many voters would not support. “We have no idea how those delegates would be assigned,” said Representative, District 14, who cited a 1973 federal proposal and the potential for proportional delegation by population.

The resolution’s sponsor and other supporters argued that a convention call is a legitimate constitutional tool and a way for states to press for federal reform: “The founders gave us the ability,” Representative, District 16 said. Supporters also said the requirement that proposed amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states is a strong safeguard.

Ultimately the House rejected the resolution; the clerk recorded the final vote as 26 ayes and 44 nays, short of the majority required for passage. Because the resolution failed, no further committee or enrollment action on this resolution will occur in the House record for this legislative day.

The debate illustrated a deep split in the chamber over the use of Article V and underscored how questions of federal fiscal policy, constitutional risk and political strategy are intersecting in state legislatures this session.