Vermont lawmaker outlines Article V 'Convention of States' application, colleagues raise guardrail concerns

Representative Mark Higley told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on Feb. 13 that he is sponsoring JRH 1, a joint resolution that would constitute an application under Article V of the U.S. Constitution asking Congress to call a convention of states to consider proposed amendments.

Higley, the lead sponsor and a representative from the Orleans area, told the committee he participated in a Convention of States simulation and stressed that Article V provides two routes to amend the Constitution: Congress may propose amendments with two-thirds support in both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures (34) may apply to Congress to call a convention. He said the convention process limits delegates to the subjects stated in the applications and that each state would have one vote at the convention.

Committee members said the resolution raises questions about who would select delegates, how delegates would be bound to an agenda and which outside organizations are driving the effort.

"We have the option to consider whether that's something we want to sign on to," Higley said, framing the resolution as a vehicle for issues members have raised to him, including term limits and federal fiscal restraint. As an example from a simulation, he described proposed term limits that would bar election to the U.S. House after nine full terms and to the U.S. Senate after three full terms, with a 24-year total service cap; he presented that example as illustrative of what can emerge at a convention rather than as text in the current resolution.

Representative Waters Evans asked about ties between the Convention of States movement and Citizens for Self-Governance and raised concern about partisan sponsorship and undisclosed donors. "It seems like the driving force behind it is partisan, which gives me concern," Waters Evans said.

Representative Stowe and others pressed Higley on delegate selection and procedural guardrails. Stowe noted Article V does not specify how each state's legislature must choose delegates and asked how a one-state/one-vote rule would account for vast population differences among states. Another member called the resolution "too vague," saying it lacks limits on what could be debated once a convention convened.

Higley said the movement has progressed over a decade: he listed about 19 states that have passed similar applications and said the effort is not tied to any single federal administration. He also described a fiscal-constraint proposal discussed at a simulation session that would cap federal expenditures relative to prior-year revenues or the share of GDP, and cited the U.S. national debt figure as of Feb. 10, 2025 ($36.22 trillion) as background to why some constituents seek fiscal rules.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized the difference between public comments and formal committee action. No formal committee vote on JRH 1 was recorded at the Feb. 13 meeting. The discussion closed with Higley offering to provide materials from the simulation and take follow-up questions from members.

Looking ahead, committee members signaled more questions and potential requests for background on the Convention of States movement, its funding and the legal procedures by which delegates would be selected and bound.

A list of states Higley said had submitted Article V applications during his remarks included Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Indiana, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, North Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Nebraska, West Virginia and South Carolina; he said 19 states had applications as of his remarks.