Kansas committee hears hours of pro and con testimony on Article V 'convention of states' resolution

The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee on Wednesday heard nearly two hours of testimony on Senate Concurrent Resolution 1604, a proposal to ask Congress to call an Article V convention of the states to propose amendments “to impose limits on the federal government.”

The resolution, introduced for a committee hearing, would be Kansas’ formal application to Congress under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Committee staffer Jason delivered a bill brief explaining that, if adopted by the Legislature, SCR 1604 would join other states applying for a convention limited to topics listed in the resolution: fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials.

Supporters, including David Schneider and Ben Terrell of the Convention of States movement and Michael Farris, a constitutional lawyer and co‑founder of the Convention of States Project, urged the committee to pass the resolution. Terrell said the movement now counts “over 47,600 petitioners across the state” and called for Kansas to become the 20th state to join similar applications. “We ask you to help us restore Lincoln’s vision of government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” Terrell said.

Farris, who identified himself as lead counsel in related litigation, defended the Article V process and said courts have long rejected efforts to change procedural rules in the middle of an amendment process. “You can’t change the rules in the middle of the stream,” he said, arguing that any convention must be limited to the topics agreed by two‑thirds of the states and that proposed amendments would still require ratification by three‑fourths of the states.

Opponents told the committee the convention path risks overriding the Kansas Constitution and the oath legislators swore to uphold it. Daniel Chase said asking Congress for a convention “is shameful” if it enables the Legislature to ignore the state constitution. John Axtell of Kansas Campaign for Liberty argued that legal precedent and an attorney general opinion show a federal forum could allow delegates to act outside state limits, and he urged members to vote against SCR 1604.

Committee members asked procedural and practical questions about how delegates would be selected, what topics could be considered and the status of ongoing litigation. Senator Gossage asked whether the resolution itself would constitute Kansas’ application; Jason confirmed it would. Senator Clifford and others asked Michael Farris about the pending federal case; Farris said briefs are filed and he expects the federal court to rule on whether state constitutional requirements may be applied to the Article V application process.

Committee staff noted the mechanics: Article V requires applications from two‑thirds of the states (34) to compel Congress to call a convention and any proposed amendments must be ratified by three‑fourths of the states (38). Proponents said 19 states currently have similar measures in force; opponents disputed legal safety and urged caution.

No committee vote was taken. Chairman Thompson closed the hearing and said the committee will receive a briefing from the secretary of state’s office at a later date and that written testimony from additional proponents and opponents has been filed and is part of the record.

The record shows a split between proponents who framed SCR 1604 as a state‑level corrective to federal overreach and opponents who warned the measure could permit delegates to act beyond state law. The committee did not take final action on the resolution at Wednesday’s hearing.