New Hampshire committee hears hours of testimony on Article V measures, including HB 264 and HCR 3

Representative Jordan Uhlery, prime sponsor of HB 264 FN, told the House Committee on State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs that frequent constituent requests and a belief in states’ authority motivated his bill to regulate delegates to an Article V convention.

Why it matters: the measures touch the rarely-used Article V route for proposing constitutional amendments and raise practical and legal questions about how states may control delegates and about whether states should press Congress by applying for a convention.

Uhlery opened discussion by describing constituent pressure and a decade-long interest in using Article V to limit federal overreach. He framed HB 264 as a vehicle to allow states to instruct delegates and to penalize delegates who vote on amendments “not authorized by our legislature,” while pointing to the Supreme Court’s 2020 Chiafalo decision on faithless electors as precedent for state authority to bind delegates. “States have the absolute right to appoint whomsoever the state wishes,” he said.

Supporters including Samuel Fieldman, veteran Article V policy advocates and multiple members of the public urged the committee to advance measures that would require delegates to follow state instructions and/or protect the state’s application language. Fieldman told the committee he helped draft similar bills elsewhere and said the 2020 court rulings strengthen the case that states may regulate delegates. Dozens of private citizens, veterans and activists testified in favor of either HB 264 or HCR 3, saying the measures increase transparency and guardrails for any convention.

Opponents and questions: other lawmakers and several committee members pressed sponsors on details. Some asked how “legislative instructions” would be defined (speaker instruction vs. full-house vote), how rescissions of past state convention calls should be treated, and what penalty provisions would do in practice. Representatives asked whether similar bills had been vetoed previously and whether a criminal penalty — HB 264 proposes a class B felony in some forms — is appropriate.

Concurrent resolution HCR 3, introduced by Representative JD Bernardi, would send New Hampshire’s application to an Article V convention limited to three topic areas: fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials and members of Congress. Bernardi and several outside speakers argued the Article V route has a long history and can spur Congress into action even if a convention itself does not produce ratified amendments. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum addressed the committee and urged use of the Article V process to rein in federal spending and restore state authority.

Some members of the committee and several witnesses urged caution. Questions ranged from assurances about delegate-selection processes to whether a convention called by 34 states could be constrained in practice. Some witnesses and lawmakers urged the committee to pass companion measures that would specify delegate selection standards and faithful-delegate enforcement to reduce the risk of delegates exceeding state instructions.

What’s next: The committee ran a long public hearing with dozens of witnesses and did not take a final committee vote on HB 264 during the session excerpted in the transcript. Sponsors and multiple speakers urged the committee to move measures or refer them for further consideration so that the state’s options are clear should other states reach the 34-state threshold.

Ending: The Article V debate in Concord was prolonged, technical and bipartisan in tone at times: supporters arguing states must reclaim authority, and skeptics pressing for binding details and procedural safeguards. The committee has the option to advance either measure, amend them to add delegate-selection mechanics, or revisit the issues in an interim or fall package.