Lawmakers hear divided views on rescinding state's Article V convention applications

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a lengthy hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 4,003, a measure that would rescind all existing North Dakota legislative applications to call a convention to propose amendments under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Senator David Clemens, sponsor, said the resolution is designed to rescind the state's outstanding applications. "The dangers of an Article V convention of states is that the Constitution has no guidelines for such a convention," Clemens said, arguing that rules for voting, representation and scope would be decided by delegates at a convention rather than by legislatures.

Representative Jim Casper of Fargo urged the committee not to rescind North Dakota's past applications. Casper, who said he has attended mock conventions in 2017 and 2023, described how mock conventions operated, including selection of a chairman, subcommittees, floor debate and roll-call votes by state delegations. He said a convention's proposals still require ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures and that recall and oversight mechanisms exist in North Dakota statute to supervise delegates.

Public testimony split along familiar lines. Rose Christensen and several other witnesses urged rescission, arguing the convention route risks radical or unintended constitutional change and noting that a number of states have rescinded applications for some Article V mechanisms in recent years. Christensen urged legislators to "read it, honor it, and obey it" and said rescission would prevent efforts she described as a vehicle for wide constitutional revision.

Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action (appearing by video), disputed some factual claims in opposition testimony and defended the organization's efforts. Meckler told the committee that recent rescissions cited by opponents did not remove Convention of States applications and argued that the Article V remedy is a proper tool to address federal overreach, citing long-term federal debt and arguing Congress is unlikely to self-limit.

Several local residents and activists spoke on both sides. James Wardout (who also identified himself as a small-business owner) and other supporters said the difficulty of securing amendments through Congress justifies using Article V. Opponents, including Rose Christensen and other private citizens, said the risk of a "runaway" convention and the potential for constitutionalizing novel policy areas outweigh the benefits.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the mechanics of a convention, delegate selection, historical usage of Article V and whether recall provisions or statutory limits constrain delegates. Committee staff provided a list of North Dakota's prior resolutions going back to 1967, which opponents said should be rescinded; supporters said rescission would undo decades of state-level advocacy.

No committee vote or formal action was recorded at the close of the hearing.