Committee approves resolution urging Article V convention for congressional term limits after split debate

Sen. Zay introduced Senate Joint Resolution 21 on behalf of supporters asking Indiana to join other states in urging an Article V convention to propose term limits for U.S. lawmakers. "I bring before you Senate Joint Resolution 21, which is calling convention for our federal counterparts to term limit themselves," he told the Judiciary Committee.

Supporters said the resolution is a way to pressure Congress to consider term limits. Les Chamblee, regional director for U.S. Term Limits, said the group seeks a favorable committee vote and noted past progress in other states. Mike Spedia, who identified himself as state chairman of U.S. Term Limits, said, "I have been a skeptic on this issue for many years... being a candidate for Congress has really kind of changed my entire view," and described Article V as a constitutionally provided mechanism to raise amendments when Congress is unresponsive.

Opponents urged caution and recommended against using an Article V convention as the vehicle for term limits. Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, testified: "Simply put, the article 5 convention is a dangerous threat to all Americans' constitutional rights and civil liberties." Barbara Tully, representing the League of Women Voters of Indianapolis and the League of Women Voters of Indiana, said the convention could "become runaway and overreach beyond stated goals," listing civil liberties and voting rights as examples of items that might be put on the table.

Committee members who spoke reflected that tension. Representative Zimmerman said he would vote yes as a pressure mechanism on Congress but acknowledged concerns about a runaway convention. Representative Meltzer said, "Although I support term limits for congress, an article 5 convention, in my opinion, is not the correct avenue," and voted no. Representative Prescott's stated concern was that term limits could shift institutional knowledge and influence to lobbyists and staff; he also voted no.

On a motion to pass, the committee recorded a 10-2 vote in favor of SJR 21. The committee discussion and roll call included multiple members explaining their votes on the record.

Why it matters: SJR 21 would be Indiana's formal request to the states' convention process under Article V of the U.S. Constitution; proponents describe the resolution as a leverage tool to encourage congressional action, while opponents warned that an Article V convention—because the Constitution provides no procedural rules—could consider broad constitutional changes beyond term limits.

The committee moved the resolution forward; next steps would follow the legislative calendar and chamber procedures.