Kansas House committee hears testimony on SCR 1604, an application for an Article V convention

The Kansas House committee held a hearing on SCR 16‑04 on an application for an Article V convention, where proponents urged legislators to ask Congress to call a limited convention to propose amendments constraining federal spending, limiting federal jurisdiction and imposing term limits, while opponents warned the move could be legally uncertain and allow broader topics such as gun policy or abortion to be considered.

Mike Haim of the Revisor's Office told the committee that the resolution, which he said passed the Senate 29‑11 on Feb. 27, asks the Kansas Legislature to apply to Congress under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to call a convention limited to three topics: fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power and terms of federal office. "It's a little broader than some of them," Haim said during his opening remarks.

Supporters including Bob Strouder, a Convention of States volunteer, and Ben Terrell, who identified himself as the volunteer legislative liaison for Convention of States in Kansas, argued the states must act because they view Congress and federal agencies as unaccountable. "I ask you to pass SCR 16‑04 to the floor and help make Kansas an applicant for an Article V convention of the states," Strouder told the panel. Terrell told the committee the group's petition counts in Kansas had grown from roughly 6,500 in 2016 to more than 47,800 signers.

Michael Farris, identified to the committee as the founder and author associated with the Convention of States project and appearing remotely, described what he called structural problems he attributes to federal agencies and court decisions and urged the committee to let Kansas join other states that have passed similar resolutions. "We have $36,000,000,000,000 and growing rapidly in debt," Farris said, arguing that Article V can provide permanent, enforceable restraints that temporary political efforts cannot.

Opponents voiced constitutional and practical concerns. John Axtell, volunteer coordinator for Kansas Campaign for Liberty, said the process cannot be controlled by states or delegates in the way proponents claim and cited Coleman v. Miller and other court precedent to argue Congress has broad authority over the amendment process. "This will be an open convention. Gun control, abortion, and other horrible topics could be on the table," Axtell said, and urged committee members to reject the resolution.

Committee members questioned proponents and legal witnesses about mechanics and legal risk. Representative Sanders asked whether the resolution mirrors an ongoing lawsuit over whether a two‑thirds vote is required in the Kansas Legislature; the panel heard that litigation is pending and that the Revisor's Office's position is that a two‑thirds threshold applies. Farris, who said he is lead counsel in related litigation, said a federal district judge has the case on briefs and a decision could be issued or oral argument scheduled at the judge's discretion.

Witnesses also discussed delegate selection, rescission of state applications and whether Congress or the courts would control the agenda and ratification. Proponents said states can bind the subject matter and that proposed amendments would still require ratification by three‑quarters of the states; opponents said court precedent and congressional control create substantial uncertainty about whether state applications would constrain a convention.

No formal committee vote on SCR 16‑04 was recorded in the hearing transcript. The committee did, however, later move and approve minutes for prior committee meetings: Representative Smough moved to accept the minutes from February and March sessions; Representative Miller seconded the motion; the committee approved the motion by voice vote.

The hearing included extended back‑and‑forth between members and witnesses on whether the resolution is necessary given other oversight efforts, how narrowly the convention could be constrained by subject matter language, and whether state constitutional provisions or litigated interpretations could block an application. The committee record includes multiple proponents and opponents and an ongoing legal contest over how state procedural rules interact with the federal Article V process.

The committee did not take further action on SCR 16‑04 during the hearing. Additional hearings and legislative steps were discussed for future floor consideration, and witnesses provided written testimony for the committee's record.