Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rescind Article5 Resolutions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mass. hearing spotlights broad support for rescinding old Article V applications
Summary
Advocates and civic groups urged the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs to report favorably on joint resolutions (H4692/S2684) that would rescind decades-old Massachusetts calls for a federal constitutional convention, saying the old resolutions could be misused to pressure Congress.
Advocates from across the political spectrum urged the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs to approve joint resolutions to rescind decades-old Article V applications that, they said, could be repurposed to help convene a federal constitutional convention.
Supporters told the committee that removing outdated state calls from the record would prevent well-funded national groups from counting Massachusetts among states that have sought a constitutional convention. Jeff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said the joint resolutions "would rescind all previous Article 5 convention applications" and asked the committee to "give a favorable report" so Massachusetts would no longer be used toward the 34-state threshold proponents cite.
Why it matters: Witnesses said that because Article V provides two paths to amend the U.S. Constitution — through Congress or through a convention called when two-thirds of states petition — longstanding state applications on file in Washington could be aggregated or cited to reach the convention threshold. Several speakers pointed to a 1977 Massachusetts application seeking a nationwide abortion ban as an example of a resolution that no longer reflects current Commonwealth values.
What witnesses said: Nancy Brumbach of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts told the committee the League "strongly opposes" an Article V constitutional convention unless Congress first establishes rules on the composition and procedures of such a convention. Gavi Wolf of the ACLU warned the committee that "Massachusetts will not be party to haphazardly tinkering with and undermining the United States Constitution," and urged quick passage of rescission language.
Labor and health-care groups also supported rescission. Chrissy Lynch, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, said a convention could put labor protections and federal standards at risk, and Jim Durkin of AFSCME Council 93 urged the committee to join "the growing list of states that have passed similar resolutions over the past four years." Claire Tigloonie of Reproductive Equity Now and Mason of the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts described the 1977 abortion-related resolution as inconsistent with Massachusetts' record on reproductive care and urged removal.
What the resolution does and next steps: The joint resolutions under consideration would remove prior Massachusetts Article V applications from the Commonwealth's records and direct the General Court to inform Congress that those prior applications no longer reflect the state's current position. Committee members did not take a final vote on the rescission measures during the public hearing; the public testimony portion concluded by voice vote after witnesses finished giving testimony.
