Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah legislators split after extended debate over rescinding call for constitutional convention
Summary
After testimony from national and federal witnesses, the House initially approved a motion on the constitutional‑convention resolution but later failed a reconsideration, leaving Utah's call unresolved; testimony focused on whether an Article V convention can be limited.
The Utah House held an extensive floor hearing and debate on House Joint Resolution 14, which concerns the state's earlier call for a federal constitutional convention to propose a balanced‑budget amendment. The chamber heard two invited witnesses with opposing views: Don Fotheringham, national director of the Committee to Save the Constitution, and U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch.
Don Fotheringham argued the convention process poses an uncontrolled risk. "It is doubtful that congress has this power to limit the convention to the proposal of amendments on a single subject," he told the House, citing law‑school commentaries and historical precedent. Fotheringham cited letters and opinions from legal scholars that, he said, supported withdrawing state calls to avoid a 'runaway' convention.
Senator Hatch urged members not to rescind the state's participation and argued that multiple checks exist. "The cure is the balanced budget amendment... Without your call for a constitutional convention, there will be no balanced budget amendment," Hatch said, stressing that Congress and the states retain procedural safeguards, and that ratification still requires three‑quarters of states.
Representatives questioned both witnesses in an alternating exchange. Supporters of rescission pointed to historical examples where state legislatures were circumvented by the use of state ratifying conventions (the 1933 repeal of Prohibition was cited) and warned of the precedent of a convention exceeding its mandate. Opponents emphasized the strategic leverage a convention call gives states to press Congress on federal fiscal policy.
Procedurally, the House recorded an initial roll call that showed 39 in favor and 34 opposed; members then moved to reconsider. On the subsequent recorded vote after reconsideration, the substitute resolution received 35 affirmative and 36 negative votes and failed. The later failure ended the chamber's immediate effort to rescind the state's earlier call.
The debate underscored deep differences among members about constitutional risk, the proper use of Article V tools, and how to press for federal fiscal restraint. Law professors and legal precedent were invoked on both sides; the hearing did not produce a settled legal answer but did produce a narrow final vote.
