Arizona House passes resolution asking Congress to call Article V convention on term limits
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The Arizona House on Feb. 4 passed House Concurrent Resolution 2043, asking Congress to call a constitutional convention limited to proposing federal term limits; the measure passed 33–24 with three members not voting after a floor debate that split lawmakers over constitutional risk and political optics.
PHOENIX — The Arizona House of Representatives voted on Feb. 4 to pass House Concurrent Resolution 2043, a memorial to Congress asking it to call a constitutional convention under Article V to propose term limits for federal officeholders. The measure passed 33 ayes, 24 nays, with three members not voting, and the Clerk was instructed to send the resolution to the Senate.
Supporters framed the resolution as a means to pressure Congress to enact term limits. Representative Collin said the resolution provides a mechanism to narrow a convention’s scope and noted Arizona has used constitutional‑call procedures before; Representative Wenninger cited Article V as the proper constitutional path and said the measure would address long tenures he said harm governance. Several members who voted aye said they had signed term‑limits pledges and urged pressure on federal lawmakers.
Opponents warned the resolution could invite an open, uncontrolled convention that might consider changes beyond term limits. Representative Gutierrez said the U.S. Constitution offers no guarantees about the workings of an Article V convention and called convening one at this time “extremely, extremely bad for our communities.” Representative Patty Contreras said language in the resolution referencing a limited convention was insufficient to prevent other constitutional changes and urged a no vote.
Other members urged consistency: Representative Powell said Arizona should consider state term limits first if it expected credibility in urging Congress to act. Representative Fink and others raised constitutional history and judicial precedents in explaining their votes.
The vote followed extensive floor explanations from members on both sides. The resolution does not itself change federal law; it is a state‑level request that would need action by Congress and, if an Article V convention were called, subsequent ratification by the states. The House conveyed the resolution to the Senate after the vote.