Witnesses tell oversight committee to reject Article V convention resolution and related bill, warning of a 'Trojan horse'

The House Government Oversight Committee heard testimony opposing House Joint Resolution 2 and House Bill 67, with several witnesses telling the committee an Article V (convention of states) approach risks a "runaway" convention that could alter core constitutional protections.

Dr. John Dimond, who opened the panel of opponents, said the convention movement is dangerous and called it "a Trojan horse," warning that proposed alternative constitutions would permit broad federal regulation and erode the original limitations on Congressional power. "This convention of states is a Trojan horse," he said, urging members to preserve the Constitution.

Several witnesses, including Ellen Horton and Mr. Tuttle, grounded their opposition in legal analysis. Horton highlighted Article V's text and cited the Legal Services Commission analysis, saying the Constitution "identifies Congress as the authority that controls all aspects of a constitutional convention" and that past amendments have been proposed by Congress. Mr. Tuttle told the committee, "There are 0 rules that are agreed upon," and warned that HB67 — sometimes called a "faithful delegate" or procedural bill — would be only a placebo that state law could not enforce once a national convention convened.

Tom Rice, a retired history teacher who testified against both measures, told lawmakers a convention carries the same risk of going beyond its remit as the 1787 Philadelphia gathering. "Why take that fear in that chance?" he asked, urging lawmakers to rely on the existing amendment process through Congress and the states.

The question-and-answer exchanges focused on legal precedent and the division of authority between the states and Congress. Representative Gross asked whether the Supreme Court decision Chiafalo v. Washington provides a precedent for state control of delegates. Mr. Tuttle and other witnesses said Chiafalo is limited to presidential electors and that its reasoning does not create a general rule allowing states to bind or control delegates to an Article V convention.

Witnesses repeatedly pointed to federal case law and Congressional Research Service work that, in their view, treat Article V as a federal function in which Congress has authority to set subsidiary rules: who calls the convention, how delegates are selected, and procedural details. They argued that because those powers are not explicitly assigned to states in the Constitution, a state statute such as HB67 could not reliably bind delegates or guarantee that a convention would remain limited to the topics a state has attempted to constrain.

Committee members pressed for clarifications on process, vote thresholds and possible unintended consequences. Witnesses noted that two-thirds of states (34) must apply for a convention and three-quarters (38) of states must ratify proposed amendments, and several warned that the long timeframe to reach such thresholds makes outcomes unpredictable.

No formal votes occurred during the session. The committee concluded the fourth hearing on HB67 and HJR2 and stood adjourned; committee members left prior to votes being taken.

The committee received extensive testimony and legal citations during the hearing; participants urged lawmakers to consider the potential for judicial disputes, procedural uncertainty and far-reaching, unintended constitutional changes before endorsing an Article V path or state-level laws intended to limit a convention's scope.