List of rescissions of Article V Convention applications

Article V of the United States Constitution provides that the legislatures of the several states may apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Left unclear, however, is whether a state's legislature which has applied to Congress for such a convention may later change its sentiment and rescind such application.

If the purpose of Article V is to give state legislators power over a recalcitrant Congress—and if state lawmakers may indeed limit their applications by specific subject matter—it is possible that, if the question were ever put before them, federal courts would hold that a rescission of a previous application is likewise valid, in order to give more meaningful effect to the power which Article V confers upon state legislators.

Recent activities The legislatures of some states which, at various times, have made application to Congress for the calling of an Article V amendatory convention, have later rescinded such petitions. During the period between 1988 and 2026, it is known that lawmakers in 30 states adopted legislation to rescind previous legislative measures to apply for such a convention. Perhaps there were others in addition to the 30 which are confirmed and listed below. Remaining unclear from the language of Article V—and subject to debate—is whether an application, once made by a state legislature, may be subsequently revoked by that state's legislature.

From 2008 to 2026 in 13 of those very same 30 states, lawmakers changed their minds yet again—back in the direction of favoring that an Article V amendatory convention in fact be called.

List of state legislative rescissions (1988–2025) What follows is a listing of states whose legislatures are confirmed to have approved resolutions and memorials rescinding previous resolutions and memorials applying for an Article V amendatory convention. These known rescissions from 30 states have been officially received by at least one of the two houses of Congress and were, at a minimum, summarized in the Congressional Record and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in either house of Congress. Again, the list below, covering 1988 to present, might not be all-inclusive:

Alabama rescinding in 1988 (both House Joint Resolution No. 26 [POM-311, Volume 135 Congressional Record, page 20052 and POM-434, Volume 136 Congressional Record, page 4663] as well as House Joint Resolution No. 182 [POM-433, Volume 136 Congressional Record, page 4663]); but in 2011, Alabama legislators approved Senate Joint Resolution No. 100, reprising Alabama's application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution—thus going on record once again on that specific topic after Alabama's 1975 and 1976 applications for the same thing had been repealed by Alabama's two rescissions in 1988; and in 2015, Alabama lawmakers further applied for a convention relative to fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials—including members of Congress (House Joint Resolution No. 112); most recently, Alabama legislators adopted in 2018, House Joint Resolution No. 23 proposing a federal constitutional amendment that limits the number of terms of office a person may serve as a Member of the United States House of Representatives and as a Member of the United States Senate; Florida rescinding in 1988 (Senate Memorial No. 302) [POM-549, Volume 134 Congressional Record, page 15363]; but in 2010, Florida legislators approved Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 10, reprising Florida's application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution—thus going on record once again on that specific topic after Florida's 1976 application for the same thing had been repealed by Florida's 1988 rescission; four years later in 2014, Florida lawmakers again applied for a convention relative to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced (Senate Memorial No. 658); not stopping there, 2014 Florida legislators also applied for a convention relative to amendments that would place fiscal restraints upon the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office of federal officials—including members of Congress (Senate Memorial No. 476); as well as applying, likewise in 2014, for a convention for an amendment to require that legislation in Congress contain only one subject and that the one subject must be clearly expressed in the measure's title (House Memorial No. 261); and in 2016, Florida lawmakers further applied for a convention relative to term limits on Members of Congress (House Memorial No. 417); Nevada Assembly members attempted a structurally-flawed, one-house rescission in 1989 with their adoption of Assembly Resolution No. 20 ("FILE NUMBER 157") [POM-181, Volume 135 Congressional Record, page 14573] issuing the unusual instruction to the Nevada Assembly's Chief Clerk to "...draw a black border around the portion of the 1979 Assembly Journal whereby the Assembly passed Senate Joint Resolution No. 8 and write across the face thereof: 'Expunged by order of the Assembly this 24th day of June, 1989...'"; but, in 2017, Nevada lawmakers succeeded in a proper, two-house, umbrella-style rescission with their adoption of Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 (see below); Louisiana rescinding in 1990 (House Concurrent Resolution No. 218) [POM-288, Volume 138 Congressional Record, page 669]; but in 2008, Louisiana lawmakers again applied for a convention—to place into the Constitution the statutory Posse Comitatus Act originally enacted by Congress in 1878 (House Concurrent Resolution No. 38); and a separate entreat three years later, in 2011, for a convention relative to an amendment requiring that a majority of state legislatures approve any increase in the federal government's debt (House Concurrent Resolution No. 87); and three years after that, in 2014, Louisiana legislators approved House Concurrent Resolution No. 70, reprising Louisiana's plural applications for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution—thus going on record once again on that specific topic after Louisiana's plural applications during the 1970s for the same thing had been among the casualties of Louisiana's umbrella-rescission in 1990; most recently, in 2016, the Louisiana Legislature applied for a convention "...for the purpose of proposing amendments to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints upon its activities, and limit the terms of office that may be served by its officials and by members of Congress" (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 52); Idaho rescinding in 1999 (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 129) [POM-410, Volume 146 Congressional Record, pages 1449–1450]; Oregon rescinding in 1999 (Senate Joint Memorial No. 9) [POM-393, Volume 146 Congressional Record, page 95]; North Dakota rescinding in 2001 (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4028) [POM-8, Volume 147 Congressional Record, page 5905]; but a decade later, in 2011, North Dakota lawmakers submitted to Congress two applications—one asking for a convention relative to an amendment requiring that a majority of the state legislatures approve any increase in the federal government's debt (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4007); and a separate request for a convention relative to an amendment which would negate concerns about a "runaway" Article V Convention (House Concurrent Resolution No. 3048); in 2013, during North Dakota's 63rd Legislative Assembly, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4016 was offered ("A concurrent resolution to rescind an application made by the Sixty‑second Legislative Assembly to the Congress of the United States to call a convention pursuant to the terms of Article V of the United States Constitution for proposing an amendment to the Constitution") which—had it passed—would have rescinded the aforementioned House Concurrent Resolution No. 3048 from 2011; on February 27, 2013, S.C.R. No. 4016 "was declared lost" on a voice vote; and in 2015, North Dakota legislators approved House Concurrent Resolution No. 3015, reprising North Dakota's application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution—thus going on record once again on that specific topic after North Dakota's 1975 application for the same thing had been among the casualties of North Dakota's umbrella-rescission in 2001; and in 2017, North Dakota lawmakers approved House Concurrent Resolution No. 3006, applying for a convention for an amendment that would place fiscal restraints upon the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress; Utah rescinding in 2001 (House Joint Resolution No. 15) [POM-197, Volume 147 Congressional Record, page 19025]; but in 2015, Utah lawmakers approved House Joint Resolution No. 7, reprising Utah's application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution—thus going on record once again on that specific topic after Utah's 1979 application for the same thing had been among the casualties of Utah's umbrella-rescission in 2001; and in 2019, Utah lawmakers approved Senate Joint Resolution No. 9, again applying for a convention relative to fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress; Arizona rescinding in 2003 (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1022) [POM-125, Volume 149 Congressional Record, page 12844]; but in 2017, Arizona legislators approved House Concurrent Resolution No. 2013, reprising Arizona's application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution—thus going on record once again on that specific topic after Arizona's 1977 application for the same thing had been among the casualties of Arizona's umbrella-rescission in 2003; and, likewise in 2017, Arizona lawmakers further applied for a convention relative to an amendment placing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials—including members of Congress (House Concurrent Resolution No. 2010); Georgia rescinding in 2004 (House Resolution No. 1343) [Memorial 349, Volume 150 Congressional Record, page 11124]; but in 2014, Georgia legislators approved Senate Resolution No. 371, reprising Georgia's application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution—thus going on record once again on that specific topic after Georgia's 1976 application for the same thing had been among the casualties of Georgia's umbrella-rescission in 2004; and, likewise in 2014, Georgia lawmakers further applied for a convention to propose amendments that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for federal officials—including members of Congress (Senate Resolution No. 736); South Carolina rescinding in 2004 ("H. 3400") [POM-187, Volume 160 Congressional Record, page S367, soft-cover preliminary edition] Note: It took nearly a full decade for South Carolina's 2004 rescission to officially find its way onto the pages of the Congressional Record, together with referral to committee in each body; in 2022, South Carolina lawmakers approved "H. 3205" applying for a convention relative to fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress;