Page Five B

Page 5 B--COS, CFA State Laws

The purpose of this page is to present the text of all applications and state laws submitted by the states dealing a "convention of states" or "compact" to propose amendments. The page will also present any non COS/CFA state laws untented to regulate an Article V Convention. Publication of any application however is subject to publication first appearing in the Congressional Record as proof the application was actually transmitted to Congress. Due to the complexities of some state legislature's web sites, FOAVC has, in some instances, been unable to locate the appropriate application or legislation. This missing information is noted below. FOAVC would appreciate anyone who can provide a link to the needed information contacting us at questions@foavc.org.

FOAVC believes in the principle of Res Ipsa Louquitur--let the facts speak for themselves. FOAVC also believes people should have the opportunity to make up their minds on an issue based on original material rather than an interpretation by some individual or group. For this reason FOAVC is presenting copies of the actual applications and state laws thus far enacted in regards to COS/CFA. A brief description of the state applications and state law from each state is next to the state's outline. This said however FOAVC feels duty bound to point out some facts about these state laws:

There is nothing in any COS law which limits what "instructions" the small group of legislators controlling the convention may give to the COS convention once it is convened. While COS may present one political agenda in order to ensure passage of these laws and associated applications for a COS convention, once convened, an entirely different set of "instructions" may be given to the delegates to create new amendments not even mentioned by COS during its campaign. As discussed previously, even in the "simulated" convention held by COS in September, 2016, the convention violated its own COS rules.

There is nothing preventing the legislatures from ratifying and proposing an amendment at the same time. As demonstrated by the CFA Compact there is nothing preventing the legislature from giving instructions to the convention to propose an amendment and simultaneously ratifying that proposal. This is why the Founders wisely did not allow for state legislatures to have the power to both propose and ratify amendments. As observed by Alexander Hamilton at the 1787 convention, "State Legislatures will not apply for alterations [of the Constitution] but with a view to increase their own powers." The COS/CFA laws exclude the American people from any participation in the amendment process. Therefore the people have no ability to prevent simultaneous proposal/ratification from occurring. This not true if the convention is elected as the people control the proposal process leaving the state legislatures to decide whether they will go along or not with that proposal. Thus two politically separate groups decide on an amendment proposal; under COS/CFA a single political group, the state legislatures, (or a small subsection of them) decide the question of an amendment proposal.

The passage of these state laws to prevent a "runaway convention" is a political ruse. These laws are not intended to prevent a "runaway" convention but in fact promote it in order to advance the political agenda of COS/CFA by removing the one obstacle to that agenda--the American public. There is nothing in these laws preventing a "runaway" state legislature controlled by COS/CFA. Further, Congress officially dealt with the question of a "runaway" convention in 1787 and officially determined there never was a "runaway" convention, that is, the convention operated within and according to the instructions given it by Congress on Feburary 21, 1787.

Appointment by the state legislature of convention delegates rather than election by the people (whose election is specifically stated in the law and thus subject to the law) is forbidden by federal law. Federal law makes it a crime to "directly or indirectly, promise any employment [or] position ...provided or or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress...to any person as consideration, favor or reward for any political activity." (Click image left to enlarge).

Obviously, the law is intended to ensure that persons who are "appointed" by the various members of the state legislatures will obey the "instructions" or are close political allies of the politician making the appointment. Politics is all about scratching--"you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours," goes the old saying. It means you do me a political favor, I'll do you one. How would a politician choose someone who he is relatively sure will obey his "instructions" and vote the way he instructs? By knowing that person has done him political favors in the past (or heavily contributed to his political campaign) and, as a reward, appoint him to the position of delegate or commissioner to the convention. Federal law prohibits this from occurring where an act of Congress is involved. Article V of the Constitution mandates Congress call the convention. Such action is clearly "an Act of Congress." State laws calling for a convention "called by the states" are clearly unconstitutional.

State laws which coerce a convention delegate to vote in favor of a pre-determined political agenda violate federal criminal law. Federal law makes it a crime to "directly or indirectly, knowingly cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) [such as serving as an appointed delegate to a COS convention] for the benefit of any candidate or any political party by means of denial or deprivation of... any employment, position, or work in or for...a State...if such employment, position, work, compensation, payment, or benefit is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress..." State laws which threaten felony arrest for failure to follow "instructions" as well as provisions which call for the removal of the delegate from his position of state government clearly violate this federal law.

Federal criminal further provides the term "election" includes "the election of delegates to a constitutional convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States..." (Click image right to enlarge). COS/CFA might argue the state laws which do not permit election by the people and thus are in direct violation of federal law do not apply as the "commissioners" are "elected" by the state legislatures. This is incorrect.

Federal law defines the word "election" by the use of several examples of "elections." These include a "general", "special primary" and "runoff election." The law also describes a "primary election" of delegates to a political convention. All these examples of election described by law share a common trait: all are elections directly involving the American public who directly elects the candidate in question. None of the examples cited involve "election" by state legislators. Further the purpose of an election is to obtain consent from the people directly authorizing a candidate to hold and exercise the powers of a particular office. Without that consent any person occupying that office or attempting to exercise the powers of that office acts illegally as he is not qualified under federal law to hold that office.

As with all other offices and events described in the law, federal law does not make an exception or qualification for the "election" of delegates to a "convention for proposing amendments." The word "election" automatically excludes the appointment by the state legislature and requires direct election by the people of candidates for the office of delegate to a convention for proposing amendments (an Article V Convention). Therefore appointment by state legislature to that office violates federal criminal law. The word "election" as described by the examples of election used in federal law clearly refers to the public event routinely associated with the word "election." That word was equally, and deliberately was intended to, apply to the election of Article V Convention delegates.

Further, federal law describes the term "candidate" for office as a person having "taken the action necessary under the law of a State to qualify himself for election..." All the state laws shown below establish certain minimum standards a person must meet in order to be selected by the state legislature (but not the American people) to the office of delegate or commissioner to a Convention of States or Compact for America convention. The person "appointed" to the COS/CFA office may have taken the actions necessary under state law to qualify himself for the appointment but under federal law is not legally qualified to assume office because federal law mandates the candidate must be "elected" by the people not appointed by the state legislature.

Since the "appointed" candidates from the various states are illegal under federal law and as the courts have ruled states operate under federal law when involved in the amendatory process, this means any "commissioner" appointed by the state legislature who has not been elected by the people cannot legally exercise the authority granted the convention in the Constitution meaning the COS/CFA convention the state laws contemplate is illegal under federal law. Therefore that convention cannot legally propose amendments to the United States Constitution as the people have not consented through election to authorize those delegates to have that authority as described by federal law.

The removal of the right to vote when otherwise guaranteed by historic intention of the Federal Convention of 1787, the Supreme Court and federal law raises another issue--deprivation of civil rights. This includes not only the removal of the right to vote from the American people but also the threat of felony prosecution against convention "commissioners" (or whatever term is used in the various state laws to describing convention delegates controlled by the state legislatures) for exercising their right of vote at the convention.

Federal law (click images left to enlarge) make it illegal to "threaten or intimate any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same." Further federal law makes it illegal "under color of any law" to willfully subject any person to "deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States...to different punishments...than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens."

There is no law in the United States or in any state which "punishes" a citizen for voting in an election (except for these state laws) by depriving them of the right to vote in that election which is guaranteed by federal law. There is no law which "punishes" an officeholder in any office for voting as he thinks best (except in these state laws) by depriving that officeholder of his right of vote and arresting him for exercising a right guaranteed by provisions in the Constitution. As federal laws create the right to vote on convention delegates state laws which prohibit or prevent the "free exercise or enjoyment" of that right conflict with federal civil rights law.

Clicking on the icon will bring up a page showing the material obtained from the official records of the state legislature. In the matter of Convention of States laws and applications FOAVC has elected to present all applications or laws (recognized or not by Convention of States) in which the application or law refers to a "convention of states." In some instances FOAVC will reference material within the official documents it believes may be of interest to the reader. The files presented are updated as new information is received.

The state of Alabama enacted HJR 112 on May 22, 2015 as it COS application. The resolution requires state laws regulating convention delegates. HJR 112 requests the political agenda expressed by COS as described elsewhere in this website.

Despite the requirements of HJR 112, FOAVC has been unable to locate any Alabama state law dealing with the regulation of convention delegates.

The state of Alaska enacted a "Countermand" application under HCR14 as its "convention of states" application which was permanent enrolled as Legislative Resolution 49 on September 15, 2016. Despite claims by COS that Alaska passed a "convention of states" application Resolution 46 only addresses a "Countermand" or nullification amendment. It does use the term "convention of states" but only in its opening remarks. FOAVC has been unable to locate any state record showing the Alaska state legislature has, in fact, passed a "convention of states" application supporting the COS political agenda.

The state of Alaska enacted Legislative Resolution 46 which was permanently enrolled on September 23, 2016. The resolution deals with the regulation of convention delegates from the state of Alaska to a convention for proposing amendments. The delegates are "representatives of the legislature" and therefore not considered "free agents" and only are "authorized" to complete the terms specified in Resolution 46. Delegates are strictly limited only to support a "Countermand" or nullification amendment meaning they are not authorized to support neither the COS or CFA agenda.

On February 18, 2019, the legislature of the state of Arkansas enacted SJR 3, an application applying for a convention of states. The application lists the agenda of Convention of States and expresses that power to name convention delegates "remains exclusively within the authority of the legislatures of the several states." The application further provides, "The General Assembly may provide further instructions to its delegates and may recall its delegates at any time for a breach of a duty or a violation of the instructions provided; and delegates are bound to the instructions provided by the General Assembly and a failure to follow the instructions provided constitutes a breach of the delegate's duty and subjects them to recall and replacement."

The state of Florida enacted SM 476, an application for a convention for proposing amendments on May 9, 2014. According to a COS news release COS claims this application as COS application. However while the application does support the political agenda of COS, it contains no language referring to a "convention of states" but instead refers to an "Article V Convention."

The state of Florida enacted CS/HB 609 on July 1, 2014 enrolled in Florida Code as Title 50, Section 38. The law establishes the regulation of convention delegates and provides for criminal felony prosecution (page 9) (felony in the third degree) of up to five years in prison or a fine up to $5,000 for failure of any convention delegate to follow instructions of the state legislature. The law calls for delegate selection by the legislature.

The state of Georgia enacted SR 736 as its COS application on April 22, 2014. The application matches the political agenda of COS.

The state of Georgia amended Georgia State Code, Title 50, adding Section 38 dealing with a Compact for a Balanced Budget on April 12, 2014. The compact requires delegate selection by the state legislature only. The state legislature also enacted GA Code 28-6-8 regulating the appointment of delegates. The law applies several qualifications specified under GA Code 45-2-1 to be a convention delegate. The law applies felony charges of one to five years under GA Code 16-10-1 if the delegate fails to obey "legislative instructions."

The state of Indiana enacted SJR 14 as its COS application on March 17, 2016. The application matches the political agenda of COS.

The state of Indiana enacted two bills, SB 224 and SB 225 on May 7, 2013. The two bills combined to add a new section to the Indiana Code IC 2-8 and IC 2-8.2. IC 2-8 deals with the selection of convention delegates by the state legislature, criminal felony prosecution (page 3) (a Class D felony of up to three years in prison and a possible fine not to exceed $10,000) and the creation of an "Advisory" committee made up state officials to "advise" delegates as to whether a contemplated vote violates state law.

The state of Indiana's second bill, SB 225 created IC 2-8.2 in Indiana Code. IC 2-8.2 defines the qualifications for delegate, their oath office and other associated duties.

The state of Louisiana enacted as its COS application, SCR 52 on June 7, 2016. The application matches the agenda of COS.

The state of Louisiana enacted HCR 4 on May 24, 2018 regarding appointment of commissioners to a convention of states. The law establishes the five commissioners shall be appointed by the state legislature and subject to its control and direction. The law does not allow for citizen participation in delegate selection or input as to convention agenda.

The Michigan State Legislature enacted its COS application, SJR V, on March 31, 2014. The term "convention of states" is mentioned in the application but does not match the political agenda of Convention of States. The application instead only deals with a balanced budget amendment. The political organization Convention of States does not count this application in its total of "convention of states" applications.

On March 28, 2019, the legislature of the State of Mississippi enacted CR 596 applying for a convention of states. The application did not rescind or address Mississippi's previous CFA application/compact of 2015. It is therefore unclear whether the application is valid as the compact has an exclusive clause within it. The application states it joins other COS applications from other states and limits delegates to voting only on those issues described in the application. The application describes the authories of Congress according to the state legislature, in regards to an Article V Convention. The application provides the state legislature "may provide further instructions to its delegates" and recall them at any time for "breach of duty or a violation of instructions provided."

FOAVC has been able to locate any legislation passed by the Mississippi State Legislature regulating convention delegates other than the non-binding resolution of March 28, 2019.

On May 12, 2017 the General Assembly of Missouri enacted SCR 4, an application calling for a convention of states. The application described certain "understandings": (1) Congress limited to the ministerial function of calling a convention; (2) the call may only occur when applications of the same subject from two thirds of the state legislatures occur; (3) Congress has no power to regulate delegates; (4) the General Assembly "may recall its delegates at any time for breach of their duties or violations of their instructions."

In March, 2017, the North Dakota State Legislature amended Chapter 54 of North Dakota Law to include "Certification of delegates to United States convention of the states."

The state of Oklahoma enacted SJR 4 as its COS application on April 27, 2016. The application is unique in that combines two applications in the same measure. The first, found in sections 2 through 5 is a general balanced budget amendment and specifies (page 3) that the application is to be aggregated with 28 other state applications. The second, found in sections 6 through 9 calls for a COS convention following the political agenda of COS and the application is to be aggregated with the application of six other COS states.

In April, 2018, the state of Oklahoma enacted HJR 1048 regulating convention delegates.

On December 13, 1832, the state of South Carolina was the first state to submit an application for a "convention of states" convention. The political organization Convention of States does not recognize this application as a "convention of states" application despite the fact the phrase "convention of states" was first used in this application.

The state of Tennessee enacted as its COS application SJR 67 on February 9, 2016. The application follows the political agenda of COS.

On May 5, 2017 the Texas State Legislature enacted SJR 2 applying for an Article V Convention call. While the application reflects the political agenda of the political organization "Convention of States" nowhere in the application is the phrase "convention of states" used. Nevertheless the political organization "Convention of States" has claimed the application as being a "convention of states" application.

On June 6, 2017, the Texas State Legislature enacted SB 21 for the purpose of regulating convention delegates. The law calls for appointment of all delegates by the state legislature, recall of delegates who fail to follow legislative instructions, and provides for a "state jail felony" for delegates failing to following such instructions.

On March 3, 2017 the legislature of the state of Wyoming enacted HJR0002 calling for a "convention of states" for the limited purpose of considering a balanced budget. As with other state applications which do not reflect the political agenda of "Convention of States", the political organization Convention of States has not counted the application as one of its "convention of states" applications.

The "Compact for a Balanced Budget" regulates the convention, delegates and ratification and therefore requires no other legislative act by the state. The state of Alaska enacted the CFA compact as HB 284 on July 21, 2014.

Arizona

The "Compact for a Balanced Budget" regulates the convention, delegates and ratification and therefore requires no other legislative act by the state. The state of Arizona enacted the CFA compact as HCR 2002 on March 30, 2017.

However, the Arizona State Legislature apparently ignored the terms of its own compact and on March 30, 2017 also enacted HCR 2022, "A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SELECTION AND INSTRUCTION OF COMMISSIONERS AND FOR A PLANNING CONVENTION REGARDING AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." As the resolution concerns "instructions" for an Article V Convention rather than a "Convention of States" it appears the statement by FOAVC that the state of Arizona has not enacted COS legislation remains valid.

Georgia

The state of Georgia enacted the CFA compact as HB 794 which regulates convention, delegates, and ratification on April 12, 2014.

The state of Mississippi enacted the CFA compact as SB2389 which regulates convention, delegates and ratification on March 13, 2015.

The state of North Dakota enacted the CFA compact as EHB 1138 which regulates convention, delegates and ratification on April 1, 2015.

Non-COS/CFA State laws regulating Convention Delegates

The state of Wisconsin, has enacted non-COS/CFA laws regulating an Article V Convention. The resolution, AJR 20, does not mention "convention of states" nor "Compact for America" in its text. The law requires the convention follow rules proposed by the Assembly of State Legislatures in 2016.

Page Last Updated: 6 MARCH 2020