HJM 4015
In CommitteeHouse
Article V convention
Applying for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution relating to fiscal restraints on the federal government, the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit terms of office for federal officials and for members of congress.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This joint memorial asks Washington’s legislature to formally request a national convention of states to propose constitutional amendments limiting federal spending, federal power, and federal officials’ terms. It emphasizes that Congress would have only a minor administrative role and that the convention must stay strictly limited to the specified topics—especially excluding any changes to the Bill of Rights.
- Directs Washington’s legislature to formally apply to Congress for an Article V convention of the states to propose constitutional amendments on three specific topics: fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power/jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials and members of Congress.
- Asserts that Congress’s role is ministerial only—limited to setting a time and place for the convention’s first meeting—and that Congress has no authority to set rules, choose delegates, or determine the convention’s scope.
- Requires that any convention be limited to the topics specified in the application and explicitly prohibits consideration of any changes to the Bill of Rights—stating the application would be void if used for that purpose.
- Affirms that each state gets one vote at the convention and that Washington’s legislature can instruct and recall its delegates at any time.
- Recommends that Congress choose state legislative ratification (rather than special state conventions) for any proposed amendments.
- Declares this application to be continuing—meaning it remains in effect until applications from at least two-thirds of states (38 states) are submitted for the same purpose.
Who is affected
- Washington State Legislature — The state legislature of Washington would be responsible for applying to Congress to call an Article V convention, selecting and potentially recalling its delegates, and instructing those delegates on the scope and limits of the convention.
- Washington Residents — Washington residents would be affected if the convention proposes constitutional amendments—particularly on fiscal matters, federal power limits, or term limits—that could alter the balance of power between federal and state governments and impact how laws are made and enforced.
- Other State Legislatures — Other state legislatures would need to pass similar applications for the convention to be called, and would share responsibility for selecting delegates and ratifying any proposed amendments.
- U.S. Congress — Members of Congress would have a ministerial (non-discretionary) role—only to call the convention once applications from two-thirds of states are received—but would have no authority to control the convention’s rules, delegates, or agenda.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill expresses a principled attempt to reassert state sovereignty and constitutional limits on federal power—potentially restoring balance if successful—and affirms legislative authority over delegate selection and instruction, reinforcing democratic accountability at the state level.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Section 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)The bill strengthens Washington’s role in the constitutional amendment process by formalizing the state’s position and asserting its right to instruct and recall delegates—reinforcing state legislative primacy in federal constitutional matters.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1(b), (g)The one-state-one-vote provision ensures equal state representation at the convention, protecting smaller states like Washington from being outvoted by populous states—a structural safeguard that aligns with federalist principles.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1(d)The explicit ban on Bill of Rights amendments—though unenforceable—sends a strong political signal of commitment to core civil liberties and may deter proposals that threaten fundamental rights, even if symbolic.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Section 1(e)The continuing application mechanism allows Washington to maintain its position without repeated legislative votes, enabling long-term strategic engagement with the Article V process across multiple sessions.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1(g)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill proposes a constitutional convention—despite explicit safeguards—that carries an inherent risk of unintended or catastrophic constitutional change due to the unpredictable nature of Article V conventions, potentially threatening foundational rights (e.g., if a rogue delegate proposes a “balanced budget amendment” with austerity provisions that restrict social programs or override judicial review).
Rights & LibertiesRef: Section 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)The bill imposes administrative and political costs on Washington’s legislature—requiring delegate selection, instruction, recall authority, and ongoing coordination with other states—diverting legislative resources toward a high-uncertainty, long-term federal process with no guaranteed outcome.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1(g)The bill’s success depends on 38 states passing identical or substantially similar applications—a highly uncertain, politically fragmented process that has failed repeatedly since the 1960s, meaning most Washington residents will experience no tangible benefit despite the legislative effort.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1(b)The prohibition on Bill of Rights amendments is self-imposed and unenforceable at the convention level—there is no constitutional mechanism to prevent a majority of states from overriding such a limitation, meaning the safeguard is symbolic and offers no legal protection against rights erosion.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Section 1(e)The bill defers to Congress on ratification method (legislatures vs. conventions), but Congress has no incentive to choose state legislatures if doing so would reduce its own political risk—potentially forcing Washington to participate in costly, untested special conventions with unknown procedural rules.
Local GovernmentRef: Section 1(f)
Who Is Most Affected
Washington State Legislature will bear the administrative burden of delegate selection, instruction, and recall, with minimal direct benefit—this is a procedural, high-uncertainty task with no guaranteed outcome.
Residents may benefit if amendments pass (e.g., term limits or fiscal restraints), but face systemic risk if the convention drifts beyond its scope—most individuals have no direct stake or influence over the process.
Other state legislatures must replicate this effort to reach 38 states—a high coordination barrier; those in red or blue states may prioritize this more than swing-state legislatures.
Congress has only a ministerial role per the bill, but its discretion in ratification method and potential future refusal to call the convention (if applications are deemed defective) could block the process entirely.
Constitutional scholars and legal experts may gain from the precedent-setting nature of the effort, but also face increased litigation risk if the convention exceeds its scope or produces ambiguous amendments.