SJM 8008
In CommitteeSenate
Const. conv. applications
Rescinding prior applications for a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
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 bill cancels all past applications by the Washington State Legislature asking Congress to call a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. It says future legislatures—not past ones—should decide whether to pursue such a convention, and asks the federal government to stop counting Washington as an applicant until a new application is passed.
- Formally rescinds, repeals, cancels, nullifies, and supersedes all prior applications by the Washington State Legislature to Congress calling for a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution.
- Applies to all prior applications, whether limited (e.g., banning polygamy, limiting federal redistricting oversight) or plenary (unlimited scope), regardless of year (including 1901, 1903, 1909, 1911, and 1963).
- States that future legislatures must pass new applications if they wish to call a constitutional convention—current applications are not binding on future lawmakers.
- Requests that copies of this memorial be sent to the U.S. President, Congress, and the Director of the Office of the Federal Registrar, and that Washington be removed from the official tally of states that have applied for a constitutional convention.
- Acknowledges uncertainty in constitutional law about whether applications expire and expresses concern that past decisions could bind future generations without consent.
Who is affected
- Washington State residents — Residents of Washington State may be affected if future constitutional amendments are proposed through a convention, as this bill removes Washington's prior support for such a process, ensuring future decisions require new legislative approval.
- Washington State Legislature — This bill directly impacts the Washington State Legislature, as it formally withdraws all prior applications to call a constitutional convention and requires future legislatures to reapply if they wish to pursue this path.
- National constitutional convention proponents and opponents — As the bill affects how Washington engages with the Article V convention process, it influences how the state is counted (or not counted) in national efforts to call a constitutional convention.
- Federal agencies and members of Congress — The Office of the Federal Registrar and Congress must update official records to reflect Washington's withdrawal of prior applications, as the bill requests formal notification and inclusion in the official tally of state applications.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (3)
By nullifying prior applications, the bill prevents Washington from being counted in a potential constitutional convention call — thereby reducing the risk that a future convention (even one with narrow intent) could produce amendments that erode existing rights, especially since scholars question whether conventions are bound by subject limits. This enhances democratic consent by requiring current legislatures to reauthorize such high-stakes actions.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: WHEREAS (3), (6); Resolved clauseThe bill reinforces the principle that constitutional change should be deliberate and current — not bound by decisions made over a century ago by legislatures with different values, technologies, and societal norms. This protects future generations from being governed by outdated or potentially harmful amendments proposed under outdated applications.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: WHEREAS (2), (3), (6); Resolved clauseThe bill acknowledges the ambiguity and uncertainty in constitutional law regarding expired applications, and seeks to clarify Washington’s position — reducing legal ambiguity and potential future disputes over whether Washington is still an active applicant. This improves governance clarity at minimal cost.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: WHEREAS (1), (5); Resolved clause
Potential Concerns (3)
Removing Washington’s prior applications eliminates a potential (though historically unused) pathway for citizens to propose constitutional amendments via a convention — a process that, if triggered, could expand democratic participation in constitutional change, though it carries risk of unintended consequences. This bill closes that door, reducing one potential mechanism for structural reform.
Rights & LibertiesRef: WHEREAS (6); Article V context; Resolved clauseThe bill shifts responsibility for constitutional convention applications from past legislatures to future ones, but creates no new administrative burden or cost for state or local governments — it is largely symbolic and procedural.
Local GovernmentRef: WHEREAS (5); Resolved clauseThe bill requires state legislative staff and possibly the Office of the Secretary of State to prepare, certify, and transmit memorial copies to federal officials — a minimal administrative task with negligible fiscal or operational impact on local governments.
Local GovernmentRef: BE IT RESOLVED (2)
Who Is Most Affected
Residents may benefit from reduced risk of unwanted constitutional amendments via a convention — a historically rare but high-impact process. However, since no active convention is imminent, the impact is largely precautionary and symbolic.
The legislature gains procedural clarity and renewed control over Article V actions, avoiding being bound by outdated applications. No fiscal or operational burden is imposed.
National convention opponents gain a stronger argument that Washington is not an active applicant, potentially lowering the risk of a convention being called. Proponents lose a state in their tally, slightly weakening their momentum.
Congress and the Office of the Federal Registrar must update official records to reflect Washington’s withdrawal — a minor administrative task with no fiscal impact. No substantive policy change is required at the federal level.