Article V Response to Congressional Term-Limit Initiatives — State Application Catalog

Within this sequence, Article V provides the proposal-and-ratification process capable of altering the national eligibility or duration rules governing congressional service. The Ballot Instruction Phase records the voter-authorized entry into that process; this catalog records the continuing state-application pathway.

See: Congressional Ballot Instruction Phase (1996–2000) — State Measure Catalog

See: Institutional Response Sequence to Congressional Term-Limit Initiatives (1990–2001)

Article V After Thornton

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) made federal constitutional amendment the operative pathway for establishing a binding congressional service limit. Article V therefore moved to the center of congressional term-limit strategy immediately after Thornton.

The 1995–1996 congressional amendment proceedings activated the congressional proposal route. The 1996 Ballot Instruction Phase then organized the same defined 3/2 objective around both Article V proposal routes: voters instructed federal legislators toward congressional proposal while, in most measures, also instructing state legislators toward Convention applications.

The sequence can therefore be stated as:

direct state eligibility mechanisms → Thornton boundary → Article V necessity → voter instruction toward both proposal routes + electoral information → judicial differentiation of instruction, prescribed conduct, and ballot-designation authority → continuing Article V application and congressional-proposal pathways

Later judicial decisions restricted particular state-created mechanisms for prescribing legislative conduct or administering ballot designations. Article V proposal authority remained with Congress and the state legislatures throughout that differentiation.

The resulting development changed the institutional relationship between popular authorization and constitutional authority. Voters supplied political instruction and authorization around the proposal process; Congress and the state legislatures retained the constitutional functions assigned to them by Article V.

Structural Role of Article V

The Constitution establishes the qualifications governing membership in the House and Senate. Under U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), state-created service restrictions operating as additional congressional qualifications fall within that constitutional boundary. Establishing a binding national service-duration rule therefore requires constitutional amendment.

Article V allocates amendment-proposal authority through two constitutional routes.

Congressional Proposal

Congress may propose an amendment when two-thirds of both houses approve the same amendment text.

Convention for Proposing Amendments

Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” upon application of two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Proposals produced through either route become part of the Constitution upon ratification by three-fourths of the states through the mode of ratification designated by Congress.

The two proposal routes therefore allocate initiating authority differently while converging on the same national ratification requirement. Congressional term-limit activity since 1995 has operated within this Article V structure through congressional proposals, state applications, and interaction between the two proposal pathways.

Article V Procedure and Congressional Administration

Article V establishes two methods for proposing constitutional amendments. Congress may propose amendments through approval by two-thirds of both Houses. The state-legislative pathway operates under a mandatory constitutional instruction:

“on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”

Congress must call the Convention when the constitutional application threshold is satisfied. The text identifies the applying institutions, the required proportion of states, and Congress's resulting duty.

What Article V Specifies

The Convention pathway is initiated through applications by state legislatures. The threshold is expressed in terms of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Where a state has adopted multiple applications, the threshold concerns the number of applying state legislatures.

Article V also provides that amendments proposed through either constitutional pathway require ratification by three-fourths of the states, using the ratification method designated by Congress.

What Article V Leaves Unspecified

Article V contains no express provision requiring applications to address the same subject, prescribe identical amendment language, or be adopted within a specified period.

It likewise provides no express authority for a state legislature to rescind an application after adoption, establish an expiration date, or remove a previously submitted application from the constitutional calculation. Nor does it expressly prescribe congressional authority to impose these conditions.

The absence of these provisions is a feature of the constitutional text. Whether any such requirements or authorities arise through constitutional interpretation, the nature of the state application power, or other constitutional principles remains a separate legal question.

State Practice and Constitutional Effect

State legislatures have adopted applications specifying particular subjects, forms of aggregation, and conditions governing duration. Some have subsequently adopted resolutions purporting to rescind, replace, or supersede earlier applications. Others have included sunset or self-canceling provisions in the applications themselves.

These actions form part of the historical documentary record. Their constitutional effects remain disputed.

The principal questions include whether applications addressing unrelated subjects may be aggregated; whether subsequent state action can terminate an adopted application; whether an expiration provision can limit its continuing validity; and whether a later action can alter a congressional duty that may already have arisen when the threshold was first satisfied.

The Congressional Research Service's Article V Convention report identifies application scope, contemporaneity, rescission, and self-cancelation among the unresolved questions surrounding the Convention procedure.

Application Records and Threshold Determination

Congress receives and records state applications through its legislative communications procedures. State legislative records, certification and transmission documents, congressional memorials, and subsequent state actions provide the evidence from which an application history can be reconstructed.

The constitutional sequence is:

State legislative applications

↓

Determination that the two-thirds threshold has been satisfied

↓

Congress shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments

The application record and the constitutional determination are analytically separate. Congressional receipt or classification of an application documents institutional administration; it does not, by itself, establish the application's constitutional effect.

A complete threshold inquiry therefore requires examination of the original applications, their dates and terms, the number of applying states, subsequent state actions, and the constitutional interpretations governing aggregation and continuing validity.

Article V establishes the duty to call when the threshold is satisfied. The constitutional status of the applications and the institutional authority to resolve disputes over that status remain questions requiring separate examination.

Subject Specificity and the Convention Trigger

Article V requires Congress to call a Convention for proposing Amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. The constitutional text does not expressly require an application to identify a subject, specify proposed amendment language, or address the same subject as applications submitted by other states.

The textual trigger is therefore expressed in terms of qualifying state-legislative applications and the numerical threshold. The resulting institution is described as a “Convention for proposing Amendments.”

Same-subject aggregation developed through institutional practice and constitutional interpretation. Under that approach, applications are classified by subject and aggregated only when judged sufficiently congruent. The subjects identified by the applying states may then inform the scope of the resulting Convention call.

A cross-subject interpretation begins with the absence of an express same-subject requirement in Article V. Under that reading, the constitutional inquiry is whether legislatures of two-thirds of the states have made qualifying applications, regardless of the different subjects that prompted them.

That distinction has a concrete historical consequence.

In 1911, the Union contained forty-six states, making thirty-one applications sufficient to satisfy Article V’s two-thirds requirement. Historical reconstructions identify at least thirty-two states with then-outstanding applications when direct-election-of-Senators and anti-polygamy applications are aggregated across subjects. Under a cross-subject reading, the constitutional application threshold had therefore been reached by 1911.

The numerical threshold changed as the Union expanded because Article V specifies two-thirds of the state legislatures rather than a fixed number of applications. With forty-seven states, the threshold became thirty-two. With forty-eight states, it remained thirty-two. With forty-nine states, it became thirty-three. With fifty states, it became thirty-four.

Available historical reconstructions indicate that the number of application-states continued to meet or exceed those changing thresholds under a cumulative cross-subject count. The admission of additional states therefore does not appear to have interrupted the threshold once it had been reached.

The continuing accumulation has two additional documentary reference points. In 1929, Wisconsin's Joint Resolution No. 83, S, reproduced in the Congressional Record of September 23, 1929, identified thirty-five states whose legislatures had submitted Article V Convention applications. With forty-eight states in the Union, the constitutional threshold was thirty-two. Wisconsin expressly requested that Congress perform its mandatory duty to call a Convention.

A later cumulative reconstruction identified forty-nine of the fifty states as having submitted at least one Article V application. The Congressional Research Service reported that count in 2017, attributing it to Friends of the Article V Convention and distinguishing it from an official determination of qualifying applications. These records establish successive historical assertions of a count exceeding the numerical threshold; their constitutional effect remains dependent upon the disputed rules governing aggregation and continuing application validity.

That conclusion depends on two analytically separate questions:

cross-subject aggregation
↓
whether applications concerning different subjects may be counted together

application persistence
↓
whether an application continues to remain operative absent an authoritative constitutional rule terminating it

Article V contains no express same-subject requirement. It also contains no express rescission mechanism or expiration rule. Same-subject classification, purported rescissions, sunset provisions, and other methods of narrowing the application record therefore arise from later institutional practice and constitutional interpretation rather than from express textual conditions in Article V.

These questions remain untested in the constitutional setting in which they would become operative. Congress has never called an Article V Convention, and no authoritative determination has established that applications must concern the same subject, that an application may be rescinded after adoption, or that an application ceases to remain operative through expiration, subsequent state action, or the passage of time.

The two aggregation models therefore produce different methods of threshold determination.

Under subject-specific aggregation:

state applications
↓
classification by subject
↓
determination of sufficient congruence
↓
two-thirds threshold within the classified group

Under cross-subject aggregation:

state applications
↓
identification of qualifying applications
↓
two-thirds of state legislatures have applied
↓
Congressional duty to call a Convention

Neither approach eliminates later questions concerning the content or administration of the Convention call. Whether applications must share a subject in order to satisfy the two-thirds requirement and what limits, if any, may govern a Convention once called are related but analytically separate questions.

Either interpretation retains Article V’s subsequent ratification requirement. Applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures trigger a Convention for proposing Amendments; any amendment produced through that process becomes part of the Constitution only upon ratification by three-fourths of the states through the mode designated by Congress.

The application catalogs below therefore classify applications by campaign and subject as an observable feature of current institutional practice. That classification does not assume that Article V itself requires subject-specific aggregation.

The constitutional-maintenance consequences of this historical application record are examined in Worked Example — The Evolution of Constitutional Maintenance, including the possibility that Congress's duty to call arose under a cross-subject aggregation interpretation and the unresolved availability of judicial review to determine or enforce that duty.

Structural Features of Article V as a Proposal Pathway

Article V distributes amendment authority across multiple institutions and stages. A congressional proposal requires two-thirds approval in both houses. A Convention proposal begins with applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures followed by a congressional call. Either route then requires ratification by three-fourths of the states.

For congressional term-limit proposals, Article V places proposal authority partly within institutions whose members would be governed by the resulting eligibility rule. Members of Congress participate directly in the congressional proposal route while also belonging to the class of officeholders whose future service would be affected by the amendment.

The 1995–1996 congressional vote sequence illustrates one consequence of that arrangement. The House and Senate considered congressional term-limit amendments through separate texts, timetables, and procedural sequences. The proceedings produced recorded support without producing a common amendment capable of transmission to the states.

State applications provide the second Article V proposal route. Through those applications, state legislatures advance the Convention pathway independently of congressional initiation of amendment text.

The 1996 Ballot Instruction Phase added popular authorization around both routes. Federal legislators were instructed toward proposal of a defined 3/2 amendment and, in most measures, state legislators were separately instructed toward an Article V Convention application directed toward the same congressional term-limit objective.

The two constitutional routes therefore allocate proposal authority differently:

Congressional proposal → amendment text formulated and approved by Congress

State application pathway → state legislatures advance toward the Convention threshold → Convention formulates proposed amendment text

The electorate holds neither Article V proposal office. The 1996 measures demonstrate a separate institutional role for voters: defining a constitutional objective, instructing representatives who possess proposal access, and using the electoral process to observe representative response.

Within the institutional response sequence, Article V therefore relocates the congressional term-limit question from direct state eligibility into a constitutional process of distributed proposal authority while preserving popular participation around the institutions exercising that authority.

Interaction Between Article V Proposal Pathways

Article V creates two routes for proposing amendments: congressional proposal and proposal through a Convention called upon application of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Activity directed through one route can alter the institutional environment surrounding the other.

Each state application advances the Convention pathway toward its constitutional trigger. Accumulating applications can also increase pressure surrounding Congress’s exercise of its independent proposal authority.

The movement for direct election of United States Senators provides an historical example. States developed popular-selection and voter-instruction systems while state legislatures also submitted applications or petitions seeking constitutional change through the Convention pathway. As that state activity accumulated, Congress ultimately exercised its own proposal authority and proposed the Seventeenth Amendment. No Convention was called.

The 1996 congressional term-limit measures deliberately joined comparable institutional elements around a different constitutional objective. Voters were asked to support a defined three-House-term, two-Senate-term amendment while, in most states, also instructing state legislators toward Convention applications. The strategy therefore combined popular authorization with simultaneous pressure directed toward both Article V proposal routes.

This creates a distinction between pathway advancement and pathway completion.

state applications accumulate
↓
Convention pathway advances toward the constitutional trigger
↓
institutional pressure surrounding congressional proposal increases
↓
Congress may independently exercise its proposal authority

National constitutional action can therefore occur through the congressional route even when state applications supplied part of the institutional pressure surrounding that action.

The relationship also preserves the distinction between political instruction and constitutional authority. State legislatures exercise the application authority assigned by Article V. Congress exercises independent proposal authority. Voters can define an objective and act politically upon both institutions while the constitutional functions remain with the actors designated by Article V.

The Convention pathway has an additional structural feature. Once the constitutional application trigger is satisfied, Article V directs Congress to call a Convention for proposing Amendments. The Convention, rather than the applying state legislatures or Congress, would then occupy the proposal position within that pathway. Article V itself describes the resulting institution in terms of proposing amendments and does not prescribe the amendment text that the Convention must produce.

For congressional term limits, current applications commonly identify a subject while leaving substantial eligibility architecture to the proposal stage. Duration, transition provisions, treatment of prior service, and related design choices may therefore remain unresolved when the application is adopted.

The identity of the institution exercising proposal authority consequently affects the point at which constitutional architecture is formulated:

Congressional route
→ Congress formulates and approves amendment text

Convention route
→ state legislatures supply the applications
→ Congress calls the Convention upon satisfaction of the constitutional trigger
→ the Convention formulates proposed amendment text

Either route ultimately converges on the same Article V ratification requirement.

Pathway interaction therefore extends beyond the numerical accumulation of applications. It includes the relationship among popular authorization, state-legislative application activity, Congress’s independent proposal authority, the constitutional trigger for a Convention, and the institution that ultimately formulates the amendment submitted for ratification.

Congressional Amendment Proposals

Congressional consideration of term-limit amendments began while U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton was pending and continued after the Court’s May 22, 1995 decision.

The House considered multiple proposed amendment architectures in March 1995. Support divided among different eligibility designs, and no proposal received the two-thirds House vote required for congressional proposal under Article V.

The Senate proceeded on a separate timetable and considered a separate proposal into 1996. Its proceeding ended at the cloture stage.

The congressional proposal route requires both chambers to approve the same amendment text by the constitutionally required supermajority. The House and Senate proceedings therefore produced recorded congressional support for term limits without producing a common amendment capable of transmission to the states for ratification.

The sequence distinguishes support for a constitutional objective from completion of the constitutional proposal process. Congress possessed the authority to formulate and propose amendment text, but the 1995–1996 proceedings did not produce an Article V proposal.

The 1996 Ballot Instruction Phase followed by directing voter instruction toward that congressional proposal route while, in most states, simultaneously directing state legislators toward the Convention-application route.

See: Congressional Term-Limit Amendment Vote Sequence (1995–1996)

Voter-Backed Article V Application Strategy

The modern legislative application campaigns were preceded by a voter-directed Article V strategy during the 1996 Ballot Instruction Phase.

The companion Congressional Ballot Instruction Phase (1996–2000) — State Measure Catalog records the historical lineage and state-by-state architecture of that strategy. The 1996 measures revived an earlier American practice of voter instruction associated with the Progressive Era movement for direct election of United States Senators: the electorate expressed a preference, representatives retained the constitutional authority assigned to their offices, and electoral information made their response observable to voters.

The congressional term-limit measures adapted that instruction-and-information architecture to Article V.

On November 5, 1996, voters in fourteen states considered measures centered on a constitutional amendment limiting House service to three terms and Senate service to two terms. Twelve of those fourteen measures also directed state legislators toward an Article V Convention application for the congressional term-limit objective.

The resulting Convention-application sequence was:

voter authorization
↓
instruction to state legislators
↓
state-legislative Article V application authority
↓
progress toward the Convention threshold
↓
interaction with Congress’s independent proposal authority

The constitutional authority to apply remained with the state legislature. The ballot supplied an antecedent act of popular authorization directed toward the institution holding that authority.

Many of the measures also surrounded the instruction with candidate pledges, prescribed conduct, administrative determinations, and ballot information. Those provisions formed an electoral feedback system through which representative response could be communicated to voters. Later judicial decisions restricted particular forms of prescribed conduct and state-administered ballot designation while leaving the underlying Article V authority with Congress and the state legislatures.

The 1996 sequence therefore provides an earlier model of congressional-term-limit Article V strategy in which popular authorization preceded and surrounded state-legislative application authority. The later legislative application campaigns use the same constitutional application power without reproducing the statewide voter-instruction stage.

Voter Instruction and Legislative Follow-Through

Seven states approved 1996 measures containing state-legislative Convention instructions: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, and Nevada.

The later U.S. Term Limits single-subject application campaign began with Florida HM 417, filed in 2015 and adopted in 2016. As of October 2026, U.S. Term Limits identifies fourteen states as having adopted its congressional-term-limits Convention application. None of the seven states whose voters approved the 1996 instructions appears in that current campaign count.

Alaska, Arkansas, and Nebraska subsequently adopted broader Convention of States applications encompassing federal term limits among multiple subjects. These applications differ from the specified congressional-term-limit amendment and application architecture presented to voters in 1996.

The comparison distinguishes the 1996 voter authorization from the later campaign record. A complete determination of legislative follow-through requires examination of intervening sessions, including proposed applications, committee action, recorded votes, adopted instruments, and subsequent legislative dispositions.

The institutional sequence is therefore:

1996 voter instruction
↓
state-legislative Article V application authority retained
↓
legislative responses and dispositions across succeeding sessions
↓
later single-subject and multi-subject application campaigns
↓
comparison of adopted instruments with the original voter-authorized objective

The Ballot Instruction catalog preserves the instructions and their historical lineage. This catalog follows the constitutional application authority and subsequent state-legislative record forward, distinguishing documented legislative action from contemporary campaign classifications.

State Article V Applications

State legislatures exercise Article V application authority by adopting applications for a Convention for proposing Amendments. The catalog below records state actions associated with the two current national congressional-term-limit application strategies examined on this page.

Catalog Basis

This catalog organizes applications according to the common-text, substantially similar-text, and subject-congruent classifications used by the contemporary application campaigns. The resulting U.S. Term Limits and Convention of States counts describe those campaign architectures; they are not an RR determination that Article V constitutionally requires applications to share a subject or common text.

A different constitutional count results under cross-subject aggregation. In 1911, when thirty-one of forty-six state legislatures constituted the Article V two-thirds threshold, at least thirty-two states had outstanding applications when applications concerning direct election of Senators and anti-polygamy were aggregated across subjects. Under cross-subject aggregation together with continuing application validity, the constitutional threshold was therefore reached in 1911. On that reading, the later enlargement of the Union did not interrupt satisfaction of the threshold.

The catalog below retains subject and campaign classifications because they make contemporary institutional practice observable. Those classifications should therefore be read separately from the broader constitutional question of which applications count toward Article V’s two-thirds trigger.

The records are organized by campaign and subject as a descriptive method of identifying institutional practice. That organization does not assume that Article V requires applications to concern the same subject in order to contribute to the constitutional two-thirds trigger.

The catalog should also be read against the earlier voter-backed application strategy of the 1996 Ballot Instruction Phase. In that phase, voters frequently instructed state legislators toward exercise of the same Article V application authority. The later campaigns proceed through legislative adoption without the antecedent statewide voter-instruction stage.

Two contemporary application architectures are recorded:

U.S. Term Limits promotes a standardized single-subject application directed specifically toward congressional term limits.

Convention of States Project promotes a broader multi-subject application generally encompassing fiscal restraints, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials, with some state-specific variation in operative scope.

Each legislative action is recorded according to the state instrument and the public record identified for it. The catalog distinguishes among:

state legislative adoption
↓
state certification or forwarding
↓
federal receipt or recording where identified
↓
later state action affecting the instrument
↓
current identified campaign status

The final category describes how the application is presently treated within the relevant campaign or available institutional record. It does not resolve the separate constitutional question whether a purported rescission, expiration, replacement, or other later state action removes an earlier application from the Article V two-thirds calculation.

Where a state certification, filing, or forwarding event has been identified, it is reported. Where no separate forwarding date has been located, the catalog states that evidentiary limitation without inferring a transmission date.

Federal receipt or recording is reported separately where identified. Absence of an identified federal record is treated as an evidentiary gap in the available public record, not as evidence that transmission did not occur.

The resulting catalog therefore preserves both the observable legislative record and the distinction between recorded institutional treatment and unresolved constitutional effect.

On Transmission and Congressional Recording of Article V Applications

State Article V applications commonly direct designated state officers to transmit certified copies to federal officials following legislative adoption.

Congress receives at least some applications through its ordinary communications procedures. In the Senate, an application may be entered as a Petition or Memorial, assigned a POM number, published in the Congressional Record, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Comparable state communications may also be received and preserved by the House of Representatives.

This produces an observable recording sequence:

state legislative adoption
↓
state transmission
↓
congressional receipt
↓
congressional recording
↓
committee referral where applicable

These events document institutional handling of an application. They do not themselves determine its constitutional status within the Article V two-thirds calculation.

Congressional recording and Article V threshold determination therefore perform separate functions. Federal communications records can establish receipt and processing of individual state instruments, but they do not supply a unified authoritative count of qualifying applications or resolve questions of aggregation, continuing validity, purported rescission, expiration, replacement, or supersession.

The available record is distributed across multiple institutions and record systems. In particular:

• House and Senate receipt may be recorded separately

• congressional recording may occur substantially after state adoption

• some applications appear in state records without a separately identified federal recording event

• federal records may reproduce later state actions without determining their constitutional effect on the earlier application

• campaign organizations may classify applications by subject, common text, current status, or replacement history

• congressional communications records do not themselves provide a continuing authoritative determination of whether Article V’s two-thirds trigger has been satisfied

The resulting evidentiary record is therefore institutionally distributed. Individual applications can often be verified through state legislative records, state certification or forwarding records, congressional communications, and the Congressional Record. Reconstructing the broader Article V application history requires comparison among those sources while keeping documentary status, campaign classification, and constitutional effect analytically separate.

Convention Governance Development

Article V activity also includes state legislation addressing prospective participation in an amendment-proposing Convention. Several states have enacted provisions concerning commissioner selection, qualifications, instructions, delegation procedures, replacement, oversight, compensation, and Convention administration.

Examples identified on this page include Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.

These enactments operate at the state-participation layer of the Convention pathway. They establish procedures through which a state proposes to select and govern its delegation if a Convention is called.

The relationship can be represented as:

Article V Convention pathway
↓
state application activity + prospective state-participation rules
↓
congressional Convention call upon satisfaction of the constitutional trigger
↓
state participation in the Convention
↓
Convention exercise of proposal authority

Article V itself does not prescribe commissioner selection, state delegation structure, commissioner instructions, replacement procedures, or penalties for departure from state instructions. These rules arise through state legislation and institutional preparation for a Convention that has never occurred under Article V.

Their operative constitutional effect therefore remains untested. In particular, no Article V Convention has provided the setting in which the relationship between state control of commissioners and the Convention’s constitutional role as an institution “for proposing Amendments” has had to be resolved.

States nevertheless continue to develop this institutional machinery. Convention of States Action publicly identifies and promotes such legislation through its “34|Ready” commissioner-legislation initiative. Tennessee provides a current example: in 2026, the state enacted SB 1567 as Public Chapter 689, revising its Article V Convention law to address commissioner appointment and qualifications, commissioning resolutions, legislative instructions, advisory oversight, removal, compensation, and penalties for unauthorized voting.

Convention-governance legislation therefore records a further layer of constitutional maintenance: states preparing institutional rules for participation in a constitutional mechanism whose operative procedures remain largely untested.

Response Pattern

Practice-First Foreclosure

State-created congressional eligibility mechanisms encountered the constitutional boundary established in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The congressional term-limit objective then continued through institutions possessing authority under Article V.

The resulting change concerned institutional pathway as well as legal form. Voters who had previously adopted congressional eligibility rules directly redirected political authorization toward institutions possessing constitutional proposal access.

Constitutional Migration

The 1995–1996 congressional amendment proceedings activated the congressional proposal route. The 1996 Ballot Instruction Phase then joined both Article V routes around the same defined 3/2 objective: voters instructed federal legislators toward congressional proposal while, in most measures, separately instructing state legislators toward Convention applications.

Candidate pledges, prescribed conduct, administrative determinations, and ballot information created an electoral feedback layer around those instructions. Later judicial decisions differentiated those state-created mechanisms from the Article V authority retained by Congress and the state legislatures.

The migration can therefore be observed as:

direct voter adoption of state eligibility rules
↓
constitutional boundary under Thornton
↓
voter instruction toward both Article V proposal routes
↓
electoral information communicating representative response
↓
judicial differentiation of state-created mechanisms
↓
continuing congressional-proposal and state-application pathways

Long-Duration Article V Activity

State applications create two observable forms of constitutional activity.

Under contemporary subject-specific campaign classifications, each new application advances a defined application campaign toward its identified two-thirds count.

Under cross-subject aggregation combined with continuing application validity, the historical record produces a different result: the two-thirds application threshold appears to have been reached by 1911 and to have remained satisfied as the Union expanded.

These two descriptions arise from different methods of treating the same broader Article V record. The catalog preserves the subject-specific campaign structures because they are observable features of current institutional practice while separately identifying the unresolved constitutional question of aggregation and application persistence.

The 1996 Ballot Instruction Phase added popular authorization to the state-application pathway. Voters could support a defined amendment and instruct their state legislators toward applications while Article V application authority remained with the legislatures themselves.

Modern campaigns continue to organize that state-legislative activity through different architectures. U.S. Term Limits uses a standardized single-subject application for congressional term limits. Convention of States uses a broader multi-subject application generally encompassing fiscal restraints, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials.

Article V activity therefore concerns more than campaign progress toward a stated numerical count. It includes the relationship among voter authorization, state-legislative application authority, application persistence, aggregation, congressional administration, proposal architecture, and interaction between the two constitutional proposal routes.

Questions for Further Exploration

I. Voter Authorization and Proposal Authority

• If voters authorize a defined constitutional objective and instruct state legislators toward an Article V application, how does that political authorization relate to the legislature’s independent constitutional application authority?

• What responses followed the 1996 voter-approved Article V instructions, and what do the recorded legislative actions and dispositions reveal about the relationship between electoral authorization and constitutionally assigned application authority?

• If Congress is being asked to propose eligibility limits governing the future service of its own members, how can voter-backed state applications alter the institutional incentives surrounding Congress without displacing congressional proposal authority?

• What changes when an Article V application campaign proceeds directly through state legislatures without the antecedent statewide voter-authorization stage used in most of the 1996 ballot measures?

• If accumulating state applications induce Congress to propose the desired amendment before a Convention is called, does the Convention pathway achieve an institutional effect without producing a Convention?

II. Trigger, Aggregation, and Application Status

• If Article V specifies applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures without specifying a common subject, what constitutional basis would support excluding otherwise qualifying applications because their stated subjects differ?

• If Article V supplies application authority but no express rescission mechanism, what gives a later state resolution constitutional effect sufficient to remove an earlier application from the two-thirds calculation?

• If Article V establishes no expiration rule, what institutional authority determines that an application has ceased to remain operative through age, subsequent state action, a stated sunset, or the passage of time?

• If cross-subject aggregation and continuing application validity placed the Convention pathway at the constitutional threshold by 1911, what is the constitutional significance of Congress never having issued the required call?

• How should the historical application record be evaluated when contemporary campaign counts classify applications by common text or subject while Article V states the trigger in terms of applying state legislatures?

III. Congressional Administration and Proposal Authority

• Once the constitutional application threshold is satisfied, which questions remain within Congress’s administrative role and which follow directly from Article V’s command that Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”?

• If Congress classifies applications by subject, common text, or campaign, does that classification administer the application record or alter the constitutional trigger?

• If applications on different subjects satisfy the two-thirds threshold, what authority, if any, does Congress possess to define the subject or scope of the Convention call?

• If Congress responds to accumulating applications by exercising its independent proposal authority, who controls the substantive architecture of the resulting amendment?

• If a congressional proposal differs materially from the objectives identified in the state applications, what effect does that congressional action have on the continuing constitutional status of those applications?

IV. Convention Authority and Ratification

• If state legislatures prescribe commissioner instructions, replacement rules, or penalties, how would those state-created controls interact with the proposal authority exercised by a Convention constituted under Article V?

• If the applications that produce the Convention threshold concern different subjects, what determines the range of amendments the Convention may consider or propose?

• If a Convention may propose multiple amendments, what institutional incentives favor separate proposals over combining independently ratifiable subjects into a single amendment?

• How does the requirement of ratification by three-fourths of the states constrain amendment design regardless of the subjects contained in the applications that produced the Convention?

• If state commissioner rules, congressional call procedures, Convention proposal authority, and state ratification all operate at separate stages, where does effective control over amendment architecture ultimately reside?

U.S. Term Limits Convention Applications

Single-Subject — Standardized Application Model

U.S. Term Limits organizes its current Article V campaign around a standardized application directed specifically toward congressional term limits.

The model application identifies a single subject: limits on the number of terms a person may be elected to the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate. The model also calls for aggregation with applications addressing the same subject, excludes aggregation with applications addressing other subjects, and states that the application continues until the required number of states has applied.

Those provisions define the aggregation and duration architecture adopted within the U.S. Term Limits model. The catalog records that architecture as a feature of the application instruments and contemporary campaign without treating it as an RR determination of the constitutional requirements governing Article V aggregation, persistence, or threshold calculation.

State enactments share this core architecture while retaining some state-specific procedural, transmission, reservation, or implementation language. The applications therefore form a standardized single-subject application family without requiring literal textual identity among every state enactment.

The model resolution text used by these applications is available at:

https://termlimits.com/model-article-v-term-limits-convention-application/

Applications Superseded Within the Current Campaign Architecture

Florida (2016) — Superseded

• Resolution: HM 417

• Final Legislative Approval Date: February 10, 2016

• State Certification / Forwarding: Signed by officers and filed with the Florida Secretary of State on March 9, 2016.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-6; Congressional Record, Vol. 163, p. S112.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate adopted; no numerical floor roll call is reported in the Florida Senate bill history.

• Official Record: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/417

• Status: Superseded

• Notes: Replaced by Florida HCR 693 (2024).

Missouri (2018) — Superseded

• Resolution: SCR 40

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 17, 2018

• State Certification / Forwarding: Truly agreed to and finally passed May 17, 2018; Missouri records show the enrolled resolution delivered to the Governor on May 30, 2018. A separate state-to-federal forwarding date was not identified.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-278; Congressional Record, Vol. 164, p. S5422.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 24–6

• Official Record: https://www.senate.mo.gov/18info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=70247676

• Status: Superseded

• Notes: Replaced by Missouri SCR 25 (2022).

Applications Active Within the Current Campaign Architecture

USTL #1 — Alabama (2018)

• Resolution: HJR 23

• Final Legislative Approval Date: January 25, 2018

• State Certification / Forwarding: Federal receipt establishes transmission of the application; a separate Alabama forwarding date was not identified in this review.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-243; Congressional Record, Vol. 164, pp. S3759–S3760.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate adopted; numerical final-chamber roll call not identified in the records reviewed.

• Official Record: https://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2018RS/PrintFiles/HJR23-int.pdf

• Status: Active

USTL #2 — West Virginia (2021)

• Resolution: HCR 9

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 22, 2021

• State Certification / Forwarding: The resolution directs transmission to federal officials; a separate state forwarding date was not identified. Federal receipt is documented.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-18; Congressional Record, Vol. 167, p. S4517; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate adoption completed March 22, 2021.

• Official Record: https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfmbilldoc=HCR9%20ENR.htm&yr=2021&sesstype=RS

• Status: Active

USTL #3 — Wisconsin (2022)

• Resolution: SJR 102 / Enrolled Joint Resolution 18

• Final Legislative Approval Date: February 24, 2022

• State Certification / Forwarding: Deposited in the office of the Wisconsin Secretary of State on April 15, 2022. On July 25, 2022, the Wisconsin Secretary of State transmitted an authenticated copy of Enrolled Joint Resolution 18 to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-216; Congressional Record, Vol. 168, pp. S4616–S4617. The application was also received and preserved by the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Assembly 57–33

• Official Record: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/proposals/sjr102

• Status: Active

USTL #4 — Missouri (2022)

• Resolution: SCR 25

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 10, 2022

• State Certification / Forwarding: Reported duly enrolled on May 10, 2022; a separate state-to-federal forwarding date was not identified.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-185; Congressional Record, Vol. 168, p. S4043; referred through the Senate communications process.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 82–66

• Official Record: https://www.senate.mo.gov/22info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=71259841

• Status: Active

• Supersedes Prior Application: Yes (2018)

• Notes: Reaffirms and replaces Missouri’s earlier SCR 40 application.

USTL #5 — Oklahoma (2023)

• Resolution: HJR 1032

• Final Legislative Approval Date: April 20, 2023

• State Certification / Forwarding: Enrolled April 24, 2023 and filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on May 1, 2023.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petitions or Memorials POM-70 and POM-71; Congressional Record, Vol. 169, p. S4755; referred through the Senate communications process.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 31–11

• Official Record: https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HJR1032/id/2791397

• Status: Active

USTL #6 — Tennessee (2024)

• Resolution: HJR 5

• Final Legislative Approval Date: April 11, 2024

• State Certification / Forwarding: Separate state forwarding date not identified; federal receipt is documented.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-144; Congressional Record, Vol. 170, pp. S5188–S5189; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 18–11

• Official Record: https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0005

• Status: Active

USTL #7 — Louisiana (2024)

• Resolution: SCR 2

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 13, 2024

• State Certification / Forwarding: Enrolled and signed by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House; sent to the Louisiana Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on May 17, 2024.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-20; Congressional Record, Vol. 171, pp. S7138–S7139; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 81–11

• Official Record: https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?b=SCR2&s=24RS

• Status: Active

USTL #8 — North Carolina (2024)

• Resolution: HJR 151 / Resolution 2024-9

• Final Legislative Approval Date: December 2, 2024

• State Certification / Forwarding: Ratified December 5, 2024. The resolution directs the North Carolina Secretary of State to transmit certified copies to designated federal officials; a separate transmission date was not identified.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Federal receipt is documented in House memorial records; no Senate POM entry was identified in this review.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 29–20

• Official Record: https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2023/H151

• Status: Active

USTL #9 — Indiana (2025)

• Resolution: SJR 21

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 17, 2025

• State Certification / Forwarding: Legislative signatures were completed following House passage; a separate state-to-federal forwarding date was not identified.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Federal receipt has been identified, but no Senate POM entry was located in this review.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 66–30

• Official Record: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2025/resolutions/senate/joint/21/details

• Status: Active

USTL #10 — South Carolina (2025)

• Resolution: H. 3008

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 7, 2025

• State Certification / Forwarding: The resolution directs the South Carolina Secretary of State to transmit copies to designated federal officials; a separate state transmission date was not identified.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petition or Memorial POM-32; Congressional Record, Vol. 172, pp. S730–S731; referred through the Senate communications process.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 29–14

• Official Record: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/3008.htm

• Status: Active

USTL #11 — South Dakota (2025)

• Resolution: HJR 5002

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 4, 2025

• State Certification / Forwarding: Delivered to the South Dakota Secretary of State on March 10, 2025.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Senate Petitions or Memorials POM-28 and POM-29; Congressional Record, Vol. 172, pp. S160–S161; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 25–10

• Official Record: https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/5002

• Status: Active

USTL #12 — Florida (2024)

• Resolution: HCR 693

• Final Legislative Approval Date: February 1, 2024

• State Certification / Forwarding: Immediately certified by the Senate on February 1, 2024; signed by officers and filed with the Florida Secretary of State on April 2, 2024.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: Federal receipt is documented in House memorial records; no Senate POM entry was identified in this review.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate adopted; no numerical floor roll call is reported for the final Senate action. The House adopted the resolution 80–33.

• Official Record: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/693

• Status: Active

• Supersedes Prior Application: Yes (2016)

• Notes: HCR 693 replaced the earlier HM 417 application with the current application architecture.

USTL #13 — Kansas (2026)

• Resolution: HCR 5022

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 5, 2026

• State Certification / Forwarding: Enrolled and presented to the Kansas Secretary of State on March 11, 2026; the legislative record identifies final disposition as filed with the Secretary of State.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: No federal receipt or Senate POM entry was identified in this review.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 30–8

• Official Record: https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/measures/hcr5022/

• Status: Active

USTL #14 — Arizona (2026)

• Resolution: HCR 2043

• Final Legislative Approval Date: April 21, 2026

• State Certification / Forwarding: Transmitted to the Arizona Secretary of State on April 22, 2026.

• Federal Receipt / Recording: No federal receipt or Senate POM entry was identified in this review.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 16–13

• Official Record: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/2r/bills/hcr2043h.htm

• Status: Active

Data Notes: State legislative adoption, state filing or forwarding, and federal receipt or recording are treated as separate events. Where an official state record documents filing with a Secretary of State but does not identify a separate transmission date to Congress, the catalog reports the filing event without inferring the date of federal transmission. Where subsequent federal receipt is documented, that record is reported separately. Absence of an identified Senate POM entry is treated as an evidentiary gap in the reviewed federal record, not as evidence that transmission did not occur.

Convention of States Applications

Multi-Subject — Variant Resolution Templates

Convention of States Project organizes its Article V campaign around a broader multi-subject application architecture.

The applications generally call for a Convention to propose amendments addressing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials. State enactments share substantial textual and structural commonality while retaining variation in wording, procedural provisions, duration, and operative scope.

Mississippi presents a material variant. Its 2019 application joins the broader Convention of States aggregation effort but limits its commissioners to fiscal restraints and limits on federal power and jurisdiction, excluding congressional term limits from their authorized scope.

The catalog groups these applications according to their relationship to the Convention of States campaign and their common or substantially similar application architecture. That grouping describes contemporary institutional practice and textual relationship among the enactments. It does not assume that Article V requires subject congruence, common text, or membership in the same application campaign for an application to contribute to the constitutional two-thirds trigger.

Applications Active Within the Current Campaign Architecture

COS #1 — Georgia (2014)

• Resolution: SR 736

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 6, 2014

• State Certification / Forwarding: Separate state forwarding date not identified; federal filing in Washington documented June 12, 2014 (POM-255 / POM-285).

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 107–58

• Official Record: Georgia General Assembly — SR 736

• Status: Active

COS #2 — Alaska (2014)

• Resolution: HJR 22

• Final Legislative Approval Date: April 19, 2014

• State Certification / Forwarding: Permanently filed as Legislative Resolve 68 on July 7, 2014; federal filing in Washington documented November 17, 2014 (POM-345 / POM-350).

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 12–8

• Official Record: Alaska State Legislature — HJR 22

• Status: Active

COS #3 — Florida (2014)

• Resolution: SM 476

• Final Legislative Approval Date: April 21, 2014

• State Certification / Forwarding: Signed by officers and filed with the Florida Secretary of State on May 9, 2014; federal filing in Washington documented July 9, 2014 (POM-286).

• Vote (Final Chamber): House voice vote

• Official Record: Florida Senate — SM 476

• Status: Active

COS #4 — Alabama (2015)

• Resolution: HJR 112 / Act 2015-222

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 21, 2015

• State Certification / Forwarding: Alabama Secretary of State record shows approval and receipt on May 27, 2015; federal filing in Washington documented December 10, 2015 (POM-124).

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 92–7

• Official Record: Alabama Secretary of State — Act 2015-222

• Status: Active

COS #5 — Tennessee (2016)

• Resolution: SJR 67

• Final Legislative Approval Date: February 4, 2016

• State Certification / Forwarding: Enrolled February 4, 2016 and signed by the Governor February 9, 2016; separate state forwarding date not identified. Federal filing in Washington documented October 18, 2017 (POM-117).

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 59–31

• Official Record: Tennessee General Assembly — SJR 67

• Status: Active

COS #6 — Indiana (2016)

• Resolution: SJR 14

• Final Legislative Approval Date: February 29, 2016

• State Certification / Forwarding: Separate state forwarding date not identified; federal filing in Washington documented December 1, 2016 (POM-256).

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 61–36

• Official Record: Indiana General Assembly — SJR 14

• Status: Active

COS #7 — Oklahoma (2016; replaced 2021)

• Resolution: SJR 23 (2021)

• Final Legislative Approval Date: April 20, 2021

• State Certification / Forwarding: Enrolled April 22, 2021 and approved by the Governor April 27, 2021; federally recorded as POM-85 on September 30, 2021.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 62–26

• Official Record: Oklahoma Legislature — SJR 23

• Status: Active

• Notes: Oklahoma initially entered the Convention of States sequence through SJR 4 in 2016. SJR 23 replaced that application and removed the December 31, 2023 sunset attached to the earlier resolution.

COS #8 — Louisiana (2016)

• Resolution: SCR 52

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 25, 2016

• State Certification / Forwarding: Sent to the Louisiana Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on June 7, 2016.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 62–36

• Official Record: Louisiana Legislature — SCR 52

• Status: Active

COS #9 — Arizona (2017)

• Resolution: HCR 2010

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 13, 2017

• State Certification / Forwarding: Transmitted to the Arizona Secretary of State on March 15, 2017; federal filing in Washington documented October 18, 2017 (POM-118 / POM-120).

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 16–14

• Official Record: Arizona Legislature — HCR 2010

• Status: Active

COS #10 — North Dakota (2017)

• Resolution: HCR 3006

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 24, 2017

• State Certification / Forwarding: Filed with the North Dakota Secretary of State on March 29, 2017; federal filing in Washington documented April 25, 2017 (POM-16).

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate voice vote

• Official Record: North Dakota Legislative Branch — HCR 3006

• Status: Active

COS #11 — Texas (2017; replaced 2025)

• Resolution: HJR 98 (2025)

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 8, 2025

• State Certification / Forwarding: Filed with the Texas Secretary of State on May 13, 2025; federal recording documented as ML-41 on December 30, 2025.

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 17–14

• Official Record: Texas Legislature — HJR 98

• Status: Active

• Notes: Texas initially entered the Convention of States sequence through SJR 2 in 2017. That application was subject to an eight-year sunset. HJR 98 made a new continuing application in 2025 without the earlier automatic sunset.

COS #12 — Missouri (2017; replaced 2021)

• Resolution: SCR 4 (2021)

• Final Legislative Approval Date: May 13, 2021

• State Certification / Forwarding: Reported duly enrolled and signed by the Senate President Pro Tem and House Speaker; separate state forwarding date not identified. Federal recording documented as POM-22 on June 24, 2021 and POM-58 on July 27, 2021.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 89–64

• Official Record: Missouri Senate — SCR 4

• Status: Active

• Notes: Missouri initially entered the Convention of States sequence through SCR 4 in 2017. The 2021 SCR 4 expressly repealed and superseded the 2017 application.

COS #13 — Arkansas (2019)

• Resolution: SJR 3

• Final Legislative Approval Date: February 14, 2019

• State Certification / Forwarding: Reported correctly enrolled and delivered to the Governor on February 14, 2019; federal filing in Washington documented September 19, 2019 (POM-138 / POM-139).

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 19–13 on concurrence in House amendment

• Official Record: Arkansas General Assembly — SJR 3

• Status: Active

COS #14 — Utah (2019)

• Resolution: SJR 9

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 5, 2019

• State Certification / Forwarding: Transmitted to the Lieutenant Governor’s office for filing on March 25, 2019.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 42–32

• Official Record: Utah Legislature — SJR 9

• Status: Active

COS #15 — Mississippi (2019)

• Resolution: SCR 596

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 27, 2019

• State Certification / Forwarding: The resolution directs the Secretary of State to transmit the application; federal filing in Washington is documented September 11, 2019 (POM-133). A separate state transmission date was not identified.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 69–46

• Official Record: Mississippi Legislature — SCR 596

• Status: Active

• Notes: Mississippi expressly joins the other Convention of States applications for aggregation purposes but limits its commissioners to amendments imposing fiscal restraints and limiting federal power and jurisdiction; its commissioners are not authorized by this application to support congressional term limits.

COS #16 — Wisconsin (2022)

• Resolution: AJR 9

• Final Legislative Approval Date: January 25, 2022

• State Certification / Forwarding: Correctly enrolled January 27, 2022 and deposited in the office of the Wisconsin Secretary of State on March 22, 2022; federal filing in Washington documented September 14, 2022 (POM-219 / POM-243).

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate 17–16

• Official Record: Wisconsin Legislature — AJR 9

• Status: Active

COS #17 — Nebraska (2022)

• Resolution: LR 14

• Final Legislative Approval Date: January 28, 2022

• State Certification / Forwarding: Presented to the Nebraska Secretary of State on January 28, 2022; federal filing in Washington documented March 10, 2022 (POM-114 / POM-200).

• Vote (Final Chamber): Legislature 32–11

• Official Record: Nebraska Legislature — LR 14

• Status: Active

• Notes: The application contains an expiration date of February 1, 2027.

COS #18 — West Virginia (2022)

• Resolution: HCR 31

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 4, 2022

• State Certification / Forwarding: Separate state forwarding date not identified; federal filing in Washington documented May 4, 2022 (POM-136 / POM-184).

• Vote (Final Chamber): Senate voice vote

• Official Record: West Virginia Legislature — HCR 31

• Status: Active

COS #19 — South Carolina (2022)

• Resolution: H. 3205 / Act 241

• Final Legislative Approval Date: March 29, 2022

• State Certification / Forwarding: Ratified April 7, 2022 and signed by the Governor April 13, 2022; separate state forwarding date not identified. Federal filing in Washington documented June 22, 2022 (POM-155 / POM-74).

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 64–48 on concurrence in Senate amendment

• Official Record: South Carolina General Assembly — H. 3205

• Status: Active

COS #20 — Kansas (2026)

• Resolution: SCR 1604

• Final Legislative Approval Date: January 22, 2026

• State Certification / Forwarding: Enrolled and presented to the Kansas Secretary of State; the legislative record identifies final disposition as filed with the Secretary of State. No federal receipt or recording was identified in this review.

• Vote (Final Chamber): House 80–42

• Official Record: Kansas Legislature — SCR 1604

• Status: Active

Application Strategy Architectures

The Article V application record examined on this page contains three distinguishable strategy architectures. Each uses the state legislature’s Article V application authority while organizing political authorization, subject definition, textual standardization, and aggregation differently.

1996 Voter-Backed Strategy

Most 1996 ballot measures joined a defined three-House-term, two-Senate-term amendment objective to voter instruction directed toward the state legislature’s Article V application authority.

The electorate supplied antecedent political authorization. The state legislature retained the constitutional authority to make the application. Candidate pledges, prescribed conduct, administrative determinations, and ballot information supplied an electoral feedback system around that instruction.

This architecture therefore joined:

voter authorization
↓
defined amendment objective
↓
state-legislative application authority
↓
electoral information concerning representative response

U.S. Term Limits Application Strategy

U.S. Term Limits organizes its current campaign around standardized single-subject legislative applications directed specifically toward congressional term limits.

The model identifies a common subject, provides for aggregation with applications addressing that subject, excludes applications addressing other subjects from the campaign count, and states that the application continues until the required number of states has applied.

The resulting campaign architecture emphasizes textual standardization, subject congruence, and a defined application family. Its design supplies the basis for the USTL application count recorded in this catalog. That campaign count remains analytically separate from the broader constitutional question of which state applications contribute to Article V’s two-thirds trigger.

Convention of States Application Strategy

Convention of States organizes its campaign around a broader multi-subject application generally encompassing fiscal restraints, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials.

The applications exhibit substantial textual and structural commonality while preserving some state variation in duration, procedure, and operative scope. Mississippi provides a material example: its application participates in the campaign’s aggregation architecture while limiting its commissioners to fiscal restraints and limits on federal power and jurisdiction.

The resulting campaign architecture uses substantially similar multi-subject applications while requiring attention to the operative text of individual state enactments.

Structural Comparison

The three strategies use the same underlying state-legislative Article V application authority while differing in four principal respects:

political authorization → electorate or legislature

substantive architecture → defined amendment objective, single subject, or multiple subjects

application architecture → voter-directed instrument, standardized model, or substantially similar variant texts

aggregation practice → historically prescribed application strategy or contemporary campaign classification

None of these application architectures determines the constitutional text ultimately proposed. State legislatures exercise application authority. Congress retains its independent proposal authority. A Convention, if called, exercises proposal authority within the Convention pathway. Any amendment produced through either route then requires ratification by three-fourths of the states.

The catalog therefore distinguishes application strategy from constitutional trigger. Campaign classifications make contemporary institutional practice observable; they do not resolve the separate Article V questions of cross-subject aggregation, application persistence, or the constitutional effect of later state actions.

The companion Worked Example — Congressional Term Limits: From Proposal to Constitutional Adoption follows the congressional proposal pathway using a specified 3/2 demonstration amendment. It connects the state application pathway to House and Senate procedures, institutional leadership, congressional proposal requirements, and eventual state ratification.

Related Pages

→ Term Limits: Eligibility, Restoration, and Rotation
Places the Article V application pathway within the broader comparative study of term limits, eligibility architecture, and congressional term-limit development.

→ Congressional Ballot Instruction Phase (1996–2000) — State Measure Catalog
Provides the companion catalog of voter instruction, Progressive Era lineage, ballot information, and the 1996 voter-backed Convention-application strategy that precedes the application history recorded here.

→ Constitutional Maintenance
Provides the Framework for distributed proposal authority, maintenance pathways, authority dependency, and constitutional change through separately constituted institutions.

→ Worked Example — Institutional Response Sequence to Congressional Term-Limit Initiatives (1990–2001)
Locates Article V within the broader sequence of state enactment, judicial boundary, voter instruction, pathway migration, and continuing constitutional response.

→ Worked Example — The Oregon System and the Seventeenth Amendment
Provides the earlier historical sequence connecting voter instruction, state institutional activity, Convention applications, and eventual congressional proposal.

← Previous
Worked Example — Cook v. Gralike (2001)

→ Return to Worked Examples hub