Mixed opinions combine in Ohio Senate hearing on constitutional convention measures
Recent hearings on two different resolutions related to Ohio’s support of a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution showed the strong but mixed opinions that surround the issue.
The Ohio Senate General Government Committee heard from a national group that’s leading the movement to start a constitutional convention, as well as individuals who say the idea is experimental and possibly dangerous.
The committee was reviewing Senate Joint Resolution 3, which would apply for a constitutional convention to limit federal power.
A constitutional convention can only be held if 34 state legislatures approve an application for such a convention by invoking Article V of the Constitution. The application must have a specific purpose in mind, such as a balanced federal budget or congressional term limits.
Republican state legislators have introduced bills to bring Ohio into the fold of states with applications, which currently sits at 19.
The Senate bill reviewed recently and its companion bill in the House look to amend the constitution with measures that “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government” and “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” while another set of companion bills in the Ohio House and Senate specifically support congressional term limits.
A constitutional convention has not been held in the history of the United States, and while numerous states have approved applications over the years, a single issue has never garnered enough support to bring about the convention of states.
Those that support the idea say the Constitution included the concept of a constitutional convention so that it could be used, and the time has come for states to bring together delegates to help stem what they see as an overbearing federal government.
“I’m personally convinced that a convention of states is the only way to prevent a meltdown of our federal government and the ruination of our federal government,” said Broadview Heights resident and Cuyahoga Community College media and journalism professor John Kerezy.
Citing a quote from Abraham Lincoln about the “good old ship of the union,” Kerezy said “that ship is in great danger right now,” and if the Senate resolution to limit federal power isn’t passed, “its failure is imminent.”
Responding to a comment from the committee’s chair, Republican Sen. Kristina Roegner, that “several state senators and (House representatives) have expressed a concern that calling for a convention of states won’t really make a difference,” Kerezy said the concept has “the virtue of never having been tried.”
“Why would you knock something down if it’s never been tried,” Kerezy said. “Everything else is just hot air.”
Michael Farris, the cofounder of Convention of States Action, a leader in the movement to gather a convention together, dismissed concerns from opponents who said the Constitution is silent on how the convention would be controlled and that a lack of control could lead to delegates deciding on subject matters outside of the stated purpose.
“The Republican National Convention cannot nominate the Democratic candidate for president, nor can it pass laws for France,” Farris said. “The convention is limited to the subject matter.”
He also said simple math can prove that the convention of states wouldn’t have the power to make permanent change unilaterally.
“Anything that comes out of the convention has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures … so 13 chambers say no, the answer is no,” he told the committee.
‘A dangerous objective’
A Republican former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and current president of the Delaware, Ohio-based American Republic Policy, Dr. Alan Keyes, called the push for a convention “a dangerous objective.”
Keyes said, under the Declaration of Independence in particular, the U.S. has been successful in its mission to be a country that “did not involve the elevation of a king, it involved the elevation of a whole people in a way that would allow that people to govern itself in matters of mutual interest and defense.”
“What exactly is being achieved by a constitution convention,” Keyes asked, “except that we’re going to hand to a group of people the power to do something else that goes beyond that, and that targets … the fact that not everybody in our nation today believes in in government of, by and for the people, but they would seek to overthrow it.”
Springboro resident Robert Tuttle argued that delegates to a constitutional convention could easily lump the measures they want under the umbrella of limiting federal government power, measures that could include a national popular vote or a reproductive freedom amendment.
“’The right to reproductive freedom shall not be abridged,’” Tuttle said. “That’s a limitation on the federal government, so that could be proposed.”
The majority of public opinion supporting legal abortion and nine states having passed abortion-related state constitutional amendments should come as an important example as to what the unintended consequences of a convention could be, according to Tuttle.
“I would suggest that if you’re pro-life, you don’t want to be anywhere near this thing,” Tuttle said. “Because you can bet your bottom dollar that that will be proposed and it has a decent chance of ratification in the states.”
Delegate appointments
Potentially looking to address some of the concerns critics have of a convention’s lack of procedure, Senate Republicans also introduced Senate Bill 112, which would establish an appointment procedure for a constitutional convention.
The bill had a hearing in Senate General Government the same day as the the convention resolution itself.
The bill requires the General Assembly to appoint an odd number of delegates using a concurrent resolution or a majority vote in a joint session.
Delegates would be qualified under the bill if they are 25 or older, a registered elector have been a U.S. citizen and an Ohio resident for at least five years, and do not hold federal or statewide office.
The resolution appointing the delegates must contain a delegate’s “commission” and “the scope of the delegates’ authority,” while still allowing the General Assembly to give additional instructions in separate resolutions.
Part of the “convention conduct” required of delegates under the measure would involve “criminal prohibitions” if delegates vote to “take certain actions” or if they accept “certain gifts.”
An advisory committee would also be empaneled to answer delegate questions, “monitor the delegation” and report “perceived violations,” while also having the authority to investigate whether a delegate has “exceeded the scope of the delegate’s authority.”
Bill opponent Barbara Burkard noted the criminal penalties part of the legislation as a part of her opposition to the “faithful delegate pledge.”
“That’s just plain ridiculous,” Burkard told the committee. “Delegates to an Article V convention will have the highest authority in our nation, and they can not be legally charged for decisions they make in a convention because Article V gives them that right to make those decisions and the authority to do so.”
She also scoffed at the idea that Ohio legislators should authorize a pledge of “faithfulness” to delegates, when she said they themselves have fallen down on similar pledges.
She brought up the race for House Speaker in 2023, when former Speaker Jason Stephens took up the gavel. Stephen gained the speakership after a dramatic change of vote from many in the GOP caucus, and a collaboration with Democrats to see Stephens take the seat over former state Rep. Derek Merrin, whom the GOP caucus had voted to support before the formal vote.
“Why should these legislators tell delegates to sign a pledge of faithfulness when they themselves fail in the faithfulness category,” Burkard asked.