Screenshot 2025-11-24 at 12.54.08 PM.png

LEARN MORE

IDAHO’S CHOICE: JOIN THE PACK OR PROTECT IDAHO VALUES AND WAY OF LIFE

The push for holding an Article V Constitutional Convention is being driven by multiple special interest groups that have spent millions of dollars trying to convince lawmakers in state capitols across the country to petition the U.S. Congress to call for a convention. These groups – U.S. Term Limits, Convention of States and Balanced Budget Amendment – have had success. So far, 28 states have called for a convention in hopes of pursuing term limits, social issues or gun rights. With just six states needed to meet the threshold, Idaho once again finds itself in a key position to protect the Constitution.

The other forgotten fact is that those 28 states have called for a convention in the past three decades, raising questions about whether those states still share the desire to convene a convention. In fact, some states, citing the same concerns we have, are taking steps to rescind or nullify resolutions supporting a convention. Idaho did just that in 1999 when the Legislature voted to rescind and nullify all previous decisions supporting a constitutional convention.

More recently, Article V resolutions were defeated in the Idaho Legislature in 2017, 2024 and again in 2025 by a 44-26 margin. In each case, the resolution sought to limit the convention to mandating a federal balanced budget, reigning in the federal government and limits on how many terms anyone can serve in the U.S. House or Senate.

We know the special interest groups will try again in 2026. We are always looking for concerned and courageous Idahoans willing to join the fight against a risky and unpredictable attempt to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

FAQs

Idaho may have a small population base, but the state has a big time role in determining the future of a constitutional convention. To date, 28 states have come out in some favor of an Article V convention. Support from just six more states is all that is required for Congress to call for a convention. So, as you can see, Idaho is standing firmly at the crossroads in determining whether to give deep-pocketed special interests permission to forever modify and alter our nation’s founding document.

We agree that the spending habits of Congress are frustrating. We just don’t think a constitutional convention is the best way to ensure the federal government lives within its means. Historians, legal scholars and U.S. Supreme Court judges have all concluded that there are no known rules or guardrails to ensure convention delegates would focus solely on a balanced budget amendment ort any other single issue. In fact, there is every reason to believe that a convention would enable special interests or political extremists to propose new rights or eliminate existing rights we all hold dear. The path forward is to pressure Congress and the Presidential administration to make the fix. We’ve done this before. We know how to do it.

On one hand, pressure on Idaho lawmakers to support a convention is coming from outside groups and think tanks with their own agendas and big wallets to influence Idaho legislators into something that threatens the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution. This is not an organic, homegrown Idaho idea. In addition, states with bigger populations – or a coalition of states – could drive an agenda and constitutional changes that run counter to the Idaho way.

A constitutional convention would sail across uncharted waters because the U.S. Constitution provides no guidelines or rules for how to operate a convention. The lack of rules is why conventions are considered risky and vulnerable to a potential runaway convention. Former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger described the risk by saying there is “no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a constitutional convention.”

This is a risky gambit. The reason is there is a danger in having one set of legislators pass a resolution on the premise or hope that a future Legislature will think the same way and follow through and rescind and nullify the resolution. If Idaho isn’t serious about supporting an Article V convention on the merits, then it’s just plain dangerous to play political games when the fate of the Constitution is on the line.

Not all state Article V resolutions are created equal. While it’s true some resolutions are limited to balanced budgets or term limits, there are other states, like California for example, that see a convention as an opportunity to impose limits on the Second Amendment. The nature of a convention and the lack of clear rules exposes the process to the whole marketplace of political ideas and agendas.

BEEN HERE BEFORE: IDAHO’S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HISTORY

This isn’t the first time Idaho has been pressured to join a Constitutional Convention. In fact, attempts have been made multiple times in recent history:

1999

The Idaho Legislature approves a measure intended to rescind all previous applications for an Article V constitutional convention. At the time, Idaho was a key state as convention proponents were close to meeting the required threshold of 34 states. Officially, Idaho Senate Concurrent Resolution 129 stated “the Legislature does hereby repeal, rescind, cancel, nullify and supersede to the same effect as if they had never been passed, any and all extant applications by the Legislature of the State of Idaho to the Congress of the United States to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America … .”

2017

The first attempt in recent history to add Idaho to the list of states calling for a convention. Concerned legislators and citizens banded together and raised questions about unpredictability, risk and lack of clear and defined rules. The Gem State ultimately said no.

2024

Convention momentum and out-of-state special interests reorganize and rally. Once again, Idahoans push back, reminding lawmakers that a convention would put our rights and freedoms in jeopardy. The proposal failed

2025

Wealthy out-of-state interests that donated the maximum amount to the re-election campaigns of dozens of legislators in 2024 made another big bid for an Article V convention. Despite intense lobbying from these organizations, Idahoans rallied around legitimate concerns about the loss of sovereignty and threats to our constitution to defeat the resolutions.

We fully expect these national interest groups to introduce another resolution calling for a convention in 2026. We will once again be working to convince lawmakers to reject this idea, and to protect Idaho’s sovereignty and defend the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms it provides to all.

LEARN MORE

IDAHO’S CHOICE: JOIN THE PACK OR PROTECT IDAHO VALUES AND WAY OF LIFE

FAQs

With Idaho having such a small population, why does it matter how the Legislature votes on the question of calling for a Constitutional Convention?

Congress can’t seem to operate under a balanced budget, so why not summon delegates from all 50 states to draft a balanced budget amendment to bring our fiscal house in order?

Why are state resolutions supporting an Article V considered a threat to Idaho’s sovereignty and values?

Why do Idaho legislators believe we need a Constitutional Convention to curtail federal spending and overreach when the Trump Administration and a GOP-controlled House and Senate are working hard to achieve both goals?

If Article V resolutions explicitly limit a constitutional convention agenda to a balanced budget amendment and restrictions on federal overreach, what is the concern about other special interest issues being added to the agenda?

What’s wrong with the Legislature passing an Article V resolution simply to put pressure on Congress to balance the budget, then withdraw the resolution as the U.S. moves closer to meeting the 34-state threshold required to trigger a convention?

Idahoans have tried before to get Congress to fix problems like budget deficits and spending, so doesn’t it make sense to try something else like a convention of states?

Why would it be so difficult to keep a convention focused on a limited agenda of proposed amendments?

BEEN HERE BEFORE: IDAHO’S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HISTORY

1999

2017

2024

2025