A constitutional convention provision is the clause in a constitution that authorizes voters or legislators to call an assembly with power to propose sweeping changes to the governing document. At the state level, fourteen states include language that puts the convention question before voters automatically every ten, sixteen, or twenty years; the rest rely on the legislature to refer the question. At the federal level, Article V of the U.S. Constitution lets state legislatures force Congress to call a convention once two-thirds of them apply. The provision exists as a safety valve: it guarantees the people can overhaul the framework of their government even when elected officials have no interest in change.
How State Provisions Trigger a Convention
State provisions fall into two categories: mandatory periodic ballot questions and legislative referrals. The mandatory version is the stronger of the two because it takes elected officials out of the equation. Once the interval expires, the question appears whether anyone in office wants it to or not.
Five states put the convention question on the ballot every ten years: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. Michigan uses a sixteen-year cycle. Eight states use a twenty-year interval: Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New York, Ohio, and Oklahoma.1Ballotpedia. Mandatory Vote About Holding a Statewide Constitutional Convention
The remaining states rely on legislative referral, meaning the legislature must vote to place the question on the ballot. The threshold for that vote varies. Some states require a simple majority of each chamber; others demand two-thirds. South Dakota sets the highest bar, at three-fourths of all members in each house.2Book of the States. Procedures for Calling Constitutional Conventions, Constitutional Provisions A handful of states also allow citizens to petition for a convention through the initiative process, using the same rules that apply to constitutional amendment initiatives.
The Federal Article V Provision
Article V gives two paths for amending the U.S. Constitution. The familiar one runs through Congress: two-thirds of both chambers vote to propose an amendment. The second path bypasses Congress. If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states — currently thirty-four — submit applications, Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”3National Archives. Article V, U.S. Constitution The word “shall” appears to leave Congress no discretion once the threshold is met, though whether Congress could drag its feet or attach conditions has never been resolved.
This method has never been used.4Constitution Annotated. ArtV.1 Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution All twenty-seven amendments came through the congressional route. The threat of a convention has nudged Congress before, however. The Seventeenth Amendment, which established direct election of senators, gained momentum partly because state legislatures were approaching the two-thirds application threshold and Congress chose to propose the amendment itself rather than risk an open convention.
Whichever path is used, an amendment takes effect only when three-fourths of the states — thirty-eight of the fifty — ratify it.5National Conference of State Legislatures. Amending the U.S. Constitution Congress chooses whether ratification runs through state legislatures or through state ratifying conventions. That thirty-eight-state requirement acts as a second filter: even a convention that proposed something radical would need overwhelming national consensus to enact it.
Several organized campaigns are currently pressing state legislatures to submit Article V applications on subjects that include a balanced budget amendment, term limits, and broader structural reforms. Roughly twenty-eight states have active applications across these various efforts, though not all target the same subject. Whether applications on different topics can be aggregated to reach thirty-four is itself a contested legal question with no definitive answer.
Can a Convention Be Limited to One Subject?
The biggest source of anxiety about the Article V provision is the “runaway convention” scenario. The fear is that a convention called to address one specific issue could propose amendments on anything it wants, effectively rewriting the Constitution wholesale. That concern has probably done more to prevent convention calls than any other factor.
Legal scholars are genuinely split. One camp argues that because state applications specify a subject, the resulting convention is bound by those terms. Congress has historically embraced this view, and the proposed convention procedures bills introduced between the 1960s and 1990s generally assumed Congress could hold the convention to the topics in the state applications.6Congressional Research Service. The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress
The opposing camp points out that Article V’s text places no limitation on the number or scope of amendments a convention can propose. Some prominent constitutional scholars have argued that any convention must have the authority to consider whatever it thinks appropriate, regardless of what the original applications requested. The 1787 Constitutional Convention was itself convened to revise the Articles of Confederation and ended up replacing them entirely, which skeptics cite as proof that conventions cannot be contained.
Because no Article V convention has ever been held, no precedent resolves the dispute. The thirty-eight-state ratification requirement does provide a practical safeguard: whatever a convention proposed, only proposals with overwhelming national support could become law. The uncertainty keeps the runaway convention argument alive in every debate over pursuing this path.
Can a State Take Back Its Application?
At least twelve states have passed resolutions attempting to rescind previous Article V applications. Whether rescission is valid has never been tested in court. Opponents of a convention argue states can withdraw applications the same way they submitted them. Supporters counter that applications, like ratifications, should be treated as final once submitted. The Constitution says nothing either way, leaving the question unresolved until Congress or a court addresses it directly.6Congressional Research Service. The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress
Delegates and Convention Rules
Most state provisions leave delegate selection to the legislature or to separate enabling legislation passed after voters approve a convention call. Delegates are usually elected by popular vote, sometimes from existing legislative districts and sometimes from districts drawn specifically for the convention.
For a hypothetical federal Article V convention, Congress would likely set the ground rules. The proposed convention procedures bills Congress considered between 1968 and 1992 generally used the Electoral College apportionment formula to determine how many delegates each state would send, and most of those bills provided for per capita voting by individual delegates rather than block voting by state delegation.6Congressional Research Service. The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress Not everyone agrees Congress has that authority. Some scholars argue Congress’s role is purely ministerial and that the convention itself should set its own rules once convened.
Ratification of What a Convention Proposes
A convention’s proposals have no legal force until they survive ratification. At the state level, the most common standard is approval by a majority of voters who cast ballots on the specific proposal. A few states set the bar higher, requiring either a majority of everyone voting in the election (not just those who vote on the measure) or a supermajority of those voting on the proposal.2Book of the States. Procedures for Calling Constitutional Conventions, Constitutional Provisions
The difference between the two majority standards matters in practice. Under the first, only people who actually mark the convention question are counted. Under the second, every person who shows up to vote is counted, and anyone who skips the question is effectively casting a “no” vote. The second standard makes ratification harder and has blocked convention proposals in states that use it.
For amendments proposed by a federal Article V convention, ratification requires approval by three-fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or through specially called ratifying conventions, depending on which method Congress designates.3National Archives. Article V, U.S. Constitution Congress used the ratifying convention route once before, for the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed Prohibition.
What Has Actually Happened
State convention questions appear on ballots regularly because of the automatic cycles, but voters almost always say no. The most prominent recent example was New York’s 2017 mandatory question, which failed 83 percent to 17 percent. That lopsided result reflected a broad coalition of interest groups on both the left and the right warning voters that a convention could threaten protections they valued.
The last time a state convention question actually led to a convention being held was Rhode Island in 1986. Hawaii voters approved a convention question in 1996, but the state supreme court ruled the question had not passed under the applicable vote-counting standard, and no convention took place. That episode shows how the specific language of the provision and the ratification standard can determine whether a convention ever materializes, even after apparent voter approval.
At the federal level, the convention mechanism has functioned more as a pressure tactic than a realistic path to amendment. The closest the country has come was arguably the push for the Seventeenth Amendment in the early 1900s, when Congress acted preemptively as applications piled up. Today, multiple campaigns continue pressing state legislatures to submit applications, but the mix of subject-matter disagreements, rescission questions, and runaway convention fears has kept the total well short of thirty-four on any single issue.