A convention of states is the state-initiated path for amending the U.S. Constitution laid out in Article V. When two-thirds of state legislatures (currently 34) submit applications on the same subject, Congress is required to call a convention where state delegations propose amendments without Congress acting as the initiator. Any amendment that emerges from such a convention still has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38) before it takes effect.1Legal Information Institute. Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution No such convention has ever been called. Every amendment in American history has originated in Congress, which makes this an untested but constitutionally guaranteed alternative.
What Article V Authorizes
Article V provides two separate tracks for proposing amendments. The first, and the only one ever used, lets Congress propose amendments when two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote in favor. The second track lets state legislatures bypass Congress: if two-thirds of them apply, Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”2National Archives. Article V, U.S. Constitution That word “shall” matters. Congress’s role at that stage is mandatory, not discretionary.
The framers built the second track deliberately. A sitting Congress has little incentive to propose amendments that curtail its own power or restructure federal authority, so state legislatures were given a tool to push for changes Congress might never volunteer. Neither track gives the President any role. The President cannot veto a proposed amendment, and no presidential signature is required at any stage.3National Archives. Constitutional Amendment Process
The 34-State Trigger
The process starts when individual state legislatures pass resolutions applying to Congress for a convention. Each application is a formal document requesting that Congress call a convention to address a specific subject. Once 34 legislatures have submitted valid applications on the same topic, the constitutional threshold is met.1Legal Information Institute. Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution
At that point Congress’s duty is ministerial. The Constitution does not give Congress discretion to weigh the merits of the applications or refuse the request. Congress must set a date and location for the convention to meet. The precise mechanics remain untested because no convention has ever been called. Proposed legislation has suggested that the Archivist of the United States would formally notify Congress when the threshold is reached, and Congress would then handle the logistics.
The Same-Subject Counting Problem
Article V says nothing about whether the 34 applications need to address the same topic. That silence creates a fundamental question: can Congress aggregate applications filed decades apart, on slightly different subjects, to reach the threshold?
Proponents generally argue that applications on the same broad subject should count together, even if they use different wording or were filed years apart. Some go further and argue that all applications, regardless of subject, should count toward a single threshold. Opponents insist that applications must match closely in subject matter and be roughly contemporaneous. Because Congress has never actually made this determination, there is no precedent. The Constitution offers no rules for tallying applications, and scholars have debated at length whether Congress, the courts, or some other body would have the final say.1Legal Information Institute. Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution If applications are imprecise or use disparate terms, Congress could plausibly refuse to aggregate them. That makes uniform application language a strategic priority for any organized campaign.
Rescission and Whether Old Applications Expire
A legislature that previously applied for a convention can rescind that application. Multiple states have done so in recent years, with at least three rescinding applications in 2025 alone. As of late 2025, roughly 16 to 17 states had rescinded all of their prior Article V applications, effectively reducing the pool of active calls. The count can shrink as well as grow.
Whether old applications expire on their own is murkier. Some legal scholars argue that applications remain valid indefinitely, pointing to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which was ratified more than 200 years after it was first proposed. Others insist that applications go stale after a reasonable period, with commonly suggested lifespans of two, four, or seven years. Congressional proposals introduced between 1973 and 1992 generally included a seven-year expiration window. Because Congress has never ruled on the question, the status of applications filed decades ago remains unresolved.
Where Current Campaigns Stand
Multiple convention campaigns are active, each pursuing a different subject. The Convention of States Project, which seeks amendments to limit federal power, impose fiscal restraints, and establish term limits for federal officials, has secured applications from 20 state legislatures as of 2026. A separate effort focused on a balanced budget amendment has approximately 19 active state applications. Both remain well short of the 34-state threshold, and the gap has proven difficult to close as some states have moved in the opposite direction by rescinding earlier applications.
How close any effort actually is depends on how you count. Active campaigns are not the whole picture. Hundreds of Article V applications have been filed throughout American history on various subjects, and the legal status of older ones is one of the most contested questions in this space.
The Runaway Convention Question
This is the single biggest flashpoint in the debate. Critics worry that once a convention is called, delegates could ignore the stated subject matter and propose amendments on anything, including wholesale changes to the constitutional structure. They point to the only real historical precedent. The 1787 Constitutional Convention was called for the “sole and express purpose” of revising the Articles of Confederation, and the delegates threw out the Articles entirely and wrote a new Constitution instead.
Convention supporters respond that the 1787 analogy is misleading. They argue that Article V conventions are structurally different from the founding convention, that the applications themselves legally constrain the agenda, and that any proposed amendment would still need ratification by 38 states, making radical changes practically impossible to push through. Many states have reinforced this argument by passing “faithful delegate” laws, which instruct their commissioners to vote only within the scope of the application and impose penalties for exceeding that authority. Some of these laws treat unauthorized votes as felonies punishable by fines and imprisonment.
Nobody knows for certain which side is right. The Constitution’s text on this point is, as one legal scholar put it, “starkly vague.” It says nothing about whether a convention’s agenda can be limited, how rules would be enforced, or who would have standing to challenge an out-of-scope proposal. That ambiguity is what keeps the debate alive.
Delegates and How States Control Them
Delegates to an Article V convention are typically called commissioners, and they serve as agents of their state legislatures rather than as independent actors. Each legislature determines how its commissioners are selected, usually through a legislative vote. Commissioners operate under formal instructions, sometimes called a “commission,” that spell out the scope of their authority and the subjects they are permitted to address.
The voting structure is expected to follow a one-state, one-vote model, meaning Wyoming’s delegation would carry the same weight as California’s. That expectation draws from the 1787 convention and from the structure of Article V itself, which treats states as equal participants. Because no modern convention has occurred, this rule has never been formally established or tested.
Commissioners who stray from their instructions face real consequences under the laws of a growing number of states. Faithful delegate statutes can invalidate unauthorized votes, trigger immediate recall, or impose criminal penalties. Whether those laws would survive a constitutional challenge is another open question, but they signal how seriously state legislatures take the risk of overreach.
The 38-State Ratification Hurdle
Even if a convention proposes an amendment, the proposal has no legal force until it clears a second, equally demanding hurdle. Three-fourths of the states (38) must ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.1Legal Information Institute. Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution Just 13 states can block any amendment, no matter how much support it has elsewhere.
Congress decides the method of ratification: approval by state legislatures or approval by special state ratifying conventions called for that sole purpose.1Legal Information Institute. Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution With one exception, every amendment in U.S. history has been ratified through state legislatures. The Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, was ratified through state conventions in 1933.
Congress can also attach a time limit. Seven years has been the standard deadline for modern amendments, and if not enough states ratify within that window, the amendment dies. Whether Congress can extend or revive a deadline after it passes is contested. In 2020, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel advised that Congress lacks the authority to either extend a ratification deadline for a pending amendment or revive one after the deadline has expired without restarting the entire Article V process from scratch.4Legal Information Institute. Congressional Deadlines for Ratification of an Amendment
An amendment officially becomes part of the Constitution when the final required state certifies its approval. The Archivist of the United States is responsible for formally recording the ratification and publishing the amendment. Until that 38th ratification is documented, the proposed language has no legal weight, regardless of how many states have already approved it.
Why No Convention Has Ever Been Called
The convention mechanism has been part of the Constitution since 1789, yet no convention has ever been called. The reasons are partly practical and partly strategic. Reaching 34 aligned applications is an enormous coordination challenge, especially when applications can be rescinded and their long-term validity is debatable. The same-subject counting problem gives Congress room to reject even a seemingly sufficient number of applications.
There is also a self-correcting dynamic. When convention efforts have gained serious momentum, Congress has sometimes responded by proposing the demanded amendment itself, defusing the campaign. The closest any effort has come was the push for direct election of senators in the early 1900s, which came within one or two states of the threshold before Congress proposed the Seventeenth Amendment on its own. The convention threat, in other words, can be effective even when a convention never materializes.