We took a significant vote this week to reduce the risk of a federal constitutional convention. Such a convention might lead to circulation of dangerous constitutional amendments.
Article Five of the U.S. Constitution defines the process for amending the constitution. To be adopted, amendments require support from 3/4 of the states. However, amendments can be proposed in two different ways: (a) by votes of two-thirds of both branches of Congress; or (b) through a constitutional convention requested by two-thirds of the states.
I have long and consistently opposed a constitutional convention. No Article Five convention has ever happened and there is no clear understanding of how an Article Five convention would work. For example, some feel that low population states would likely have the same vote as large states in a convention. Anything could come out of such a convention.
There is also confusion about how a convention would be called. Through the years, many states have requested constitutional amendments on one or another particular issue. But not enough have spoken to the same issue to trigger a convention. Now some advocates for a convention have proposed that a convention should be called if two-thirds of the states have amendment requests outstanding, even if they are different requests and even if the requests were made decades ago. To prevent this, many states have rescinded all prior outstanding requests for amendments. This week, by voting to rescind all prior amendment requests. According to Common Cause, by so doing Massachusetts became the 17th state to have no pending requests, bringing the total count of states with pending requests down to 33: below two-thirds. Crossing this threshold is a relief.
And the vote to rescind prior calls was long overdue. Pending amendment requests from the Massachusetts legislature went back decades and included a 1977 request to ban abortion. The legislature in 1977 was very different from the legislature now!
The joint legislative press release announcing last week’s vote appears below.
Legislature Votes to Protect Integrity of the U.S. Constitution
(Press release from the Massachusetts General Court.)
(BOSTON—11/19/2025) Today, the Massachusetts Legislature passed joint resolutions H.4692 and S.2684 which rescind all previous applications for a national Constitutional Convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. This joint initiative is in response to concerns that Congress and the Trump Administration could attempt to use prior Massachusetts resolutions to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention to advance their own political agenda, moves that could have broad and sweeping implications on current protections under the U.S. Constitution.
“As President Trump and Congressional Republicans continue to use every lever of government to roll back basic rights and halt progress on critical issues, this preventative measure will ensure that outdated Article V resolutions that were passed generations ago in Massachusetts cannot be used by Republicans to advance their own political agenda,” said House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano (D-Quincy). “I want to thank Leader Peisch and my colleagues in the House, as well as Senate President Spilka and our partners in the Senate, for recognizing the need for this measure.”
“Massachusetts refuses to be party to changing the American Constitution because Donald Trump and his supporters want him to be a king,” said Senate President Karen E. Spilka (D-Ashland). “We are a nation of laws, and today we spoke loudly and clearly that this Legislature insists that we follow them for the sake of our democracy. I applaud Majority Leader Creem for her leadership, each Senator for voting to protect our democracy, and Speaker Mariano, Leader Peisch, and our colleagues in the House for moving decisively for the sake of our country.”
“I would like to thank the Speaker for his support and leadership in bringing this resolution to the House floor. Given the uncertainty surrounding an Article V convention, such a process could present a serious threat to the U.S. Constitution, our democracy, and the civil rights and liberties that are the foundation of our nation,” said House Assistant Majority Leader Alice Hanlon Peisch (D-Wellesley), sponsor of the House resolutions. “Today, we come together in defense of the U.S. Constitution, a document that for more than two centuries has guided our nation, safeguarded our freedoms, and provided the framework for our democracy.”
“Today’s bipartisan vote is a resounding affirmation of our commitment to protecting the stability and integrity of the U.S. Constitution,” said Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem (D-Newton), lead Senate sponsor of the resolutions. “By acting swiftly and collaboratively, both chambers are turning the page on these outdated petitions that no longer reflect the values or priorities of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts will not allow our past resolutions to be misused in ways that could undermine fundamental rights or destabilize our constitutional framework. I am grateful to Senate President Spilka for her support in prioritizing this important effort.”
The Legislature’s action makes Massachusetts the 17th state to rescind all prior applications for an Article V convention, and reaffirms that any constitutional decisions should reflect the will of today’s elected lawmakers and the people they represent.
An Article V convention is a process outlined in the U.S. Constitution allowing states to propose amendments if two-thirds (34) of state legislatures call for it. An Article V convention could open the entire Constitution to unpredictable changes, as there are no clear guidelines or limitations on what delegates could propose. While an Article V convention has never been called before in American history, there is recent conservative momentum to add up all active resolutions to meet the two-thirds threshold.
Massachusetts had several outdated Article V resolutions pending before Congress, including one sent in 1977 asking for an Article V convention to constitutionally ban abortions. These dormant calls have been cited in national legal strategies pushing for a convention, arguing they could still be considered active and contribute to the 34-state count. Sixteen states have already taken action to rescind all of their previous calls.
Both chambers of the Legislature voted to approve the resolutions, and the House and Senate Clerks will transmit copies of the resolutions to the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate in Washington, D.C.
###
Statement of Support
Geoff Foster, Executive Director of Common Cause Massachusetts
“A convention of states would hand the keys to our democracy over to a few wealthy, unelected special interests. Thanks to House Assistant Majority Leader Peisch and Senate Majority Leader Creem, the Legislature has built a vital firewall by rescinding all prior Massachusetts applications. Their timely action makes clear that any attempt to twist the Constitution for partisan gain won’t be done in our name.”
Since when does the Republic of Massachusetts follow tue Constitution? You just nullify the Amendments you don’t like anyway.
Good one Fred!
Since when does the Republic of Massachusetts follow the Constitution? We just nullify the Amendments we don’t like anyway.
Could you give an example of an amendment that anyone has nullified? I don’t think that has happened.
Sure. The Second Amendment is nullified six ways from Sunday.
The blessings of liberty are not goods for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to dole out capriciously for partisan favor.
The right to bear, amass/keep arms and train flows from natural rights secured in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and do not come from, nor are they there to serve the partisan aims of a nominally democratic cabal in Massachusetts. Our rights are not an object for politicians or the state to redefine by meagerly doling them or to infringe for purely partisan purposes.
Gone are the days of storing black powder by oil lamp. The arguments of “safety” and “modernization” are specious and ought to be moot and are one mechanism of Constitutional nullification
This is a really important move – thanks Will.
Thank you to everyone for taking action on this serious issue.
Thank you Will for supporting the work of attending to these essential details of lawmaking. You have been involved in updating and modernizing Massachusetts laws, including purging outdated or irrelevant measures, in the past, and this housekeeping is tremendously important.
“Modernizing.”
Massachusetts isn’t modernizing any law, Massachusetts is “uncoupling” from Western and democratic values.
I think trump is trying to uncouple from democratic values. mike
Big win for the wealthy donor class. Status quo maintained.
Senator:
I don’t feel there was much threat here, but good to cleanup old business. In general, I favor a sunsetting approach to all legislation requiring re-evaluation and recommitment to things we feel are important enough to incorporate into law and force citizens to follow or forfeit their liberty and/or wealth.
I don;t agree with the concern you raise about small population states. I am very much committed to a Republican form of government and preservation of minority rights as was agreed in the constitution. The constitution ensures this with the senate and the electoral college representation. We don’t want to fall victim to the tyranny of the majority. (Big issue that we have here at the state level in MA) Small states must have a place at the table and not be pushed around by their larger sister states. To do otherwise will lead to civil war.
Exactly! His concern that smaller states might propose “dangerous amendments” is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Any amendment would still require 3/4 of the states to ratify it, so unless he thinks 38 states would support these so called dangerous amendments his concern is completely unfounded. This is nothing more than self serving posturing. My guess is he has his eye on holding national office and is afraid that a convention would likely result in non partisan amendments that would further restrict congressional power being passed. Such as term limits, salary caps, ending of lifetime pay and healthcare after leaving office and no duel citizenship.
Thanks, Cole. That isn’t what I said. I said that smaller states would have the same vote as larger states. In other words, it would look like the U.S. Senate politically, instead of U.S. House, where representation is closer to proportional to population.
I tend to agree with you that the requirement of ratification by 3/4 of states would be a safeguard, but there is one problem even with that — Article 5 allows Congress to define a concept of constitutional conventions in each state, bypassing the legislatures for ratification:
This is one more perilously vague part of the convention language. It seems that the framers just did not give this idea as much thought as they do to other parts of the constitution.
So only when Trump is president are you against a con-con, Will.
We understand all too well.
And you don’t want small states to have a say at a con-con.
Smaller than what?
Massachusetts is smaller in population than 13 states.
Maybe it should not have a say.
Though one thing we can say:
There have been a few presidential candidates lately from Mass. and they’ve all been losers, which makes perfect sense since the state is usually out of step with Americans.
You will never convince me that a small-population state should have just as much say as a large-population state. That is tyranny of the minority.
So Massachusetts, which is less populous than 13 states, should not have as many US Senators as NY, TX, or CA?
How about in the UN?
Should a small state – Honduras, Israel, etc. – have the same weight vote in the UN as, say, Egypt?
While we’re at it, how about the fact that some US cities actually allow non-citizens to vote? In other words, they can vote in TWO countries.
Massachusetts is not a small state. It is slightly above average size — it is greater than 1/50 of the total. There are 20 states with less than half of MA’s population who would get the same vote as MA:
Wyoming
Vermont
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Rhode Island
Montana
Maine
New Hampshire
Hawaii
West Virginia
Idaho
Nebraska
New Mexico
Mississippi
Kansas
Arkansas
Iowa
Nevada
Read the bill before disagreeing with it:
“Massachusetts rescinds all prior applications to call for a convention…” That’s all, nothing about small states or the 22nd amendment.
The few applications are anywhere from 50 to 90 years old. It’s totally inappropriate to use them to meet a requirement for calling a convention today. This is overdue housekeeping.
Protect the integrity of the Constitution?! President Obama signed DACA with the full knowledge that it was un-Constitutional at the moment of his signing.
The corruption of and betrayal by the Democratic Party is utterly staggering.
Thank you, Will. That wasn’t even on my radar, so I’m interested to read about it and to have the Legislature taken action. Makes sense in general even without any kind of a threat.
Having a grande rolling around the house was not a good thing and the legislature addressed this as appropriate. The felon president and his supporters have shown that they will do turn America into an authoritarian state like Russia or North Korea if given a chance. The hateful comments from some in these comments confirms the emotional immaturity and irrationality that we must all must be on guard for.
That said, I hope everyone can put there animosity aside at least for the holiday season.
Hurray! This is great news. Now if we could only get rid of the Citizens United ruling that money is the same as speech, I think we could start having a functional federal government again.
I think it is a tragedy that we are in this necessary defensive crouch, restraining democracy because of what it might unleash. I still mourn the demise of the ERA.
I am very much in favor of a constitutional amendment barring felons from elected or appointed government positions. Thank you for rescinding the old requests for constitutional amendments.
With MA, are we below the 2/3s level?
What amendment(s) does MA propose to redress the power of money/speech, and other authorities, that once were overcome by T and F Roosevelt attempting to advance the assertion: All Men/Women etc. are equal and reducing barriers to opportunity for the diversity of our residents and citizens?
Further, Maine is said to have brought a case that would again limit money in political contests. Tribe et al—today’s Globe 11/25/2025 OpEd. Should we join the suit and how?
Thank you!
The information being put out here is largely incorrect. The part of Article V being discussed is a Convention of States (not a Constitutional Convention) to merely propose Amendments to the Constitution. Thirty-four States have to agree on a topic before a Convention can even take place. The President has nothing to do with it. Congress only determines the time and place of the Convention. A few years back, I came across a nonprofit organization called Convention of States Action that is promoting a Convention of States limited to reducing terms, spending as well as power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government. I was skeptical at first, so I researched it for about a year. I found that it was legit. I signed the petition and have been a volunteer activist for over two years. If you like big government, this is probably not for you. However, if minimal and more efficient government is your cup of tea, it might me a good fit. Here is the website https://conventionofstates.com/. God Bless America!
Will, thank you for your work on this!
Maybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t see a comment that I left here on the evening of 11/25 which contained a viewpoint different from that of the Senator’s. If I am correct, can it be explained to me why my comment has appeared to have been removed? From my perspective, it was respectful and substantiated with facts. Thank you.
HI Sean, my apologies. For no good reason, your comment was intercepted by our Akismet spam filter. This is a standard automated filter. It does effectively filter hundreds of porn and marketing comments every month. It tends not to like links in comments, which often go to bad websites. But sometimes, as in this case, it does make mistakes. I have retrieved your comment from the spam filter and it does now appear above.
Thanks, Senator Brownsberger. I appreciate it.