SB 450 revises Indiana’s laws governing the selection, qualifications, duties, and oversight of delegates to an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The bill replaces the term “delegate” with “commissioner” throughout the Article V convention chapter and makes conforming changes to references to alternate delegates, paired delegates, and related procedures. It also adds a new definition of “crime of moral turpitude,” expands eligibility restrictions, and updates the appointment, oath, compensation, recall, vacancy-filling, and reporting rules for these convention representatives.
The bill requires commissioners and alternate commissioners to be Indiana residents, registered voters, at least 18, and not current or recent lobbyists; it also bars individuals with certain criminal histories or federal officeholders from serving. The General Assembly retains authority to appoint, recall, and instruct commissioners by joint resolution, and the bill specifies that commissioners may not vote for amendments affecting enumerated constitutional protections. It also creates a chair position among the commissioners, prohibits acceptance of gratuities, and preserves only mileage and travel reimbursement, not salary or per diem.
SB 450 strengthens enforcement mechanisms by making votes outside legislative instructions void, causing forfeiture of appointment, and, in some cases, ending Indiana’s continuing application for an Article V convention if all commissioners act outside their authority. Knowingly or intentionally voting beyond the permitted scope remains a Level 6 felony. The bill also updates the Article V convention advisory group’s role so it can issue rapid advisory determinations to commissioners or the attorney general about whether proposed actions would violate legislative instructions, and it directs the attorney general to notify relevant officials and revoke credentials when violations are found.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily structural and procedural: it amends multiple sections of the Indiana Code to modernize terminology, tighten qualifications, and reinforce legislative control over Indiana’s participation in an Article V convention. It also expands the attorney general’s concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute violations involving constitutional convention commissioners and updates related criminal code references. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment appears supportive, as reflected by strong bipartisan passage in both chambers, though not unanimously. The Senate passed the bill 33-16 and the House passed it 69-27, suggesting broad but not universal agreement. The main points of contention likely center on the state’s effort to tightly constrain delegates’ discretion, the criminal penalties for exceeding instructions, and the extent to which the General Assembly can bind or police representatives at a federal constitutional convention.
SB 450 amends Indiana Code provisions governing Article V convention commissioners, replacing prior “delegate” terminology with “commissioner” terminology and revising appointment, qualification, oath, compensation, recall, vacancy, and enforcement provisions. It also adds a definition of “crime of moral turpitude,” imposes stricter eligibility rules, authorizes advisory opinions and attorney general enforcement, and updates related criminal and jurisdictional statutes. The bill primarily affects the General Assembly, the governor, the attorney general, the legislative council, and individuals appointed to represent Indiana at an Article V convention.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment, as shown by its passage in both chambers with comfortable margins. The vote totals indicate support across party lines, but the presence of a meaningful minority of nays in each chamber suggests some reservations. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows legislative approval more clearly than detailed debate, but the structure of the bill suggests it was viewed as a governance-and-oversight measure rather than a major policy expansion.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s strong legislative control over commissioners, the voiding of votes cast outside instructions, and the felony penalty for intentional violations. Critics may view these provisions as overly restrictive or as raising constitutional questions about the role of state-appointed representatives at an Article V convention. Supporters likely favor the bill’s safeguards against unauthorized action, its anti-corruption provisions such as the gratuity ban and lobbyist restrictions, and its effort to ensure commissioners remain accountable to the General Assembly.