Article V Convention; provide for selection and authority of commissioners.
House Concurrent Resolution 36 establishes Mississippi’s process for selecting and controlling commissioners who would represent the state at an Article V convention called to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It defines key terms, creates an advisory committee made up of legislators from both chambers, and sets eligibility requirements for commissioners, including U.S. citizenship, Mississippi residency, voter registration, age, and restrictions on recent federal lobbying, federal employment, federal officeholding, and felony convictions.
The resolution requires five commissioners to be appointed by joint legislative resolution, with the Legislature maintaining an odd-numbered delegation. It also allows the Legislature or advisory committee to recall, suspend, or replace commissioners, including interim commissioners chosen to fill vacancies. Commissioners must take an oath to follow their commission and any later instructions, and their credentials are tied to the filed oath and commissioning resolution.
If adopted, this resolution would not directly amend the Mississippi Code, but it would create a legislative framework governing how Mississippi participates in any Article V constitutional convention. It would centralize authority in the Legislature, define the scope of commissioners’ powers, require legislative instructions to be followed, and establish enforcement mechanisms through recall, suspension, and advisory committee oversight. It also sets compensation, expense allowances, gift limits, and media-communication rules for commissioners, affecting the conduct of any state delegation sent to such a convention.
The bill appears to reflect a cautious, control-oriented approach to an Article V convention rather than opposition to the concept itself. Its structure emphasizes legislative supervision, narrow authority, and safeguards against commissioners exceeding their mandate, suggesting concern about the risks of a convention and the need to preserve Mississippi’s control over its delegates. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between state control and commissioner independence, especially the power of the Legislature and advisory committee to recall or suspend commissioners and to issue binding instructions after appointment. Another likely issue is the restriction that commissioners may not support changes to the one-state-one-vote rule or to core constitutional liberty guarantees, which could be seen as either necessary protections or overly limiting the state’s negotiating position. The resolution’s detailed eligibility rules, media restrictions, and gift limits also suggest concern about influence and accountability, which may be viewed differently by supporters and critics of an Article V convention.