House Bill 214 creates the “Faithful Article V Commissioner Act,” a new Article in Chapter 120 of the North Carolina General Statutes governing how North Carolina selects, instructs, replaces, and disciplines commissioners sent to interstate conventions under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The bill is aimed primarily at conventions for proposing constitutional amendments, and it sets out legislative findings about the historical authority of states to participate in interstate conventions and the constitutional basis for doing so.
The bill requires commissioners to be chosen by joint resolution of the General Assembly, with a seven-member committee structure plus alternates: three selected by the Senate, three by the House, and one at-large member chosen jointly by legislative leaders. It also establishes qualifications for commissioners and alternates, including U.S. citizenship, North Carolina residency, minimum age 21, no felony conviction, no registered lobbyist status, and no federal office, federal employment, or statewide elected office. Commissioners are subject to the same ethics laws that apply to legislators, and vacancies are filled through alternates or temporary leadership action when the legislature is not in session.
A major feature of the bill is its attempt to tightly limit commissioner authority. It defines the scope of a commissioner’s power as the narrowest of the congressional call, the relevant state applications, or the actual application terms, and it prohibits commissioners from exceeding that scope or violating instructions. The bill also requires an oath promising compliance with those limits. Most notably, it makes unauthorized action at an interstate convention a Class I felony if a commissioner votes for, votes to consider, or otherwise promotes action outside the authorized scope, while allowing support for clearly nonbinding recommendations.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it creates a detailed statutory framework for North Carolina participation in Article V conventions and adds criminal penalties for commissioners who act beyond their authority. It would also formalize legislative control over appointments, removals, and instructions, and it would apply state ethics rules to convention delegates. In practical terms, it affects the General Assembly, its leadership, and any North Carolina citizens selected to serve as commissioners or alternates at interstate conventions.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also substantial opposition, as shown by the 61-53 second-reading vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to identify specific arguments, but the close vote indicates the measure was controversial. Likely points of contention include the felony penalty for unauthorized convention activity, the extent of legislative control over commissioners, and whether the bill appropriately constrains or burdens North Carolina’s role in interstate constitutional-amendment conventions.
The bill would add a new Article 31A to Chapter 120 of the North Carolina General Statutes and create a comprehensive legal regime for commissioners representing the General Assembly at interstate conventions, especially Article V amendment conventions. It would establish appointment procedures, eligibility rules, vacancy-filling mechanisms, instruction and recall authority, oath requirements, and ethics coverage, while also making unauthorized action by a commissioner a Class I felony. The measure would directly affect the General Assembly, legislative leaders, and any appointed commissioners or alternates, and it would impose new statutory limits and criminal exposure on those serving in this role.
The available voting history shows the bill passed second reading by a relatively narrow margin of 61-53, indicating divided sentiment in the House. Because there are no committee transcripts, there is no direct record of floor or committee arguments, but the vote suggests the bill had a solid base of support while also drawing significant resistance. The close vote is consistent with a measure that raises constitutional, procedural, and criminal-penalty concerns for some members while appealing to others who favor tighter legislative control over Article V convention delegates.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s criminalization of conduct at interstate conventions, the degree to which it binds commissioners to legislative instructions, and the legislature’s ability to recall or suspend commissioners. Supporters likely view the bill as a safeguard to ensure commissioners remain faithful to the General Assembly’s intent and the scope of any Article V call, while opponents may see it as overly restrictive, potentially unconstitutional, or impractical in the context of interstate convention negotiations. The felony penalty and the narrow definition of authorized action are especially likely to be disputed.