HB214 creates the “Faithful Article V Commissioner Act” and adds a new article to Chapter 120 of the North Carolina General Statutes governing how North Carolina selects, instructs, removes, and replaces commissioners sent to interstate conventions under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The bill is built around the idea that the General Assembly should tightly control any North Carolina participation in a convention for proposing constitutional amendments, including by defining the scope of authority for commissioners and requiring them to follow legislative instructions.
The bill sets out detailed procedures for appointing commissioners and alternates, including a seven-member delegation structure, eligibility requirements, ethics rules, vacancy procedures, and a required oath. It also limits commissioners’ authority to the narrowest scope of the congressional call, the relevant state applications, and the commission’s instructions. Most notably, it makes it a Class I felony for a commissioner to exceed that authority by voting for, considering, or promoting action outside the permitted scope, while allowing support for clearly nonbinding recommendations.
If enacted, HB214 would create a new statutory framework in Chapter 120 governing North Carolina’s participation in Article V interstate conventions. It would affect the General Assembly’s appointment power, the role of legislative leaders in suspending or replacing commissioners when the legislature is not in session, and the ethical and eligibility standards applicable to commissioners and alternates. The bill would also impose criminal penalties for unauthorized conduct at a convention, potentially exposing commissioners to felony liability for actions beyond the prescribed scope.
The bill appears to reflect a strong preference among its sponsors for strict legislative control over any constitutional-amendment convention process, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned about limiting delegate discretion. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of broader debate, but the structure and criminal penalties indicate the bill is designed to be protective and restrictive rather than permissive. Its referral to Rules and Operations of the Senate suggests it remained in the committee process without documented floor action in the materials provided.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s criminalization of commissioner conduct, since it makes exceeding the scope of authority at an interstate convention a Class I felony. Another likely area of dispute is the breadth of legislative control over commissioners, including the ability of legislative leaders to suspend or temporarily replace commissioners when the General Assembly is not in session. The bill also raises potential concerns about how narrowly commissioners’ authority would be defined, whether the legislature can bind delegates to the “narrowest” application or call, and whether the felony penalty could chill participation in interstate constitutional convention activity.