To enact sections 3523.13, 3523.14, 3523.15, 3523.16, 3523.17, 3523.18, and 3523.99 of the Revised Code to establish procedures for appointing delegates to a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution.
HB67 creates a detailed statutory framework for Ohio to appoint, instruct, monitor, and, if necessary, remove delegates to a convention of the states called under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The bill applies only if two-thirds of state legislatures have applied for a convention and Congress has called one. It requires the General Assembly to appoint an odd number of delegates, sets eligibility rules, requires an oath, provides compensation and expense reimbursement, and establishes how delegates choose leadership and cast the state’s vote.
The bill also creates an advisory committee made up of legislative members to advise delegates, monitor convention activity, investigate possible overreach, and recall delegates who exceed their authority. It further limits delegate conduct by prohibiting actions such as promoting changes to the one-state-one-vote convention rule, supporting amendments outside the scope of Ohio’s application, or accepting certain gifts and benefits. Violations of these restrictions are made a third-degree felony.
HB67 would add a new chapter of state law governing Ohio’s participation in an Article V convention and would place the appointment and supervision of delegates squarely under the General Assembly’s control. It would create new duties for legislative leaders, the secretary of state, the attorney general, and a newly formed advisory committee, while also establishing criminal penalties for delegate misconduct. The bill would affect any Ohio delegates selected for a future convention and would constrain their authority through commissions, instructions, recall procedures, and substantive voting limits.
Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented public or legislative sentiment in the record here. The structure of the bill suggests a strong preference among the sponsors for tight legislative control over any convention delegation, but the available context does not show support or opposition from committee members or other lawmakers.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between state control and delegate independence at a constitutional convention. The bill gives the General Assembly broad power to appoint, instruct, recall, and replace delegates, and it criminalizes certain delegate actions, which could be viewed as necessary safeguards by supporters but as overly restrictive by critics. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s prohibition on supporting amendments outside the scope of Ohio’s application and its ban on changing the convention’s traditional one-state-one-vote rule, both of which reflect a highly controlled approach to Article V conventions.