Concurrent resolution; rescinding, repealing, canceling, voiding and superseding all extant applications by the Oklahoma Legislature heretofore made during any session thereof to the U.S. Congress to call a convention pursuant to the terms of Article V of the U.S. Constitution for proposing one or more amendments to that Constitution.
Summary
SCR14 is a concurrent resolution that would formally rescind, repeal, cancel, nullify, and supersede all prior Oklahoma legislative applications to Congress requesting an Article V constitutional convention. The resolution applies broadly to every extant application previously adopted by any session of the Oklahoma Legislature, whether those applications sought a limited convention on specific subjects or a general convention with no subject limits.
The measure also states the Legislature’s view that a constitutional convention could pose serious risks, including a so-called “runaway” convention that might threaten established constitutional rights and governmental duties. In addition to withdrawing Oklahoma’s own prior applications, the resolution urges every other state that has made similar applications to repeal and withdraw them as well.
Impact
If adopted, SCR14 would not change Oklahoma statutory law, but it would change the Legislature’s formal position on Article V convention applications by revoking all prior Oklahoma requests to Congress. The practical effect would be to remove or supersede Oklahoma’s existing applications for a constitutional convention, regardless of when they were adopted or what subject matter they covered, and to signal opposition to future convention efforts. It would also have no direct effect on private parties, but it could affect interstate efforts to aggregate state applications for an Article V convention.
Sentiment
The bill text reflects a strongly cautious and oppositional sentiment toward constitutional conventions, emphasizing the danger of a “runaway” convention and the importance of limited government and constitutional stability. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition beyond the resolution’s own findings and urging language. Based on the text alone, the measure is framed as a defensive constitutional safeguard rather than a controversial policy expansion.
Contention
The main point of contention is the risk-versus-benefit question surrounding Article V constitutional conventions. Supporters of rescission would likely argue that prior applications should be withdrawn to prevent an uncontrolled convention that could alter constitutional rights or government structure, while opponents of rescission would likely view the resolution as unnecessary or as weakening a state-level tool for constitutional reform. Another likely dispute is whether Oklahoma can or should nullify all prior applications at once, including both limited and general convention requests, and whether urging other states to withdraw their applications is appropriate.