AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING ARTICLE 23 OF CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1, RELATING TO CALLS OR APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDING CONVENTIONS MADE TO CONGRESS, SO AS TO RETITLE THE ARTICLE, TO DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE QUALIFICATIONS, APPOINTMENT, OATH, AND DUTIES OF COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE STATE AT AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION, AMONG OTHER THINGS.
H. 3558 creates a detailed South Carolina framework for selecting, instructing, and supervising commissioners who would represent the state at an Article V constitutional convention. The bill renames and expands the existing article in state law governing constitutional convention calls, repeals a 1976 joint resolution calling for a balanced federal budget convention, and disavows prior convention applications made before the act’s effective date. It also directs the Secretary of State to send copies of the act to federal and state officials.
The measure defines key terms and sets eligibility requirements for commissioners, including U.S. citizenship, five years of state residency, voter registration, minimum age, and restrictions on recent federal lobbying, federal employment, federal officeholding, and recent felony convictions. It provides for seven commissioners and one alternate, establishes an advisory committee made up of bipartisan legislative members, and requires commissioners to take an oath and receive credentials before acting. The bill also sets compensation and expense reimbursement at the same level as members of the General Assembly, and bars commissioners from accepting most gifts or benefits over $200.
The bill gives the General Assembly substantial control over the delegation’s authority. Commissioners must follow the commissioning resolution and any later instructions, may be recalled or removed by the legislature, and can be suspended by the advisory committee when the legislature is not in session. The bill limits commissioners from supporting changes to the one-state-one-vote rule and from voting for amendments that would alter specified constitutional guarantees and amendments. It also creates procedures for filling vacancies, choosing delegation leadership, limiting media communications, and seeking advisory guidance on whether proposed actions would exceed authority.
The bill’s legal impact is to add a new statutory regime governing South Carolina’s participation in any Article V convention and to create criminal penalties for misconduct related to that role. A commissioner who exceeds authority may face removal and investigation for misconduct in office, with felony penalties upon conviction, and anyone who bribes, threatens, intimidates, or obstructs a commissioner may also be prosecuted as a felon. In practical terms, the bill centralizes control of any convention delegation in the General Assembly and the advisory committee, while attempting to constrain the delegation’s conduct through statutory instructions and enforcement mechanisms.
The overall sentiment appears broadly supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed the House 76-29 in 2025, later passed the Senate 38-2 in 2026, and the House concurred in Senate amendments 83-20, indicating strong bipartisan backing with a meaningful minority of opposition. The main points of contention likely center on whether South Carolina should participate in an Article V convention at all, how much discretion commissioners should have, and whether the legislature should impose strict substantive limits on any proposed amendments and on the delegation’s voting procedures.
The bill amends Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 23 of the South Carolina Code to establish a comprehensive statutory process for Article V convention commissioners, including eligibility standards, appointment and removal procedures, oath and credential requirements, compensation, ethics restrictions, advisory oversight, and criminal penalties for misconduct or interference. It also repeals Joint Resolution 775 of 1976 and formally disavows prior constitutional convention applications, thereby changing South Carolina’s prior posture toward convention calls and clarifying how future participation would be controlled.
The voting history suggests the bill was generally well received, with substantial majorities in both chambers and only a minority of dissenting votes. The near-unanimous Senate vote and the House’s larger but still clear margins indicate broad support for creating a controlled process for Article V convention representation, though not full consensus. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into floor debate, but the recorded votes suggest the measure was viewed favorably by most legislators.
The likely areas of disagreement are the underlying policy choice to authorize participation in an Article V convention and the degree of legislative control imposed on commissioners. Opponents may have objected to the possibility of a federal constitutional convention, concerns about convention scope or unpredictability, and the bill’s restrictions on commissioner discretion and speech. Supporters appear to have favored a tightly managed framework that protects South Carolina’s interests by limiting commissioners to specific instructions, preserving one-state-one-vote rules, and preventing unauthorized expansion of convention authority.