Rescinding prior applications for a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Summary
HJM4005 is a Joint Memorial in which the Washington Legislature formally rescinds, repeals, cancels, nullifies, and supersedes all prior Washington applications to Congress for a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The memorial states that earlier applications were made at different times and for different purposes, including both limited and plenary conventions, and it expresses concern that those prior actions could be interpreted as binding future generations or used to advance constitutional changes without renewed legislative consideration.
The measure does not itself amend the U.S. Constitution or change Washington state statutory law. Instead, it is a formal statement to Congress and federal officials that Washington should no longer be counted among states seeking a constitutional convention based on prior applications, unless a future legislature adopts a new application. It directs that copies be sent to federal leaders and asks that the memorial be entered into the Congressional Record and the official tally of state applications.
Impact
HJM4005 affects Washington’s position in the federal Article V convention process by withdrawing the state’s earlier convention applications from consideration, regardless of whether those applications were for a limited or general convention. It is a memorial rather than a bill creating or amending state statutes, so its legal effect is primarily political and procedural: it signals to Congress and recordkeepers that Washington’s prior applications should not be counted as active. The memorial also seeks to clarify Washington’s stance in any national tally of states calling for a constitutional convention.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the memorial is cautious and protective of constitutional stability. The text emphasizes uncertainty about the continuing validity of old applications, the absence of a constitutional convention since ratification, and the risk that past legislative decisions could be used to alter rights or governance in ways not intended by current lawmakers. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the available record shows the bill’s own rationale rather than any documented opposition or support from legislators.
Contention
The main point of contention is the broader debate over Article V constitutional conventions: whether prior state applications expire, whether they can be limited by subject matter, and whether a convention could exceed the scope of the original applications. The memorial reflects concern from supporters that wealthy interest groups or future convention delegates could exploit old applications to change the Constitution in unpredictable ways. Opponents of rescission, if any, would likely argue that prior applications remain valid or that rescinding them is unnecessary, but no opposing testimony or vote record is included here.