Alaska committee debates rescinding past calls for Article V convention as experts clash over risks

Representative Schrage opened the committee hearing on House Joint Resolution 41 on March 18, saying the measure would rescind past Alaska legislative applications asking Congress to call a constitutional convention under Article V. The sponsor framed HJR 41 as a procedural step to abrogate old requests and reduce the risk that decades‑old, unresolved petitions could be counted toward a future convention without clear procedural safeguards.

Amanda Ndemo, staff to Representative Schrage, walked the committee through the resolution’s preamble and a rescission clause that would direct publication of Alaska’s rescission in the Congressional Record and notify federal officials of the formal withdrawal. Staff said Alaska’s last related resolution was HCR 4 in 2016 and that similar applications dated back to the 1980s.

The hearing featured sharply divergent invited testimony. David Super, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics at Georgetown, told the panel that Article V contains no enforceable limits on a convention and that “there’s no authority to stop a convention from covering anything at once,” arguing that an open convention called during intense polarization could produce unpredictable results.

Anne Brown, retired attorney and former chair of the Alaska Republican Party, urged support for rescission, warning that a convention could produce outcomes conservatives consider unacceptable and arguing the congressional amendment route is safer.

On the other side, Michael Farris, an attorney and co‑founder of the Convention of States Project, testified that historical practice and precedent show states must agree on a topic and that applications are not freely combinable to create an unlimited agenda; he urged lawmakers not to rescind Alaska’s prior calls.

Public testimony was extensive and divided: proponents of keeping prior applications argued Article V is a tool to press for term limits, fiscal constraints and limits on federal overreach; opponents urged rescission to avoid a “runaway convention.” The committee set an amendment deadline for HJR 41 of Wednesday, March 25, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. and took the measure under advisement.

Next steps: staff will provide the committee with the list of prior resolutions as requested by Representative Mina; the committee did not vote on HJR 41 at this hearing.