BY: KYLE PFANNENSTIEL – MARCH 12, 2025 2:54 PM
The Idaho House on Wednesday rejected a resolution that would’ve called for a never-before-used method of amending the U.S. Constitution.
House Concurrent Resolution 10, sponsored by Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d’Alene, would’ve called for Idaho to submit three separate applications to amend the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states.
Critics say a constitutional convention could put the entire Constitution up for change. But supporters argue a convention is needed to rein in the rising federal deficit and an increasingly powerful federal government.
The more than hour-long debate among House lawmakers Wednesday largely fell into those two buckets.
“It will destabilize our country,” said Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, who opposed the bill. “And it will also be virtue signaling to these other countries, that maybe we’re not as strong as we’re being portrayed in the public. I want to stand with this new administration. I want to give our government the chance, and our country the chance, to be the best country in the entire world — to take leadership.”
The House rejected the resolution on a 26-44 vote, and on a similar vote rejected a related proposal by Redman, House Concurrent Resolution 9, which would’ve outlined a process for the Idaho Legislature to select and remove Idaho’s delegates for a convention of the states.
“While DOGE is doing a lot of great things federally, and hopefully here in Idaho we’re going to see some good stuff from our DOGE committee,” Redman told House lawmakers, “I believe that an Article V convention of the states will cement things in our Constitution that would otherwise be left at the whims of the next administration. And the next administration could simply undo all the good work that we’ve seen already.”
Past attempts at Idaho applying for constitutional convention failed
Past attempts at getting the Idaho Legislature to call for a constitutional convention have failed. Last year, representatives of the Idaho Republican Party and the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance opposed an Idaho resolution to apply for a convention of the states.
“Absolutely everybody of every political stripe believes in our Constitution to the fiber of their being,” Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, told House lawmakers, referring to a column she wrote with Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, opposing a constitutional convention. ” We don’t agree on anything in America anymore. There is no unity. No — people can’t agree what color the sky is or which way is up. But we all agree that we love our Constitution and would die for it. And we would lose that.”
The U.S. Constitution has never been amended using a convention of the states, a process outlined in the U.S. Constitution that requires applications by 34 states. Amendments proposed in that convention must be ratified by 38 states to take effect.
Nineteen states have applied for a convention of the states over the past decade, according to the advocacy group Convention of States Action.
In a 2012 report, the Congressional Research Service wrote that a convention of the states “is one of few provisions of the Constitution that has never been implemented,” and the process “presents many questions for Congress.”
Redman’s resolution — if it had passed the House and Senate — would’ve prompted Idaho to submit to Congress three applications for a convention of the states, which would be limited to:
• A balanced federal budget amendment
• Amendments “that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress;” and
• An amendment “to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as” U.S. House of Representatives member or U.S. Senate member.