Major Victory in the Legislature

A joint resolution to rescind all previous legislative calls for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution passed both chambers on November 19, the last day before the legislature’s holiday recess. That resolution to rescind all calls for an Article V convention has been a League goal. The National League has strongly opposed any such convention unless and until legally enforceable rules governing it are in place, noting that there is presently no way to limit the actions such a convention could take. 

Thanks to Rep. Alice Peisch and Sen. Cynthia Creem for introducing the resolution and actively pushing for its passage. The bill, H.4692/S.2684, passed in record time with that strong leadership support. Among the outdated resolutions that were rescinded were a 1977 call for a convention to pass a Constitutional amendment banning abortions nationally and a 1931 call to overturn prohibition.

Below is the context behind those rescinded resolutions:

What was rescinded

• 1977 resolution: The Massachusetts legislature had once called for a national Article V convention to propose a Constitutional amendment that would ban abortion nationwide. This reflected the political climate of the late 1970s, when debates over abortion rights were intensifying after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) decision.

• 1931 resolution: Decades earlier, Massachusetts had called for a convention to overturn Prohibition. Prohibition (1920–1933) was the nationwide ban on alcohol sales and production, enacted through the 18th Amendment. By 1931, widespread opposition to Prohibition had grown, and states began pushing for repeal, which came with the 21st Amendment in 1933.

  
  

Why rescinding matters

• These resolutions were still technically on record, even though they were outdated and no longer relevant.

• By rescinding them, Massachusetts formally withdrew its past calls for an Article V convention.

• The League of Women Voters and other advocates supported this because an Article V convention, once convened, has no enforceable limits, meaning delegates could propose sweeping changes to the Constitution beyond the original intent.

The bigger picture

• Rescinding old resolutions prevents them from being counted toward the threshold of 34 states needed to force a convention.

• It also ensures Massachusetts is not inadvertently supporting constitutional changes based on outdated or controversial positions (like banning abortion or revisiting Prohibition).

In short, Massachusetts cleaned up its legislative record by withdrawing obsolete and potentially risky calls for a constitutional convention, one aimed at banning abortion in 1977, and another aimed at ending Prohibition in 1931.

An Article V convention is a way to amend the U.S. Constitution by having states call a convention, but it’s considered risky because there are no rules limiting what delegates could do once convened.

What Article V Says

• The U.S. Constitution’s Article V provides two ways to propose amendments: 

  1. Congress initiates: Two-thirds of both chambers propose an amendment.

  2. States initiate: If two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) call for it, Congress must convene a constitutional convention to propose amendments.

• Any proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) to become law.

  
  

 Why It’s Considered Risky

• No rules or precedent: The Constitution does not spell out how such a convention would operate—who the delegates are, how they’re chosen, or what limits exist.

• Runaway potential: Once convened, delegates could propose sweeping changes beyond the original purpose, that is, not just a balanced budget amendment, but altering civil rights or voting protections.

• Special interest influence: Critics warn that wealthy donors, corporations, or partisan groups could dominate the process, reshaping the Constitution to serve narrow agendas.

• Unaccountable delegates: Delegates might not be directly elected or bound by voters, raising concerns about legitimacy and accountability.

• No historical precedent: The U.S. has never held an Article V convention, so the risks are untested and unpredictable.

  
  

Supporters vs. Opponents

• Supporters argue it’s a grassroots tool to bypass Congress and impose reforms like fiscal restraints or term limits.

• Opponents (like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause) stress that without enforceable rules, all constitutional rights could be up for grabs.

Key Takeaway

While an Article V convention appears to offer a democratic path to reform, the absence of safeguards has led many to call it “constitutional roulette,” since it could unleash unpredictable and far-reaching changes to the nation’s core rights and institutions.

Senate Roll Call