Additional Concerns About an Article V Convention

A lot of money is being spent to convince us to support it

Supporters of an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution are some of the most zealous people I’ve met in the world of politics. Responses to my essay on Monday explaining why I oppose this idea were strong, with several long emails instructing me to read this or that paper by this or that expert, and one Republican officer even requesting that I unsubscribe him from this publication. Several people reached out to me confused as to how someone as conservative as I could possibly oppose the initiative.

A senior vice president of Convention of States Action (COSA) called me out by name in an article I republished as a guest editorial. I welcome disagreement!

Today I want to revisit the issue, looking not only at the money that is flowing due to this issue but in how it could possible open Idaho up to the very thing we fought against last year. I want to reiterate that this is not a personal attack on anyone who supports an Article V convention, Good people disagree on this issue.

During the committee hearing last Monday, former U.S. senators Rick Santorum and Larry Craig both stated that they don’t expect an Article V convention to actually happen. Instead, they see the push for one as a way to pressure Congress into introducing amendments on term limits and a balanced budget.

Many people agree on these goals but differ on the methods. Those of us who oppose an Article V convention are not leftists, RINOs, or traitors, no matter what its most fervent supporters claim. We are conservatives who have deep concerns about the process. For every scholarly opinion in favor, there is an equally credible one against. This is not a debate that can be settled by appeals to authority or wishful thinking.

Yet supporters of an Article V convention spend a lot of money influencing state legislators throughout the nation. Santorum, the former US senator who has become the national spokesman for Convention of States Action, made $333,405 in 2023, the last year in which IRS forms are available.

Here in Idaho, COSA spent over $50,000 in the 2024 election year, split between direct donations to candidates and independent expenditures:

This is not to suggest that these current and former legislators are “bought and paid for” by COSA or any advocacy group. As I have said, many conservative Republicans whom I deeply respect support an Article V convention, and it is therefore natural for organizations like COSA support them in return. What is interesting to me is how much COSA is willing to spend on this issue. The organization was strategic with its contributions, targeting legislative leadership as well as the committees that would hear Article V resolutions. COSA also has a lot of passionate local volunteers who are convinced that this is the only way to save our country, which means it’s no surprise to see lawmakers following the lead of their constituents.

Every dollar COSA spent in Idaho came from its national organization. While this amount was far less than what proponents of Proposition 1 spent last year, the two efforts share a common thread: national organizations attempting to persuade Idahoans to support an unprecedented change to our political system. Prop 1 sought to implement a jungle primary and ranked choice voting, while an Article V convention would invoke an untested constitutional provision with no guarantee that it would unfold as its proponents envision.

I remain concerned that an Article V convention could open the door to leftist ideas. While supporters continually insist it would be limited to proposing amendments on term limits, a balanced budget, and federal overreach, a completely different set of activists could seize the opportunity to push for radical changes such as abolishing the Electoral College. Just as ranked choice voting threatened to upend our state’s electoral system, eliminating the Electoral College would fundamentally alter our Republic.

Progressive activists have long pursued a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College, a change that would strip Idaho of its influence in presidential elections and concentrate power in deep-blue states like California and New York. An Article V convention provides the perfect opening for them to achieve this goal. Despite claims from organizations like COSA, the Constitution imposes no limits on what a convention can propose. Once convened, there is no guarantee conservatives would control the outcome.

Despite the best wishes of Article V convention proponents, there really would be no controlling or even predicting what might come of such an event. Members of the Congress of the Confederation could not have predicted in 1787 that the Philadelphia Convention would result in an entirely new Constitution. If our Congress actually convened a convention, it would not be the quiet, statesmanlike meeting we imagine in our minds. It would be a media circus, and the same PACs and lobby groups that showered money on Idaho for the Prop 1 fight would go into overdrive lobbying delegates to support various initiatives.

Consider recent efforts by progressive organizations and political figures to dismantle the Electoral College:

• In December 2024, Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, introduced a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College, stating, "In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It's that simple."

• While presiding over New York's Electoral College vote in December 2024, Gov. Kathy Hochul called for a national popular vote, asserting, "It's time to amend the Constitution and relegate the institution of the Electoral College to the history books."

• An organization called Abolish the Electoral College PAC has been promoting the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This is a state-level initiative that would make an end-run around the Electoral College by having states allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote rather than the statewide vote.

• The supposedly non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice supports constitutional reforms to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of direct national popular elections. It also supports the National Popular Vote.

This is just a small sample of left-wing groups working to change our constitutional system, and they are actively engaged at the state level. As with Proposition 1, these organizations pour millions of dollars into states like Idaho to shift public opinion. Why did progressive PACs and lobby groups invest so much in trying to get Idaho to adopt ranked choice voting? Because they knew it would set us on the path to becoming the next California or Colorado, which once were solid red states but are now deep blue. As long as even one red state remains in America, the spirit of liberty, conservatism, and 1776 endures. The progressive movement cannot allow that.

If COSA is successful in passing resolutions in 34 state legislatures, compelling Congress to call for a constitutional convention, do you think organizations such as the Brennan Center or the Abolish the Electoral College PAC would sit quietly and allow conservatives to control the convention? Of course not.

Before we take the drastic step of opening up our Constitution for revision, we must carefully consider the potential risks and unintended consequences. Proponents undermine the debate by dismissing these concerns outright. Ask yourself: Is it more likely that blue states would embrace a conservative proposal, or that red states would be pressured into compromising on the something like the Electoral College?

Last year, Idaho conservatives stood firm and defeated Proposition 1, stopping an effort to weaken the voice of the people and push us toward California-style governance. Supporting an Article V convention now contradicts everything we fought for. If the left wants to dismantle the Electoral College, we shouldn’t hand them the tools to do it.