Attachment: 4673/5.CaseforStateConventionandColoradoRatifyingPlan(asofFebruary17__2025)v1.5.pdf | 





1 

 

 

 

Case for State Convention Mode of 

Ratification for Amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution 

A Colorado Ratifying Plan and other evidence to support a State Convention 

 

Written by Mr. Michael D. Forbis 

Version 1.5 (as of February 17, 2025) 

 

Purpose.  To socialize the idea of a state level ratifying convention following an Article V 
“Convention for proposing Amendments.”  A Colorado Ratifying Convention is the example 
used within this document.  This is a living document, and it can be updated and improved from 
new lessons learned. 

Disclaimer.  The views expressed in this work are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent the views of Convention of States Action (COSA), its staff, or affiliates.   

 

 

 





2 

 

Executive Summary 

In Article V of the U.S. Constitution, there are two modes of ratification for proposed 

amendments, and they are by state legislatures and state level conventions.  There are several 
advantages for conducting a state level ratifying convention for proposed amendments to the 
U.S. Constitution.  

•

 

The state convention method can more directly involve grassroot citizens in the 
amendment process, and it is a better reflection of the people’s will.  The 

Colorado 

Ratifying Plan

 explains the conceptual idea of the process.

 

•

 

A state convention method is twice as likely to be successful to ratify amendments as the 
state legislature method.

1

 

•

 

Voters will likely trust a state convention more than the state legislature to examine 
proposed amendments.

2

 

•

 

There is greater certainty the outcome of a state convention will remain unchanged than a 
state legislature.

3

  

 

•

 

There is less bias with the state convention method because it has a greater chance of 
involving direct “independent” voters.

4

 

 

The mode of ratification by state convention is a method to bypass a state legislature just 

as an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” is a method to bypass Congress.  They 
both represent a constitutionally based approach for grassroot citizens to bypass their elected 
leaders to address amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and they resemble the best opportunities 
for grassroot citizens to become involved in self-government.  When an Article V Convention 
meets to propose amendments, it will be a historical opportunity and will likely have nationwide 
attention drawn to it.  To maintain the momentum of grassroots activism started through an 
Article V Convention, it makes sense for it to continue through state level ratifying conventions.   

The content of this case paper provides additional evidence and support for a state 

convention as the better mode of ratification for amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  

 

 

 

 

1

 See Appendix A, page A-1 (mathematical model using Law of Total Probability) 

2

 See Appendix A, page A-2 (recent polling research from national and state organizations) 

3

 See Appendix A, pages A-3 to A-6 (historical record examination on both modes of ratification) 

4

 See Appendix B, pages B-1 to B-4 (statistical hypothesis test) 





3 

 

Colorado Ratifying Plan 

Prior to ratification, amendments must first be proposed.  An Article V Convention is an 

alternative approach to proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution rather than the U.S. 
Congress.  Even though there is no specific historical precedent of an Article V Convention, 
there is general historical precedent for conventions such as the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. 
For the purposes of this “Colorado Ratifying Plan,” the assumption is an Article V Convention 
successfully proposed written amendments.  In addition, there is the assumption of a reasonable 
timeframe for ratification, and the mode of ratification is by state level convention.

5

  Based on 

these assumptions, the preparation and execution of a Colorado Ratifying Convention can follow 
the general process depicted in Figure 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

5

 Appendix C (Historical Ratification of Amendments) explains some historical background and track record of the 33 proposed 

amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  It provides specific case examples of 10 proposed amendments with the timeframe of 
ratification set by Congress of seven years, and it provides sample languages to include within the 

amendment text

 involving 

timeframe of ratification and mode of ratification.  This historical examination into the ratification of U.S. Constitution 
Amendments is critical background for consideration in an Article V Convention and Colorado Ratifying Convention.   

Article V 

Convention

•

5-8 Proposed 
Amendments

•

Timeframe for 
Ratification: 7 years

•

Mode of Ratification: 
State Convention
(recommendation)

Colorado 

Statute Passed

•

Set dates and location 
for convention

•

Establish election 
procedure for 
convention delegates

U.S. Congress 

Review

•

Review proposed 
amendments; 
ensure consistency 
with commission

•

Send to state
conventions for 
ratification

Statewide 

Election

•

100s of eligible citizens 
register in each Colorado 
Senate District (SD)

•

Five citizens from each SD 
randomly chosen

•

Voters select 1 of 5 citizens 
on ballot to become delegate

•

Total of 35 delegates voted to 
convention

State 

Convention

•

~Two Weeks in Duration

•

Follow Mason’s Manual of 

Legislative Procedures

•

Elect Convention Leadership

•

Examine 5-8 Proposed 
Amendments

•

18 of 35 Delegates needed to 
ratify a single amendment

•

Vote on each amendment 
separately

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 1: Colorado Ratification Process





4 

 

 

In this particular scenario, the Article V Convention is likely to propose between 5-8 

amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and this range is a reasonable planning assumption. The 
proposed amendments are within the parameters of Article V Convention’s 3-part platform. 

•

 

Impose fiscal restraints on the federal government 

•

 

Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government 

•

 

Limit the terms of office for federal officials and for members of Congress 

In addition, the Article V Convention is successful in establishing a mode of ratification by state 
level convention with a timeframe for ratification of seven years.

6

  Upon receipt of the proposed 

amendments, the U.S. Congress conducts a review to ensure the proposed amendments are not 
outside the parameters of the Article V Convention’s 3-part platform.  For example, the proposed 
amendments cannot address anything related to individual liberties and rights, and this subject 
area is clearly outside the main scale and scope of the convention to “limit the power of the 
federal government.”  Once reviewed, the U.S. Congress determines the mode of ratification by 
state convention (assumed as a recommendation by Article V Convention) and sends the 
proposed amendments to the states for ratification. 

 

Unlike an Article V Convention, there is specific historical precedent for state level 

ratifying conventions, and the 21

st

 Amendment is the only one to be ratified by state level 

conventions.  The 21

st

 Amendment was the repeal of the 18

th

 Amendment, and it delegated to the 

states to determine any limitations / prohibition of alcohol.  In the 1932 general election, there 
was a national mood from both Republicans and Democrats to repeal the 18

th

 Amendment.  Most 

importantly, both parties agreed that Congress should adapt an amendment to repeal the 18

th

 

Amendment, and it should be sent to the states for ratification by state level conventions.

7

  The 

overall result of state level conventions was that they 

“truly registered the will of the American 

people on a great national issue.”

8

  Similarly, state level conventions will also capture the true 

will of the American people on the current day national issue to “limit the power of the federal 
government.”  When an Article V Convention meets, it is very likely to be on the national scene 
as a unique historical event, and state level ratifying conventions are very appropriate to close 
out this overall historical movement. 

Once Colorado receives the proposed amendments, it needs to pass a statute for the state 

ratifying convention time and location, and the statute will explain the election process for 
delegates to the convention.

9

  In 1933, Colorado passed a statute to form a state level convention 

 

6

 See Appendix C.  With the exception of the 27

th

 Amendment, all amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified well under 

7 years, and this is a reasonable timeframe (i.e., includes group of 10 amendments - Bill of Rights).  There are two historical 
examples of proposed amendments that did not ratify within seven years (Equal Rights Amendment (1972) and DC Voting 
Rights Amendment (1978).  There is enough historical precedent of ratification success within seven years versus not. 

7

 

Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: State Convention Records and Laws

, 

Compiled by Edward Somerville, 1939, pages 3-4 (Introduction). 

8

 

Ratification of Twenty-First Amendment

, page 8.

 

9

 Note. The qualifications for state delegates can reference the published qualifications for commissioners sent from Colorado to 

the original Article V Convention.  Thus, it can be an easy copy and paste from already approved qualifications. 





5 

 

for the 21

st

 Amendment.  In the statute, the governor nominated 30 candidates who were regular 

citizens of the state, and there was a statewide election for Colorado voters to select 15 of them 
as official delegates to the state convention.  In addition, the statute determined the location of 
the convention was in the Colorado Senate Chamber, and it was scheduled September 26, 1933.  
Finally, the statute provided general instructions for how citizens would use a ballot vote.

10

  For 

the Article V Convention proposed amendments, Colorado can pass a statute like the 21

st

 

Amendment with some differences.  The statute should designate the Colorado Senate Chamber 
as the location of the state convention, and it should explain that 

Mason’s Manual for Legislative 

Procedure

 will serve as the governing rules for the convention.

11

  In addition, the statute should 

explain how one delegate will come from each of the 35 Senate Districts in the state in order to 
provide a fair representation from across Colorado, and the basis for using 35 Senate Districts to 
determine delegates originates from the Colorado Constitution.

12

  As compared to the 21

st

 

Amendment, 35 delegates are significantly greater than 15 delegates, and the statute should not 
allow a role for the governor in the delegate election process because the governor does not have 
a role in the state application for the original Article V Convention.  It is critical to remember 
that Article V of the U.S. Constitution does not allow for an “executive branch” role in the 
amendment process by either the President of the United States or State Governors. 

For the actual statewide election as described in the statute, Colorado citizens can 

volunteer to be a delegate and must file to be a delegate within their respective Senate District.  It 
is likely that hundreds of citizen volunteers will file to be a delegate within each Senate District, 
and there will be a deadline to file.  After filing, a random selection of five individuals from the 
hundreds who filed will take place for each Senate District, and these five individuals will be 
candidates for their respective Senate District as a delegate in a statewide election.  Each 
candidate will not necessarily need to campaign to become a delegate, but they will submit a 
short summary of their qualifications and desire to be a delegate to the state level ratifying 
convention.  Afterwards, voters in each Senate District can review the five candidates, and voters 
will eventually choose one of the five candidates to be a delegate during the statewide election.  
As a result, there will be 35 total delegates elected to the state ratifying convention.  Through this 
election process, there are three components involving volunteering, random selection, and 
choice, and all three components combined provide a fair and balanced approach for determining 
delegates.  It helps to reduce “bias,” and it helps to ensure greater chances for “independent” 
voters to be included within the state ratifying convention instead of typical Democrat and 

 

10

 

Ratification of Twenty-First Amendment

, pages 535-538. 

11

 

Colorado Legislative Rules

, Legislative Council Publication 816, Updated November 2024, Senate Rule 40 (Parliamentary 

Authority).  Explains the latest edition of 

Mason Manual of Legislative Procedure

 shall govern the Senate in all cases in which it 

is not inconsistent with the rest of the Colorado Legislative Rules. 

12

 Section 1, Article XIX (Amendments) of the Colorado Constitution published in 1876 discusses how to call a Colorado 

Convention for amending the Colorado Constitution.  It explains how delegates will be elected from each of the Senate Districts 
established in Colorado.  It is practical to apply this general rule from the Colorado Constitution to elect delegates from each of 
the 35 Colorado Senate Districts for a Colorado Ratifying Convention for proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

 





6 

 

Republican minded individuals.

13

  Finally, Colorado has historically conducted statewide voting 

to determine the final version of amendments added to the Colorado Constitution whether they 
originated from ballot initiatives or legislative referrals.  In either case, the final approval for any 
Colorado Constitutional Amendment was determined by the people of Colorado.  Thus, this 
election process for determining delegates for the Colorado Ratifying Convention for U.S. 
Constitutional Amendments ensures a level of consistency with the Colorado historical practice 
of gaining the people’s approval.

14

 

After the election process, the 35 delegates will meet in the Colorado State Senate 

Chamber for the Colorado Ratifying Convention.  During the Colorado state convention for the 
21

st

 Amendment, the 15 delegates elected a President of the Convention and other convention 

officials such as a committee chair.  In addition, the convention delegates took their oath of 
office, established convention procedures, and a voting rule (8 of 15 delegates) for ratification.  
There was debate on the 21

st

 Amendment and its impact on Colorado.  At the conclusion of the 

convention, there was a full vote of 15-0 to ratify the amendment.  Overall, the convention was 
90 minutes in length, and Colorado became the 24

th

 state to ratify the 21

st

 Amendment on 

September 26, 1933.

15

  In all the state ratifying conventions in the United States, the entire length 

of time did not exceed a day, and New Hampshire posted the shortest recorded convention of 17 
minutes long.

16

  In addition, the state conventions to ratify the base U.S. Constitution from 1787-

1788 ranged from 4-38 days in length.

17

  For the 5-8 proposed amendments from the Article V 

Convention, a Colorado Ratifying Convention will need approximately two weeks.  It will 
already have established rules to follow from 

Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure

, and the 

first couple of days of the convention can be used to review the rules, elect convention officials, 
and establish any appropriate committees (e.g., three committees aligned to 3-part platform of 
the Article V Convention).  The actual reading of the 5-8 proposed amendments will be straight 
forward because they should be short (<350 words each), and delegates can only vote to ratify 
the amendment as written or not.  There are no edits permitted to adjust the language of the 
proposed amendments.  Thus, it is very likely the vast majority of time spent by delegates is 
discussing, understanding, and debating any merits to each amendment.  In many ways, the 
Colorado Ratifying Convention will be less complex than the Article V Convention to propose 
amendments.  It is possible for committees to spend 2-3 days discussing their respective assigned 
amendments to examine, and then the main convention plenary of all 35 delegates could spend 
an entire 2

nd

 week to debate any of the merits of the proposed amendments.  At the end, the 35 

delegates cast individual votes (18 of 35 voting rule) for each amendment independently, and the 

 

13

 Appendix B (Statistical Hypothesis Test in Support of State Convention) provides statistical evidence for how “independent” 

voters are significantly less “bias” than Democrat and Republican voters.   

14

 The Colorado Constitution has been amended 166 times as of 2023, and all these were finally approved by a statewide vote 

from Colorado citizens.  Thus, the practice for gaining the people’s approval for changes to the Colorado Constitution is a strong 
historical precedent, and this should continue for ratifying proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

15

 

Ratification of Twenty-First Amendment

, pages 33-42.  Note: Utah became the 36

th

 state to ratify the 21

st

 Amendment on 

December 5, 1933 for it to become effective. 

16

 

Ratification of Twenty-First Amendment

, page 7.   

17

 Appendix A summarizes the state conventions that ratified the base U.S. Constitution from 1787-1788.

 





7 

 

convention concludes with all amendments ratified or some of them ratified.  Essentially, the 
Colorado Ratifying Convention serves much like a legislative body, but it is not as complicated 
to conduct as either the Colorado House of Representatives or Senate.  Its sole purpose is to read, 
debate, and vote on a series of 5-8 proposed amendments that amount to probably no more than 
3-pages total of complete written text, and they should be simple and straight forward to 
understand.  Since no editing is allowed, the Colorado Ratifying Convention will have an easier 
time with implementing it legislative procedures and rules to follow.  Most importantly, typical 
Colorado citizens can be successful delegates to the Colorado Ratifying Convention with little to 
no experience in legislative affairs. 

This “Colorado Ratifying Plan” is intended to be a conceptual plan to help lay the 

foundation for a more detailed plan for a Colorado Ratifying Convention, and it is intended to 

socialize the general idea of a state convention.

  The background and historical references offer 

additional information for the detailed plan development as well.  A Colorado Ratifying 
Convention is better to examine the proposed amendments than the Colorado State Legislature 
because it will not be distracted by other legislative priorities.  In addition, it will be less 

bias 

than the Colorado State Legislature because it will have direct “independent” voters present 
without being entirely occupied by Democrats and Republicans.  Finally, and most importantly, a 
Colorado Ratifying Convention will truly be a reflection of Colorado citizens and their will for 
the state. 

 

Supporting Appendices (other evidence to support a state convention) 

•

 

Appendix A: Mode of Ratification – State Legislature vs. State Convention (A-1 to A-6) 

•

 

Appendix B: Statistical Hypothesis Test in Support of State Convention (B-1 to B-4) 

•

 

Appendix C: Historical Ratification of Amendments (C-1 to C-6) 

 





Appendix A: Mode of Ratification – State Legislature vs. State Convention 

A-1

 

 

The two different modes of ratification within 

Article V of the U.S. Constitution can be compared 
using the Law of Total Probability.  The law basically 
states that mutually exclusive events within the same 
universal set equal to a total probability of one (1.0).  In 
the case of Figure 2, the binary probabilities (Pr) of 
success and failure of a single event have a total sum 
probability of 1.0, and it can be represented in the 
following equation: Pr(S) + Pr(F) = 1.0 

Article V states that “three fourths of the several States” (38 of 50) must ratify an 

amendment for it to become effective.  Another way to view this Article V requirement is that it 
takes 13 of 50 states to vote against an amendment for it not to become effective, and this inverse 
rule applies differently to the two different modes of ratification. 

For the state legislature mode of ratification, there are 99 General Assembly state 

chambers (or 99 unique legislative bodies) that may examine a proposed amendment.  Nebraska 
is the only state with one chamber (Senate), and the other 49 states have two chambers (House 
and Senate).  In those states with two chambers, both are required to pass a proposed amendment 
in order for the whole one state vote to ratify the proposed amendment.  On the other hand, it 
only takes a single chamber to vote against a proposed amendment for the whole one state vote 
to be against the amendment.  Essentially, it takes 13 of 99 state chambers to vote against a 
proposed amendment for it not to become effective at all.  The overall probability of success 
using the state legislature mode of ratification is represented by the following equations below. 

•

 

Calculate Failure Rate: (99-13)/99 = 86/99 = 0.869 = Pr(F) 

•

 

Probability of Success: Pr(S) = 1-Pr(F) = 1-0.869 = 0.131 or 

13.1%

 

For the convention mode of ratification, there are 50 single state conventions (or 50 

unique legislative bodies) that may examine a proposed amendment.  The result of each 
convention counts as the whole one state vote to ratify or not ratify the proposed amendment.  It 
takes 38 of 50 state conventions to ratify a proposed amendment for it to become effective.  On 
the other hand, it takes 13 of 50 state conventions to vote against a proposed amendment for it 
not to become effective at all.  The overall probability of success using the convention mode of 
ratification is represented by the following equations below. 

•

 

Calculate Failure Rate: (50-13)/50 = 37/50 = 0.74 = Pr(F) 

•

 

Probability of Success: Pr(S) = 1-Pr(F) = 1-0.74 = 0.26 or 

26%

 

Therefore, the convention method is twice as likely to be successful to ratify amendments 

as the state legislature method.

  This basic mathematical model using the Law of Total 

Probability makes a simple case for why the convention method should be the preferred mode of 
ratification, and it assumes full participation by all states in the ratification process (i.e., no state 
is “dormant” from participating). 

  

Success (S)

Failure (F)

Figure 2: Basic Venn Diagram for Mutually Exclusive Outcomes 





Appendix A: Mode of Ratification – State Legislature vs. State Convention 

A-2

 

 

 

In a nation-wide poll conducted by Susquehanna Polling and Research (SB&R) in August 

2024, the following question was asked: “Who do you trust more – the state legislators who live 
and work closer to your home, or Members of Congress who live and work in Washington, 
D.C.?”  The response was 59% state legislators and 8% Members of Congress.

1

  However, this 

survey compares two entities within the same compound question, and the better comparison is 
through two independent questions as shown Figure 3 (two pie charts).  In reality, the level of 
trust in the federal government is about 20-25% over the last 15 years,

2

 and it is the same level of 

trust for Colorado.  In 
Colorado, the level of trust in 
the state government is 37%, 
and this likely applies to the 
state legislature.

3

  The trend 

is that voters trust people 
closer to home, and a state 
convention represents people 
closer to home.  

Thus, voters 

will likely trust a state 
convention more than the 
state legislature to examine 
proposed amendments

. 

 

 

1

 

https://conventionofstates.com/national-polling-shows-massive-support-for-limiting-federal-power-and-an-article-v-convention

  

2

 Pew Research Center: 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

  

3

 Colorado Polling Institute (CPI), Survey of Likely Voters, November 28, 2023 (slide 23) 

https:%%//%%static1.squarespace.com/static/645aadf3ccf9412509fbc4a7/t/65781eb1e7162d4ef9e53a26/1702371000883/21136+CPI-\\ CO-Deck_v2-CO-issues.pdf

  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

19

58

19

66

19

70

19

74

19

77

19

79

19

82

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

20

17

20

20

20

22

20

24

National Survey Question: Do you trust the federal government to do 

what is right? 

(% Responses: Just about always or most of the time)

(Pew Research Center)

20-25% Level of Trust

After 9/11 Attacks

Trust a lot

7%

Trust a little

18%

Neither trust 

nor distrust

13%

Unsure

1%

Distrust a little

19%

Distrust a lot

42%

Survey Question for Colorado: How much do you trust or 

distrust the 

Federal Government 

to do the right thing? 

(Colorado Polling Institute (CPI), November 2023)

25% Level of Trust

Figure 3: Polling Summaries 

Trust a lot

12%

Trust a little

25%

Neither trust 

nor distrust

16%

Unsure

2%

Distrust a little

19%

Distrust a lot

26%

Survey Question for Colorado: How much do you trust or 

distrust the 

Colorado State Government 

to do the right thing?

(Colorado Polling Institute (CPI), November 2023)

37% Level of Trust





Appendix A: Mode of Ratification – State Legislature vs. State Convention 

A-3

 

 

 

According to historical record, the state legislature was the mode of ratification for 26 of 

27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the state convention was the mode of ratification 
for the base Constitution (1787-1788) and 21

st

 Amendment (1933).  In general, both have 

demonstrated to be successful modes of ratification.  However, there are some historical cases 
where states changed their original decision, and it caused uncertainty in the overall amendment 
process.   

From 1866-1867, New Jersey and Ohio were some of the early states to ratify the 14

th

 

Amendment, yet they later rescinded their decision.  In addition, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
and Georgia initially rejected the 14

th

 Amendment, yet they later ratified the 14

th

 Amendment 

under their new reconstructed state legislatures (i.e., based on Reconstruction Act).  Secretary of 
State William Seward informed Congress of the situation explaining the inclusion of these 5 
states makes up 28 of 37 required to ratify the 14

th

 Amendment.  The U.S. Congress declared the 

14

th

 Amendment was ratified by a Joint Resolution passed in July 1868.

4

  Thus, Congress set the 

historical precedent to recognize only the first ratification decision by New Jersey and Ohio but 
not the rescissions.  On the other hand, Congress also recognized the changed decisions to ratify 
the 14

th

 Amendment by North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.  This historical example of 

the 14

th

 Amendment is the only one to have a successful overall ratification that depended on 

states that initially rejected it but later ratified it.  There are other amendments where states 
initially rejected it but later ratified it.  However, the changes came after final passage was 
complete, or there were more than enough states to ratify it without the changes.  In other words, 
the states who changed from an initial rejection to ratification did not make a difference in the 
final passage of the amendment.  In another instance, New York ratified the 15

th

 Amendment and 

later rejected it, yet the U.S. Congress declared the ratification of the 15

th

 Amendment counting 

New York’s first decision of ratification and not the rescission.

5

  In these examples, the state 

legislature was the mode of ratification, and there was no time limit for these amendments.  
When it comes to the rescissions of previous ratifications by state legislatures, Article V of the 
Constitution only addresses states’ power to ratify an amendment and not rescissions.

6

  These 

case examples of the 14

th

 and 15

th

 Amendments support this precedent by Congress.   

In a century later, the precedent to not recognize rescissions by the state legislatures 

would come into question during the ratification process of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) 
proposed by Congress in 1972.  The ERA had a time limit of seven years, and 35 states initially 
ratified the amendment when 38 were required.  Five of the original states (Kentucky, Nebraska, 
Tennessee, Idaho, and South Dakota) later rescinded their original ratifications within the seven 
year timeframe, and Congress did not recognize these rescissions when it extended the time limit 
for another three years.  In the case 

Idaho v. Freeman

 (1982), the federal district court concluded 

the state rescissions should be recognized, and it stated Congress could not change the deadline 
once established in 1972.  In an appeal to the Supreme Court, the federal district court was 
instructed to dismiss the case as moot because the 2

nd

 deadline set by Congress had expired with 

 

4

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/

 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R42979, 

The Proposed Equal Rights 

Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues

, December 23, 2019, p.21 

5

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/

 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R42979, 

The Proposed Equal Rights 

Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues

, December 23, 2019, p.21 

6

https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/pathstoratification

  





Appendix A: Mode of Ratification – State Legislature vs. State Convention 

A-4

 

 

no additional states who ratified the amendment.

7

  So, the rescissions of these five states were 

initially recognized as valid by the federal district court, and it could come into question again 
with future proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution with a mode of ratification by state 
legislatures.   

When it comes to the powers of state legislatures under Article V of the U.S. 

Constitution, there are numerous historical examples where state legislatures passed an 
“Application” to call a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” and some state legislatures 
later rescinded their application.

8

  In these circumstances under Article V, the U.S. Congress 

recognized the state legislatures rescissions in every case, but Article V of the Constitution only 
addresses states’ power to make an “Application” for a convention and not rescissions.  In other 
words, Congress recognizes one form of rescission under Article V but not the other form.  
Unfortunately, there is a potential inconsistency by Congress with regards to state legislatures 
changing an original decision under Article V.  Therefore, state legislatures should examine their 
original decision on an amendment very carefully and make it final, and this approach avoids the 
uncertainty on the overall outcome of an amendment that may result from state legislatures 
changing their original decision.    

In the U.S. Constitution, Article VII says “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine 

States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so 
ratifying the Same.”  Essentially, Article VII stated the mode of ratification of the base 
Constitution was by state convention, and it only addresses states’ power to ratify and not rescind 
(similar to Article V).  The table below summarizes the historical record of state conventions, 
and the length of time ranged 4-38 days (excluding Rhode Island).

9

  By the time George 

Washington was sworn in as the First President of the United States, there were 11 states that 
ratified the Constitution with the exception of North Carolina and Rhode Island. 

States 

Timeframe for State Convention 

Vote Count (# delegates) 

Delaware 

December 4-7, 1787 (4 days) 

30-0 (30) 

Pennsylvania 

November 20 – December 12, 1787 (23 days) 

46-23 (69) 

New Jersey 

December 11-18, 1787 (8 days) 

38-0 (38) 

Georgia 

December 25, 1787 to January 2, 1788 (9 days)  26-0 (26) 

Connecticut 

January 3-9, 1788 (7 days) 

128-40 (168) 

Massachusetts 

January 9 to February 7, 1788 (30 days) 

187-168 (355) 

Maryland 

April 21-28, 1788 (8 days) 

63-11 (74) 

South Carolina 

May 12-23, 1788 (12 days) 

149-73 (222) 

New Hampshire 

June 18-21, 1788 (4 days) 

57-47 (104) 

Virginia 

June 2-27, 1788 (26 days) 

89-79 (168) 

 

7

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/

 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R47619, The Equal Rights Amendment: 

Background and Recent Legal Developments, July 11, 2023, p.8

 

8

 Note. In Colorado, the state legislature passed Senate Joint Memorial 1 in 1978 to call an Article V Convention to develop a 

Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).  In 2021, the Colorado state legislature rescinded all Article V Convention applications by 
House Joint Resolution (HJR) 21-1006.  Thus, the 1978 resolution was no longer valid.  As of January 2025, HJR 21-1006 was 
not posted by the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives (

https://clerk.house.gov/SelectedMemorial

).   In addition, 

this website list various “Application” rescissions that are officially recognized by the U.S. Congress.   

9

 Note.  

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,

 Jonathan Elliot, 1876. 

https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/4.5-info-brief-ratification-timeline/

   





Appendix A: Mode of Ratification – State Legislature vs. State Convention 

A-5

 

 

North York 

June 17 to July 26, 1788 (38 days) 

30-27 (57) 

North Carolina

10

 

1

st

: July 21 to August 4, 1788 (15 days), the 

delegates voted to “neither reject nor ratify” 
2

nd

: November 16-21, 1789 (6 days) 

1

st

: 184-84 (268, 

indecision) 
2

nd

: 195-77 (272) 

Rhode Island

11

 

1

st

: March 1790 (adjourned without voting) 

2

nd

: May 29, 1790 (1 day, continuation) 

1

st

: No vote 

2

nd

: 34-32 (66) 

 

On March 1, 1788, the Rhode Island State Assembly passed the “Rhode Island Act 

Calling a Referendum on the Constitution,” and it was an approval of the new ratification 
methodology in Article VII of the U.S. Constitution.

12

  “In effect, the Rhode Island legislature 

made every voter a delegate to a dispersed ratification convention and handed them the authority 
to determine whether the Constitution should be adopted or rejected.  As predicted, the Rhode 
Island voters overwhelmingly rejected the Constitution by a vote of 238 to 2,714.  But the 
rejection by the people of Rhode Island was procedurally no different from the rejection by 
North Carolina’s delegates in its 1788 convention.”

13

  In a way, this so called “dispersed 

ratification convention” held by Rhode Island acted as its 1

st

 state ratifying convention in 1788, 

and then there were two more state conventions held in 1790 (March and May).  Despite the 
multiple conventions held by North Carolina and Rhode Island, the mode of ratification by state 
level conventions proved very successful, and it represented the “true will of the people.” 

In 1933, the mode of ratification by state level conventions was implemented for the 21

st

 

Amendment (i.e., repeal of prohibition under 18

th

 Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution.  

Congress wrote a time limit of seven years within the 

amendment text

, and there was serious 

doubt state level ratifying conventions would occur within the timeframe.  There were 48 states 
in the nation, and 43 passed statutes establishing a state level convention to consider the 21

st

 

Amendment.  There were 39 state level conventions actually conducted, and 38 of them ratified 
the 21

st

 Amendment (36 of 48 states required).  South Carolina was the only state to reject it, and 

there were no rescissions made by any state.

14

  The entire ratification process took 10 months to 

complete, and all state level ratifying conventions occurred within the “space of a single day.”

15

  

The overall success of the state ratifying conventions was also characterized as capturing the 
“true will of the people.”

 

As a mode of ratification, there is a greater probability the results of a state convention 

will remain unchanged as compared the state legislature because it is extremely difficult to 

 

10

 

https://northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/north-carolinas-ratification-debates-guaranteed-bill-of-rights/

  

11

 National Archives: 

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2015/05/18/rogue-island-the-last-state-to-ratify-the-constitution/

 

 

12

 Note.  Rhode Island was the only state not to send delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, but it joined all states in 

approving the new ratification methodology (i.e., 9 of 13 state ratifying conventions) explained in Article VII of the U.S. 
Constitution.  In the Articles of Confederation, Article XIII explains how any “alteration” must be “agreed to, in a Congress of 
the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”  So, the new ratification methodology replaced 
this statement in the Articles of Confederation after all 13 State Assemblies agreed to it.  

https:%%//%%journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-

content/uploads/sites/90/2017/03/Farris_FINAL.pdf/

  

Defying Conventional Wisdom: The Constitution Was Not the Product of a 

Runaway Convention

, Michael Farris, March 2017, p114-116. 

13

 

Defying Conventional Wisdom

, Michael Farris, March 2017, p117. 

14

 

Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: State Convention Records and Laws

, 

Compiled by Edward Somerville, 1939, page 5. 

15

 

Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment

, page 7.

 





Appendix A: Mode of Ratification – State Legislature vs. State Convention 

A-6

 

 

conduct a second state convention especially if a state level statute is required to host it again.  
For the state legislature, it is easier to seek a change to an original decision by just waiting until 
the next state legislative session (assuming it is still within the time limit).  In addition, there is 
scholarly discussion that explains that a state convention can only be held once (i.e., “one and 
done”).  If this circumstance is true, it makes the results of a state convention absolutely final 
with no opportunity for a later change.  Thus, 

there is

 

greater certainty the outcome of a state 

convention will remain unchanged than a state legislature

, and it ensures the original ratification 

(or rejection) of an amendment is more carefully considered before it becomes final.  





Appendix B: Statistical Hypothesis Test in Support of State Convention 

B-1 

 

Situation.  There are two approaches to proposing amendments as described in Article V of the U.S. 

Constitution.  The first approach involves Congress proposing amendments by 2/3’s super majority vote 

in both chambers.  The second approach involves 2/3’s of state legislatures (or 34 of 50) approving a 

resolution for an Article V Convention to form to propose amendments.  Afterwards, any proposed 
amendments are then sent to the states where 3/4’s of the states (or 38 of 50) must ratify the amendment 
for it to become part of the U.S. Constitution.  The current 27 amendments originated from Congress, 

and the second approach involving an Article V Convention has not occurred in U.S. History.  The goal 

is to limit the power of the federal government.  To understand the U.S. perspective, the Trafalgar Group 

conducted a national survey, and the chart below provides an overall summary of it.

1

   

 

1

 The actual survey results can be found at the following link: 

https://conventionofstates.com/polling

.  The Trafalgar 

Group established a scientific methodology to conduct the survey, and it is described at the following link: 

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/polling-methodolgy

.  

Note.  In August 2024, Susquehanna Polling and 

Research (SB&R) had a similar question (and very similar results as “Total Response”), but it did not have 
polling demographics like the Trafalgar Group.  Thus, a similar statistical test is not feasible with the SB&R 
survey results.

 

Survey Question: Would you support a Convention  of States (COS) to meet  and propose  Constitutional 
Amendments  focusing on term limits for Congress  and federal  officials, federal  spending  restraints,  and 
limiting the federal  government  to its constitutionally mandated authority? (Support,  Oppose,  Not Sure)

35.6%

25.1%

39.3%

100%

% of Response

383

271

424

1078

# of Responses

65.7%

16.6%

17.7%

50.2%

63.3%

81.3%

25.6%

24.2%

18.8%

17.9%

6.7%

12.0%

Convention of States Action (COSA) National Survey Results: July 7-10, 2022

Conducted by 

Trafalgar Group





Appendix B: Statistical Hypothesis Test in Support of State Convention 

B-2 

 

Research Question.  For the survey results, there is an interest in understanding any potential 
relationship between a person’s party affiliation and response.  So, here is the following research 
question to address this interest.  

What type of relationship exists between a person’s party affiliation 

and survey response (i.e., independent or dependent relationship)?

    

•

 

Null Hypothesis (H

o

): There is an 

independent

 relationship between a person’s party affiliation 

and survey response.

 

•

 

Alternate Hypothesis (H

a

): There is a 

dependent

 relationship between a person’s party affiliation 

and survey response.

 

•

 

Test Statistic.  In this situation, there are two categorical variables under examination, and the 
appropriate test statistic to use is a proportion (Chi-Squared Distribution Test). 
 

Potential Error Types and Risk.   

Overview. This table depicts the 
multiple potential and possible 
outcomes for this hypothesis test. 

Decision Made 

Accept H

o

 

Reject H

o

 

 

Situation 

H

o

 is True 

Correct Decision.           
Probability = 1- alpha (α) 

Type I Error (false positive)                  
Probability = alpha (α) 

H

o

 is False 

Type II Error (false negative)               
Probability = beta (β) 

Correct Decision.           
Probability = 1- beta (β)        
(a.k.a. Power) 

For Type I Error alpha (α), the risk is that the hypothesis test concludes a dependent relationship exists 

when the reality is that an independent relationship exists.  The mitigation to prevent this error is to set a 

level of significance (α) that is appropriately small.  Typically, statisticians state alpha (α) = 0.05 is an 

acceptable level.  For purposes of this hypothesis test, alpha (α) = 0.01 level of significance. 

For Type II Error beta (β), the risk is that the hypothesis test concludes an independent relationship 

exists when the reality is that a dependent relationship exists.  The mitigation to prevent this error is to 

collect a fairly large random sample size that is representative of the U.S. population.  Typically, 

statisticians state a minimum random sample size is 30, and the survey has a random sample size of 

1,078 individuals.  Thus, there is a fairly large random sample size from the survey.  In addition, this 

sample size is large enough to yield a small standard error for the survey of +/- 4.2%.  Thus, the 

percentage of the American Population that supports the Article V Convention ranges 61.5% to 69.9% 

(or 65.7 +/- 4.2%).  This is clearly a vast majority. 





Appendix B: Statistical Hypothesis Test in Support of State Convention 

B-3 

 

Hypothesis Test Re-stated Mathematically.  Below is each hypothesis and corresponding mathematical 

expression. 

Null Hypothesis (H

o

): There is an 

independent

 relationship between a person’s party affiliation and 

survey response.   

•

 

Actual Survey Proportion = Expected Survey Proportion 

Alternate Hypothesis (H

a

): There is a 

dependent

 relationship between a person’s party affiliation and 

survey response. 

•

 

Actual Survey Proportion ≠ Expected Survey Proportion 

Data Analyzed.  The following tables originated from a supporting excel spreadsheet.

2

  In this case, 

Table 1 is the actual survey data collected by the Trafalgar Group.  Table 2 is the expected (or 

calculated) survey data that is based on the fundamental mathematical definition of independence 

[P(A∩B) = P(A)P(B)].  In the excel spreadsheet, there are two additional tables that apply this basic 

mathematical equation as another reference point.  

Table 1: Actual Survey Data

 

Table 2: Expected (or calculated) Survey Data

 

 

 

2

 Note: The exact excel spreadsheet calculation is available upon request. 

Democrat

No Party / Other

Republican

Total 

Response

Not Sure

102

48

46

196

Oppose

109

51

26

186

Support

213

172

311

696

424

271

383

1078

Party Affiliation

Survey 

Response

Survey Data

 (Actual)

Total

Democrat

No Party / Other

Republican

Not Sure

77.1

49.3

69.6

196.0

Oppose

73.2

46.8

66.1

186.0

Support

273.8

175.0

247.3

696.0

424.0

271.0

383.0

1078.0

Survey Data

 (Expected)

Party Affiliation

Total

Survey 

Response

Total





Appendix B: Statistical Hypothesis Test in Support of State Convention 

B-4 

 

P-Value Calculations & Results.  For this hypothesis test, the use of the Chi-Squared Distribution is 

appropriate because it provides a p-value addressing independence between two categorical variables.  

From the supporting excel spreadsheet, Table 3 depicts the p-value results and decision.  Within excel, 

the following formula was used to compare Tables 1&2: 

=CHISQ.TEST(C10:C12,C18:C20)

. 

Table 3: P-Value Results and Decision

 

In this situation, the overall (or total) decision is to reject the null hypothesis, and there is strong 

statistical evidence to conclude a 

dependent

 relationship does exist between a person’s party affiliation 

and survey response.  Thus, the result answers the research question:

 What type of relationship exists 

between a person’s party affiliation and survey response (i.e., independent or dependent 
relationship)?

    

Even though the overall (or total) hypothesis test concludes a dependent relationship does exist, there 
was an interesting insight with the “No Party / Other” subcategory by itself.  The calculated p-value 
(0.79139) for this individual subcategory was significantly greater than alpha (α) = 0.01, and it means 

there is an 

independent

 relationship with the survey responses.  This specific result is an interesting 

outcome because it indicates a potential attitude independent of political affiliation.  In other words, 
someone who is neither a “Democrat” nor a “Republican” is considered an “Independent.”  

Overall Conclusion.  The results of the statistical hypothesis test provide evidence that “Democrat” and 
“Republican” responses are primarily based on “bias” (or dependent) because they are influenced by a 
party affiliation / opinion.  In the opposite way, the results of the overall statistical hypothesis test 

provide evidence to support the “No Party / Other” responses are primarily “unbias” (or independent) 

because they are not influenced by a party affiliation.   

Support to State Convention.  The results of this statistical hypothesis test support the need to have a 

state convention vs. the state legislature as a mode of ratification.  In the state legislature such as 

Colorado, there are only Republicans and Democrats with some small number of other political parties.  
Essentially, there are no “independents.”  However, there is a greater opportunity to involve 
“independents” in a state convention because it is a specific event held within a fairly short timeframe, 
and it can be fairly equivalent as calling random citizens to participate in jury duty.  Since a state 
convention has a greater chance of involving “independents,” there is a greater chance for the event to 
be “unbias” towards ratifying amendments (i.e., more objective than the state legislature).    

Decision

Total

3.00319E-18

< 0.01

Reject Null

Democrat

3.24743E-09

< 0.01

Reject Null

No Party / 

Other

0.791390572

> 0.01

Accept Null

Republican

2.58778E-11

< 0.01

Reject Null

Chi-Squared Distribution for Independence

P-Value (Chi-Squared Test)

P-Value (Chi-Squared Test)

P-Value (Chi-Squared Test)

P-Value (Chi-Squared Test)

alpha (

α

) = 0.01





Appendix C: Historical Ratification of Amendments 

C-1

 

 

Since 1789, Congress proposed 33 Amendments to the states for ratification.  There are 

27 of these 33 Amendments that were ratified between 1791 to 1992, and the historical track 
record is a fairly solid one (~82% success rate).

1

  The table below shows their historical timelines 

for ratification.  The 21

st

 Amendment is the only one ratified by state conventions, and the other 

26 amendments were ratified by the state legislatures.

 2

 

Amendment 

Date Proposed by Congress 

Date of Ratification 

Timeframe 

1

st

 

Bill of Rights proposed by 
Congress on September 25, 1789. 
 

Ratified December 15, 1791 
Note: 27

th

 Amendment was 

part of the original bill 
proposed in 1789.  This 
historical example shows how 
all proposed amendments may 
not ratify together.  May also 
happen with Article V 
Convention proposed 
amendments. 

2.25 years 

2

nd

 

3

rd

 

4

th

 

5

th

 

6

th

 

7

th

 

8

th

 

9

th

 

10

th

 

11

th

 

March 4, 1794 

February 7, 1795 

11 months 

12

th

 

December 9, 1803 

June 15, 1804 

6 months 

13

th

 

January 31, 1865 

December 6, 1865 

11 months 

14

th

 

June 13, 1866 

July 9, 1868 

2.1 years 

15

th

 

February 26, 1869 

February 3, 1870 

1 year 

16

th

 

July 2, 1909 

February 3, 1913 

3.5 years 

17

th

 

May 13, 1912 

April 8, 1913 

11 months 

18

th

 

December 18, 1917 

January 16, 1919 

1.1 years 

19

th

 

June 4, 1919 

August 18, 1920 

1.2 years 

20

th

 

March 2, 1932 

January 23, 1933 

10 months 

21

st

 

February 20, 1933 

December 5, 1933 

10 months 

22

nd

 

March 21, 1947 

February 27, 1951 

4 years 

23

rd

 

June 16, 1960 

March 29, 1961 

9 months 

24

th

 

August 27, 1962 

January 23, 1964 

1.5 years 

25

th

 

July 6, 1965 

February 10, 1967 

1.5 years 

26

th

 

March 23, 1971 

July 1, 1971 

4 months 

27

th

 

September 25, 1789 

May 7, 1992 

202 years 

 

With the exception of the 27

th

 Amendment, the historical record for ratifying amendments 

is 4 years or less, and this represents another fairly solid historical track record.  When it comes 
to the other six unratified amendments, there is an interesting unique history for each one, and 
they have a historical precedent that may impact future proposed amendments.  

 

 

1

 

https:%%//%%crsreports.congress.gov

  Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R47959, 

Proposals to Amend the U.S. 

Constitution: Fact Sheet

, December 17, 2024, p.2 

2

 Source Archives Foundation: 

https://archivesfoundation.org/amendments-u-s-constitution/

  





Appendix C: Historical Ratification of Amendments 

C-2

 

 

The six unratified amendments proposed by Congress are listed below, and there is a 

general status for each one of them.

3

 

Topic of Amendment  Date Proposed to States  General Status & Notes 

Size of U.S. House or 
Congressional 
Apportionment 

September 25, 1789 
(note: part of original 
“Bill of Rights” 
proposal) 

Still active?  Very 1

st

 Proposed 

Amendment and no time limit for 
ratification.  11 states ratified of 38 states 
required.

4

   

Foreign Titles of 
Nobility 

May 1, 1810 

Still active?  No time limit for 
ratification, and there is a question of its 
current relevancy.

5

   

Protection of Slavery 

March 2, 1861 

No longer valid.  Confederate States (11) 
of America was formed.  Later, 13

th

 

Amendment passed in December 1865.

6

 

Regulating Child 
Labor 

June 2, 1924 

Still Outstanding/Stalled.  No time limit 
for ratification.  28 states ratified of 38 
required.  Most recent state to ratify was 
1937; stalled for lack of momentum.

7

 

Equal Rights 
Amendment 

March 22, 1972 

No longer active.  Congress set original 
time limit to pass within 7 years.  35 
states ratified of 38 states required.  
Congress provided extended timeline of 
3 years but no additional states were able 
to ratify.  Some groups disputed the 
inactive status for years.

8

 

DC Voting Rights  

August 22, 1978 

No longer active.  Congress set original 
time limit to pass within 7 years.  16 
states ratified of 38 states required.  No 
dispute from any groups.

9

  

 

Beginning with the 18

th

 Amendment (Prohibition), the U.S. Congress started to impose a 

timeframe of 7 years for ratification even though Article V of the U.S. Constitution did not 
specifically provide this power to the U.S. Congress.

10

  The origin of the 7 years timeframe came 

from U.S. Senator William Harding who used it as a political tool to “permit him and others to 
vote for the amendment, thus avoiding the wrath of the ‘Drys’ (e.g., Anti-Saloon League).”  At 

 

3

 

https:%%//%%crsreports.congress.gov

/ Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R47959, 

Proposals to Amend the U.S. 

Constitution: Fact Sheet

, December 17, 2024, p.2 

4

 Source National Archives: 

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2020/01/23/unratified-amendments/

  

5

 Source National Archives: 

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2020/01/30/unratified-amendments-titles-of-nobility/

  

6

 Source National Archives: 

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2020/02/19/unratified-amendments-protection-of-slavery/

  

7

 Source National Archives: 

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2020/03/24/unratified-amendments-regulating-child-labor/

  

8

 Source History of ERA: 

https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/pathstoratification/

  

9

 Source National Archives: 

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2020/06/17/unratified-amendments-dc-voting-rights/

  

10

 

https:%%//%%crsreports.congress.gov

 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R42589, 

The Article V Convention to Propose 

Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress,

 March 29, 2016, p.26 





Appendix C: Historical Ratification of Amendments 

C-3

 

 

the same time, he expected time would run out before it was ratified.

11

  The 18

th

 Amendment was 

ratified in 1.1 years, and it was clearly within 7 years.  Eventually, there was debate as to whether 
Congress could impose a time limit because Article V of the U.S. Constitution did not specify 
this power to Congress.  However, U.S. Supreme Court Cases 

Dillion v. Gloss

 (256 U.S. 368, 

year 1921) and 

Coleman v. Miller

 (307 U.S. 433, year 1939) both upheld that Congress had the 

power to “fix a definite period for the ratification” of amendments.

12

  Overall, there are 10 

historical amendments with timeframes associated with them for ratification, and there is a 
distinction to note that some of them had the timeframe written within the

 amendment text

 and 

others within the 

joint resolution statement

 made by Congress.   

1.

 

18

th

 Amendment (amendment text) 

2.

 

20

th

 Amendment (amendment text) 

3.

 

21

st

 Amendment (amendment text) 

4.

 

22

nd

 Amendment (amendment text) 

5.

 

23

rd

 Amendment (joint resolution statement) 

6.

 

24

th

 Amendment (joint resolution statement) 

7.

 

25

th

 Amendment (joint resolution statement) 

8.

 

26

th

 Amendment (joint resolution statement) 

9.

 

Equal Rights Amendment (joint resolution statement) 

10.

 

DC Voting Rights Amendment (amendment text) 

The actual timeframe written within the 

amendment text

 of the five amendments became 

officially part of the amendment itself and could not be changed.  Thus, the timeframe for 
ratification for these amendments could not be changed.  However, the timeframe for ratification 
written within the 

joint resolution statement

 by Congress could be changed because it was not a 

permanent part of the amendment itself.  The 18

th

, 20

th

-26

th

 Amendments did not encounter any 

issues with the timeframe requirement with either the 

amendment text

 or 

joint resolution 

statement

 approaches.  When the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was introduced in 1972, it 

had a 7 year timeframe for ratification, and 35 states ratified it within the timeframe.  However, 
38 states were required.  Consequently, Congress extended the deadline for another 3 years, yet 
no additional states ratified the amendment.  So, it was widely considered expired, but supporters 
of the ERA argued otherwise.  It was disputed for years.

13

  In 1978, Congress proposed the DC 

Voting Rights Amendment, and it wrote the timeframe for ratification within the 

amendment text

 

to become a part of the amendment itself and to avoid any controversy like the ERA.  Eventually, 
the DC Voting Rights Amendment only acquired 16 states to ratify it when 38 states were 
required.  The timeframe of 7 years expired, and the amendment failed with no dispute.

14

 

 

11

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/

  Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R42979, 

The Proposed Equal Rights 

Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues

, December 23 2019, p.28. 

12

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/

  Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R42979, 

The Proposed Equal Rights 

Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues

, December 23 2019, p.26-27 (section on “Role of the Supreme Court Decisions in 

Dillion v. Gloss

 and 

Coleman v. Miller

”). 

13

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/

 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R42979, The Proposed Equal Rights 

Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues, December 23 2019, see “Summary” page.

 

14

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/

  Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R42979, The Proposed Equal Rights 

Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues, December 23 2019, p. 30-31 





Appendix C: Historical Ratification of Amendments 

C-4

 

 

The historical background of these ratified and proposed amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution informs important lessons for consideration during the actual implementation of an 
Article V Convention.  Based on original intent, the framers of the U.S. Constitution granted the 
same powers for an Article V Convention to propose amendments as the U.S. Congress.  More 
specifically, “the Article V Convention device was intended to provide an alternative method of 
amendment, but it was also intended that a convention should enjoy a broad national consensus 
of support and 

meet similarly exacting standards as those that apply to amendments proposed in 

Congress

.”

15

  From this critical concluding statement from the Congressional Research Service 

(CRS), it appears an Article V Convention has the same exact powers as Congress for proposing 
written amendments to the U.S. Constitution to include a timeframe for ratification (e.g., 7 years) 
and mode of ratification (state legislatures or state conventions).  For example, each proposed 
amendment from an Article V Convention could have the exact same written language as the 21

st

 

Amendment that reads: “Section 3.  This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been 
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution 

by conventions in the several States

, as provided in 

the Constitution, 

within seven years

 from the date of submission hereof to the States by the 

Congress.”  However, there are multiple scholarly references throughout the various CRS reports 
on an Article V Convention that explain it does not have the same exact powers as Congress for 
written proposed amendments.

16

  So, what is some of this scholarly discussion? 

With respect to the timeframe for ratification, the Article V Convention shares the same 

power as Congress for specifying a time limit because it is the proposing “agency” that also 
specifies the timeframe.  If the Article V Convention proposed an amendment without specifying 
a timeframe for ratification, Congress could circumvent any proposed amendment it does not 
support by specifying a timeframe for ratification such as 6-weeks.  In this scenario, it is highly 
unlikely 38 of 50 states will have enough time to ratify the amendment.  To ensure this does not 
happen, the Article V Convention should write the specific timeframe for ratification (e.g., 7 
years) within the 

amendment text

 to become part of the amendment itself, and Congress cannot 

change any language in the written proposed amendment.

17

   

With respect to the mode of ratification, an Article V Convention does not share the same 

power as Congress.  Congress has the power to specify the mode of ratification only for those 
proposals within the Article V Convention call scale and scope.  For example, the basic Article V 
Convention commission is to “limit the power of the federal government,” and it cannot make 
any proposed changes to the “Bill of Rights.”  If the Article V Convention proposed an 
amendment for term limits for members of Congress and another repealing the 1st Amendment, 

 

15

 

https:%%//%%crsreports.congress.gov

 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R44435, 

The Article V Convention to Propose 

Constitutional Amendments: Current Development

, November 15, 2017, p.20 

16

 

https:%%//%%crsreports.congress.gov

 - three CRS reports on Article V Convention.  

1) CRS Report R42592, 

The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for 

Congress

, October 22, 2012  

2) CRS Report R42589, 

The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress

, 

March 29, 2016  
3) CRS Report R44435, 

The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments

, November 15, 

2017 

17

 

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Rules Governing the Process

, by Robert G. Natelson, 78 Tennessee Law 

Review 693, year 2011, p.750. 





Appendix C: Historical Ratification of Amendments 

C-5

 

 

then Congress would only specify a mode of ratification for the term limits amendment.  The 
other one would not be sent to the states for consideration.  In this regard, Congress’ power is the 
“same as if it had proposed the amendment” itself.

18

  In a way, Congress serves as another check 

to ensure the Article V Convention does not exceed its commission authority for proposed 
amendments.  Even though the Article V Convention proposed amendments do not have to 
technically pass through Congress, the Constitution does mandate that Congress select a mode of 
ratification for each one.  It is possible for members of Congress to view selecting a mode of 
ratification as a “discretionary duty,” and they would decide to do nothing with the proposed 
amendment(s).  Thus, they would sit dormant and not be sent to the states.  If this sort of event 
occurs, the Constitutional mandate for Congress to select a mode of ratification “should be 
enforceable judicially.”

19

 

During the Article V Convention, there is a potential forcing function that commissioners 

could write within the 

amendment text

 of each amendment itself to ensure Congress does not try 

to circumvent the proposed amendment.  As an example, each amendment can have 

amendment 

text

 incorporating both timeframe for ratification and mode of ratification in the following 

language: “Section #.  This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an 
amendment to the Constitution 

within seven years

 from the date of its submission to the 

state 

legislatures or conventions in accordance with the fifth article of this Constitution

.  This article 

shall become effective six months after ratification as an amendment to the Constitution.”

20

  Here 

are some benefits from including this example language within the 

amendment text

. 

•

 

The amendment contains seven years as the timeframe for ratification, and 
Congress cannot change it or modify it later.  The historical lessons learned from 
the Equal Rights Amendment and DC Voting Rights Amendment ensure it.  

•

 

The timeframe of ratification does not start until it is submitted to “state 
legislatures or conventions.” It does not say time starts when submitted to 
Congress for review.  If Congress decides to delay its selection on a mode of 
ratification for six months or a year for instance, the delay of six months or a year 
are not counted against the seven years.  If Congress delays longer than a year 
with no sign in sight on when selecting a mode of ratification, then any time used 
to enforce judicial action against Congress is also not counted against the seven 
years.   

•

 

The amendment includes both modes of ratification, but it does not specify which 
one to use.  In this manner, the Article V Convention is not trying to circumvent 
the power of Congress to select a mode of ratification. 

 

 

 

18

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Rules Governing the Process

, p.748.  

19

 

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Rules Governing the Process

, p.749. 

20

 

A Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment

, by Robert Natelson, July 27, 2017, The Heartland Institute.  Note: in this published 

article, the author explains a potential Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) proposed by an Article V Convention.  The author 
incorporates a section addressing the timeframe for ratification and mode of ratification. 

 





Appendix C: Historical Ratification of Amendments 

C-6

 

 

Upon completion of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, the President of the Convention 

George Washington sent his executive letter to the Continental Congress with the 
recommendation for a mode of ratification involving conventions of the several states.  State 
conventions as a mode of ratification were also stated within the language of Article VII of the 
U.S. Constitution.

21

  The executive letter idea is a historical precedent the Article V Convention 

could follow to recommend the state convention mode of ratification, but there is no guarantee 
the U.S. Congress would accept the recommendation.  

This historical examination into the ratification of U.S. Constitution Amendments is 

critical background for consideration in an Article V Convention and Colorado Ratifying 
Convention (and other state conventions for that matter). 

 

21

 

Resolution Transmitting the Constitution to Congress in Convention

, Monday, September 17, 1787, signed by President George 

Washington.  Note: the executive letter served as a summary of the overall convention results and way-forward for ratification of 
the base U.S. Constitution.| | —- | Page Metadata || |Login Required to view? |No | |Created: |2025-03-14 23:48 GMT| |Updated: |2025-03-14 23:48 GMT| |Published: |2025-03-14 23:48 GMT| |Converted: |2025-11-11 12:35 GMT| |Change Author: |Vivian Garcia | |Credit Author: |Mike Forbis |