Kansas House Bill HCR5005

Kansas 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/23
• Refer: 1/23/23
• Engrossed: 3/8/23

Caption

Making application to the Congress of the United States to call a convention of the states to establish term limits for members of Congress.

Impact

If adopted, this resolution would require Congress to call a convention as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. The resolution emphasizes the belief that term limits would help restore public trust in government and electoral processes. Currently, the Kansas legislature is responding to concerns regarding the imbalance of political power that has developed over time. Supporters argue that implementing term limits would not only enhance democracy but also encourage fresh perspectives and less entrenched political behavior in Washington, D.C.

Summary

HCR5005 is a House Concurrent Resolution from the state of Kansas, aimed at applying for a national convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The proposed amendment seeks to establish term limits for members of Congress, addressing concerns about the concentration of power among long-serving legislators. The resolution reflects a growing sentiment among some voters that the current structure allows certain individuals to maintain significant influence due to their extended time in office, often supported by powerful special interests. By advocating for term limits, supporters hope to foster a government that better represents the people and reduces the lobbying influence in elections.

Contention

The discussion surrounding HCR5005 is marked by a mix of support and resistance. While many legislators advocate for the resolution, arguing it enhances democratic integrity by discouraging lifelong political careers, opponents caution against the potential unintended consequences of such amendments. Critics worry that term limits could lead to a loss of experienced lawmakers who are vital for navigating complex legislative processes. Furthermore, there is an ongoing debate about whether a convention itself could pose risks by opening the Constitution to broader changes that may not be widely agreed upon.