Kentucky House Bill HB634

Kentucky 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/18/25
• Refer: 2/18/25
• Refer: 2/26/25

Caption

AN ACT relating to the selection and oversight of Article V convention commissioners.

Impact

The bill has significant implications for how Kentucky participates in any potential Article V convention, which could be convened for proposing amendments to the Constitution. By laying down a formal procedure for selecting commissioners, the bill reinforces the control of the state legislature over the representatives chosen to attend the convention. It also institutes strict eligibility criteria for commissioners, aiming to exclude individuals with conflicts of interest or a recent history in federal government positions, thereby ensuring a more integrity-driven representation.

Summary

House Bill 634 introduces regulations related to the selection and oversight of commissioners for an Article V convention. It emphasizes the need for state legislatures to have a robust framework to safeguard the interests of constituents when proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The bill specifies how commissioners are to be selected and outlines their responsibilities while ensuring accountability during the convention process. It aims to prevent any action that would undermine the core principles guaranteed in the Constitution, thus taking a strong stance on maintaining individual liberties.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 634 is likely to be supportive among legislators advocating for stronger state rights and the protection of individual liberties. Proponents may view this bill as a necessary action to enhance local governance and prevent federal overreach. However, there could be opposition from those who believe that such measures could lead to an unnecessary politicization of the convention process or potentially hinder the discussion of important national issues.

Contention

One notable point of contention may arise from the constraints placed on commissioners, which include not voting for amendments that would alter protections of individual liberties or the rules of decision-making at the convention. This could spark debate amongst lawmakers about the balance between ensuring a principled representation at the convention and allowing flexibility in discussions that might push for necessary amendments. Those opposing these restrictions might argue that they could limit meaningful dialogue on critical constitutional reforms.