Establish appointment procedures for a convention of states
If enacted, HB67 will amend existing sections of the Ohio Revised Code to include provisions for identifying eligible candidates for delegate positions. The requirements stipulate that candidates must be U.S. citizens, residents of Ohio, and have no recent legal issues that disqualify them, such as felony convictions. This delineation of eligibility establishes a standard ensuring that individuals representing Ohio at a national convention have the appropriate experience and character, thereby potentially enhancing the credibility of the state's delegation.
House Bill 67 aims to establish formal procedures for appointing delegates to a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. This legislation proposes a framework detailing how the Ohio General Assembly will select delegates, the qualifications for those delegates, and guidelines for their conduct during the convention. It emphasizes ensuring that the delegates represent the state's interests effectively while adhering to specific rules of order and authority as outlined in the bill.
The sentiment around HB67 appears to be largely supportive among those advocating for clearer processes in governmental representation, though it may face scrutiny from critics who may question the necessity and implications of such a convention. Proponents argue that having a well-defined process for appointing delegates strengthens democratic participation, while opponents might express concerns about the risks associated with convening to amend the Constitution, fearing potential overreach or unintended consequences.
Debate surrounding the bill may center on the implications of holding a constitutional convention and the powers vested in the appointed delegates. Critics may voice concerns that such a convention could lead to radical changes in the Constitution, threatening established rights and liberties. The bill addresses these contentions by including safeguards such as prohibiting delegates from voting on amendments that threaten individual liberties, yet the necessity of these protections remains a topic for further discussion within the legislature.