Iowa House Bill HF438

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/17/25
• Refer: 2/17/25

Caption

A bill for an act concerning persons appointed to a convention called by the United States Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States, making appropriations, and providing penalties.(See HF 654.)

Impact

The bill significantly alters existing state laws by instituting strict criteria for commissioner eligibility and a detailed framework for their operation and accountability at a convention. Furthermore, it grants the General Assembly the authority to remove commissioners for various reasons, including violations of their oath or supporting proposals outside their designated authority. This level of oversight aims to uphold the integrity of Iowa's representation and make sure that the state’s interests are properly safeguarded during a national convention that could propose sweeping amendments to the Constitution.

Summary

House File 438 establishes regulations concerning the appointment and authority of commissioners representing Iowa at a potential Article V convention called by the United States Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution. The bill outlines the qualifications required for commissioners, including age, residency, citizenship, and previous professional conduct, thereby ensuring that only qualified individuals are appointed to represent the state at such conventions. It emphasizes the necessity for a structured delegation to maintain order and integrity during this significant constitutional process.

Contention

Notably, the bill includes provisions that could lead to criminal penalties for commissioners who act beyond their authorized scope, categorizing such actions as a class D felony. This raises concerns about the implications for political expression and the potential chilling effect on delegates who might fear prosecution for advancing broader discussions at conventions. Furthermore, the stipulation prohibiting judicial review of the advisory committee's decisions may lead to criticisms regarding transparency and checks and balances within the state's governance, eliciting debates about governmental overreach versus the preservation of citizens' rights in representing their state.