Holding a new constitutional convention: Would that fly?

Cambridge, Mass. | Oct. 19, 2026, 2:35 p.m. ET | 5 min read To proponents, it’s a neglected “civic muscle” that Americans should exercise to repair a broken political system. To opponents, it’s a backdoor to a perilous makeover of the republic’s founding document.And nobody can agree how it would work in practice because it’s never been done this way before.What is it? A constitutional convention during which state delegates could propose, debate, and vote on amendments to the original document drawn up in Philadelphia in 1787. For that to happen, though, two-thirds of state legislatures, 34 out of 50, would first need to demand that Congress call a convention. That high bar – too high, some believe – set out in the Constitution has never been reached, but not for want of trying. Now, there is renewed attention to the idea of holding a constitutional convention at a time of grinding polarization and dysfunction in Washington and of declining trust in public institutions. The number of state legislatures passing resolutions has risen. Worries over a $40 trillion federal debt have bolstered the argument for some form of balanced-budget amendment.Skeptics point to the political divisions that produce grinding stalemates in Congress and ask how an alternative gathering of representatives would find consensus on thorny issues. Any proposals must be ratified by three-quarters of states, an even higher threshold for success.Restoring a tool of popular sovereigntyProponents who attended a conference held Oct. 1-2 at Harvard Law School argue, however, that the very act of convening delegates to deliberate on issues would be a positive step, regardless of the outcome. To abandon the effort as too hard, they contend, would be to give up on the ideals of sovereignty and self-government embedded in the Constitution of 1787.“I think just doing it and teaching people that this tool is available to make sure that there [are] true checks and balances on the power of government, I think is very worth doing,” said Michael Farris, a constitutional litigator who co-founded the Convention of States Project. Historians say the drafters of the Constitution allowed for future amendments because they recognized that it would have to evolve. In a letter written to James Madison in 1789, Thomas Jefferson said that “no society can make a perpetual constitution,” and “the earth belongs always to the living generation.”“The founders were very aware that the document they were creating would prove to contain imperfections,” Mr. Farris told the conference.The first 10 amendments adopted in 1791 became known as the Bill of Rights. Since then, thousands of proposed amendments have been introduced to Congress, while members of the public have submitted thousands of petitions for other amendments. But only 27 amendments in total have been passed by supermajorities of both chambers and ratified by the states. None have been enacted via a constitutional convention under Article V.The last consequential amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18, came in 1971. The following year, Congress passed an Equal Rights Amendment that came close to ratification by the states until a conservative backlash stopped it.The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 raised the profile of a push by 30 or so states to force Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of passing a balanced-budget amendment. Under Reagan, Republicans in Congress twice proposed such an amendment, but both measures failed to pass by supermajorities. Some conservatives argue that Congress should have called a convention in the 1980s in response to states’ demands. Among them is Jodey Arrington, chair of the House Budget Committee, who supports holding a states’ convention today on fiscal responsibility.Advocacy on the political right“I think ultimately most people feel like, unless Congress is forced to balance the budget and steward responsibly the treasury of the taxpayers, they won’t do it. That’s why this Article V path is not just interesting, I think it may be the last hope for us to actually do something,” Mr. Arrington, a Texas Republican, told an ABC News affiliate in September.Much of the organizing for a convention is on the political right and is funded by conservative donors. Mr. Farris’ group, for example, wants to amend the Constitution to restrict the size and scope of the federal government, set term limits for lawmakers, and restrict fiscal deficit spending. Earlier this year, Kansas became the 26th state to adopt a resolution to this end. Phelan M. Ebenhack/AP/FileNew Hampshire’s Chris Sununu (as governor in a 2022 panel) supports a balanced-budget amendment. Another group, Balanced Budget Now, said it already has the backing of 28 states for its more narrow agenda. Chris Sununu, the former Republican governor of New Hampshire who is its honorary chair, said these dueling efforts all add to the pressure on Congress to respond, either by calling a constitutional convention or bringing an amendment to the floor.“I think everyone needs to go as hard as they can. And every time one group wins another state, it’s another part of the message. It is better for everybody to keep moving forward,” he told the conference.Article V doesn’t explain how a constitutional convention would work. Experts disagree on whether it must be limited to a single topic, who should be a delegate, and how votes would be tallied. Also unclear: who would have authority to resolve disputes.That ambiguity alarms some left-leaning scholars and advocacy groups. Since Republicans control more state legislatures, they would likely dictate the agenda at any convention. Russell Feingold, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin and a former president of the American Constitution Society, warned of a “runaway convention” that he said wouldn’t stop at deficit reduction measures. Rod Lamkey, Jr./AP/File Former Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold (at a 2025 rally) argues a convention could get out of control. “If anybody thinks this is just about fiscal responsibility, you’re kidding yourself,” he said. But any proposed amendments would ultimately still require ratification by 38 state legislatures. This means only topics that command broad support have a viable path to being adopted.Some of the most talked-about changes to the Constitution – such as eliminating the Electoral College – would almost certainly struggle to meet that bar. Deepen your worldviewwith Monitor Highlights.Politics with respectGet political stories with respectful analysis.There‘s a world of new ideas in everyBooks newsletter.There‘s more to life, enrich yours withCulture & Learning weekly.Follow humanity‘s discoveries withScience & Nature stories in your inbox.Gain a spiritual perspectivefrom the stories in your inbox.Want to understand the deeper impact of critical events? Learn the Monitor‘s insight.Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads. But there are issues that do have broad bipartisan support, Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard who organized the conference, said in an interview. Take term limits for lawmakers: An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans favor them. Calling a convention to focus solely on a term-limit amendment would lessen the stakes and model a path for tackling other issues this way in the future, said Professor Lessig.“If we are a constitutional republic, we should be able to address our Constitution,” he said. “And I think not just the politicians, but ordinary people should be involved in that conversation as well.” ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LoginReal news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.The Christian Science Monitor was founded in 1908 to lift the standard of journalism and uplift humanity. We aim to “speak the truth in love.” Our goal is not to tell you what to think, but to give you the essential knowledge and understanding to come to your own intelligent conclusions. Join us in this mission by subscribing.