List of state applications for an Article V Convention

This is a list of known applications made to the United States Congress by the state legislatures for a Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution under Article V of the Constitution which provides in pertinent part:
A discussion on the history of this process can be found at Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. In particular, theories as to the validity of rescission of applications may also be found there as well as in Article V Convention applications. All known applications are listed here, noting if and when such an application was known to have been subsequently rescinded.
On January 6, 2015, the United States House of Representatives began the process of cataloging applications submitted to the House by the state legislatures with the adoption of a new provision in the House's parliamentary rules of procedure. Previously, all documents related to Article V Convention applications were administratively processed as memorials and only summarized in the House's portion of the Congressional Record and then referred to the House's Judiciary Committee. The Clerk of the House, on that office's webpage, has since listed some—but not all—applications and rescissions received by Congress' lower chamber since 1960. As this list may so easily be subsequently removed by a mere change in House rules, references to the actual Congressional Record are preferred. In its portion of the Congressional Record, the United States Senate, by contrast, typically publishes the entire verbatim text of a state legislature's application for an Article V Convention rather than to merely summarize the application's content. Once published verbatim in the Record, the Senate refers such memorials to its own Judiciary Committee.
The Congressional Record prior to 1876 is available through the Library of Congress, and online since 1995. In 1990, Judge Bruce Van Sickle and attorney Lynn M. Boughey compiled a list from the Congressional Record of state applications for an Article V Convention in the Hamline Law Review. Photocopies of the relevant sections of the Congressional Record have are available through Friends of the Article V Convention for the gap in the electronically available Congressional Record.

Van Sickle–Boughey classification

In "A Lawful and Peaceful Revolution", Van Sickle and Boughey define five classifications of applications:

Class I: A call for a general convention, with no motivating issue listed
Class II: A call for a general convention, with a separate statement of proposed amendment or explicit statement that the convention may consider other amendments proposed by states
Class III: A call for a general convention tied to a proposed amendment
Class IV: A call for a convention, with language aimed to limit the convention to the issue presented
Class V: A call for a convention, with language to rescind the application from consideration for a convention if any other topic is to be covered

The following is added to this list, where the original text was not recorded in the Congressional Record:

Class ??: A note of an application without the actual text

The following is also added to this list:

Class VI: A call for Congress to propose an amendment, with no call for a convention

Van Sickle and Boughey indicate which applications have been rescinded by their state by encasing these in parentheses, and make no note of which applications have led to amendments proposed by Congress.
In the table below, the classification of rescinded applications are stricken, with the year of rescission given in parentheses and a link to the record of the rescission. Those applications which led to amendments proposed by Congress are listed in parentheses.

List of state applications for an Article V convention

Although the table below has sortable columns, applications are initially arranged by date approved by the state legislature or by date of entry into the Congressional Record. Application classes are encased in parentheses if Congress presented an amendment on the topic given and stricken if the state legislature has subsequently rescinded its application. All descriptions with six or more states have identical amendment text, unless specified. As of March 2025, only the Hawaii State Legislature has never approved an Article V convention application through both its upper chamber and its lower chamber during the same legislative session.

State	Issue / Topic	Date of approval by state's legislature	Receipt by Congress	Application classification
Virginia	Bill of Rights			2004
New York	Bill of Rights
Georgia	Clarify Amendment X
South Carolina	Clarify Amendment X
Alabama	Limitation on Tariffs			II
Indiana	General and Unlimited Article V Convention	?		I
Ohio	General and Unlimited Article V Convention			I
New Jersey	Final Resolution for Slavery
Kentucky	Final Resolution for Slavery
Illinois	Final Resolution for Slavery
Nebraska	Direct Election of Senators, Other			III
Texas	General and Unlimited Article V Convention	?		2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38
Minnesota	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Pennsylvania	Direct Election of Senators, II	?
Idaho	Direct Election of President, Vice-President and Senators	?
Montana	Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, II	? ?
Oregon	Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other	? ? ?
Tennessee	Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, Other	? ?
Colorado	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Michigan	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Texas	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Arkansas	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Kentucky	Direct Election of Senators, II	?
Illinois	Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other	? ?
Nevada	Direct Election of Senators, II	?
Utah	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Washington	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Nebraska	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Iowa	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Missouri	Direct Election of Senators, II	?
South Dakota	Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I	? ?
Delaware	Anti-Polygamy	?
Missouri	General and Unlimited Article V Convention	?		I
Indiana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Iowa	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Nevada	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
New Jersey	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Louisiana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Oklahoma	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
South Dakota	Anti-Polygamy	?		III
Kansas	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Wisconsin	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Washington	Anti-Polygamy	?		III
Montana	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Maine	Direct Election of Senators, Other	?
Tennessee	Anti-Polygamy	?
Montana	Anti-Polygamy	?	remainder of text
Nebraska	Anti-Polygamy	?		III
Ohio	Anti-Polygamy	?	remainder of text	III
Illinois	Prevent and Suppress Monopolies	?		III
Wisconsin	General and Unlimited Article V Convention	?		I
California	Direct Election of Senators, I	?
Vermont	Anti-Polygamy	?		III
Illinois	Anti-Polygamy	?	remainder of text	III
Oregon	Anti-Polygamy	?
Wisconsin	Anti-Polygamy	?	remainder of text See, also,	III
Missouri	Supreme Court Jurisdiction	?		III
Michigan	Anti-Polygamy	?		III
South Carolina	Anti-Polygamy	?
Louisiana	Mode of Amendment, Other	?
Nevada	Anti-Prohibition	?
Wisconsin	Direct Election of President and VP	?
Wisconsin	General and Unlimited Article V Convention
Wisconsin	Article V Requirements Already Met for Convention Call	?
Wisconsin	Article V Requirements Already Met for Convention Call	?
Massachusetts	Anti-Prohibition	?
New York	Anti-Prohibition	?
Wisconsin	Anti-Prohibition	?
New Jersey	Anti-Prohibition	?
California	Tax on Government Securities	?		III
California	Federal Labor Laws	?		III
Oregon	General Welfare Act of 1937	?
Wyoming	Income Tax, Limit II	?	remainder of text
Maryland	Income Tax, Limit II	?	appearing to have been approved only by the Maryland House of Delegates—and NOT at all by the Maryland Senate	III
Rhode Island	Income Tax, Limit I	?		III
Iowa	Income Tax, Limit II	?		III
Maine	Income Tax, Limit I	?	remainder of text
Massachusetts	Income Tax, Limit I	?	remainder of text
Michigan	Income Tax, Limit I	?		III
Iowa	Presidential Term Limits	?
Illinois	Presidential Term Limits	?	remainder of text
Michigan	Presidential Term Limits	?
New Hampshire	Income Tax, II	?	remainder of text
Delaware	Income Tax, Limit I	?
Illinois	Income Tax, Limit II	?	remainder of text
Pennsylvania	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	?		III
Pennsylvania	Income Tax, Limit II	?	remainder of text	III
Wisconsin	Income Tax, Limit I	?		III
Wisconsin	Presidential Term Limits	?
Kentucky	Income Tax, Limit I	?	remainder of text
New Jersey	Income Tax, Limit I	?
California	World Federation	?	remainder of text	IV
New Jersey	World Federation	?		IV
North Carolina	World Federation	?	remainder of text	IV
Michigan	Revenue Sharing, II	?	remainder of text	IV
Florida	World Federation	?
Nebraska	Revenue Sharing, II	?	remainder of text
Connecticut	World Federation	?		IV
Kansas	Income Tax, Limit I	?		III
Iowa	Revenue Sharing, II	?	remainder of text	IV
Florida	Income Tax, Limit I	?	remainder of text
Maine	Revenue Sharing, II	?	remainder of text	IV
New Hampshire	Revenue Sharing, II	?	remainder of text
Arkansas	Income Tax, Limit II	?		III
Utah	Income Tax, Limit I	?
New Mexico	Revenue Sharing, II	?		IV
Georgia	Limited Treaty Powers, Various	?
Georgia	Income Tax, Limit I	?
Indiana	Income Tax, Limit II Income Tax, Limit II	? ?	remainder of text remainder of text	III III
Virginia	Income Tax, Limit I	?		~~III~~ 2004
California	Motor Vehicle Tax Distribution	?	remainder of text	III
Louisiana	Income Tax, Limit I	?	remainder of text
South Dakota	Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	? ? ?	remainder of text remainder of text remainder of text
Illinois	Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	? ?		IV III
Georgia	School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right	? ? ?
Texas	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	? ?	remainder of text	2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38 2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38
Oklahoma	Income Tax, Limit Other	?	remainder of text
Michigan	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	?	remainder of text	IV
Idaho	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	?	remainder of text
Indiana	Mode of Amendment, by 12 States	?	remainder of text	IV
Indiana	Limited Treaty Powers, Various	?	remainder of text	III
Indiana	Proportional Electoral College, Other	?	remainder of text	III
Indiana	Repeal of Constitution's 16th Amendment	?	remainder of text	III
Indiana	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other	? ?	remainder of text	III III
Florida	Supreme Court Review, Other	?
Alabama	Judicial Term Limits	?		III
Connecticut	Prohibit Interstate Income Tax	?	remainder of text	III
Alabama	Limited Federal Preemption	?		III
Wyoming	Limit Federal Powers	?	remainder of text
Arkansas	Validity of 14th Amendment	?		III
Nevada	Limit Federal Powers	?		III
Louisiana	Limit Federal Powers	?
Arkansas	Supreme Court Review, Other	?		III
Wyoming	Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency	? ?
Georgia	Supreme Court Review, Other	?
South Carolina	Limit Federal Powers	?
Oklahoma	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?
Oklahoma	Apportionment of Legislature, I	?	remainder of text
Kansas	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?
Kansas	Apportionment of Legislature, I	?
Florida	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	?	remainder of text
Florida	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?
Idaho	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?
Arkansas	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?		III
Arkansas	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	?	remainder of text	III
Arkansas	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?	remainder of text	III III
Arkansas	Proportional Electoral College, Other	?		III
South Dakota	Proportional Electoral College, Other	?		??
Montana	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?
Idaho	Balanced Budget, Other	?
Montana	Proportional Electoral College, I	?
Wyoming	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	?	remainder of text
Wyoming	Apportionment of Legislature, I	?
Wyoming	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?
Alabama	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	?		III
Washington	Apportionment of Legislature, I	?		III
Missouri	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?		III III
Missouri	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?		III
Utah	Proportional Electoral College, I	?
Colorado	Proportional Electoral College, I	?		III
Colorado	Income Tax, Limit Other	?		III
Nevada	Apportionment of Legislature, I	? ?		III
South Carolina	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?
South Carolina	Apportionment of Legislature, I	?
South Carolina	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?
South Carolina	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?
South Carolina	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	?	remainder of text
South Carolina	Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union	?	remainder of text
Texas	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?		2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38 2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38
Texas	Proportional Electoral College, I	?	remainder of text	2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38
South Dakota	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?	remainder of text	~~III~~
Wisconsin	Proportional Electoral College, I	?		III
Virginia	Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II	? ?	remainder of text	~~III~~ ~~III~~ 2004
Massachusetts	School Management, Other	?	appearing to have been approved only by the Massachusetts House of Representatives—and NOT at all by the Massachusetts Senate	III
Massachusetts	Senior Pensions	?		III
Virginia	Mode of Amendment, Identical Text	?		~~III~~ 2004
Louisiana	School Management, States' Right	?	remainder of text
Arizona	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?
Kansas	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?	remainder of text
South Carolina	School Management, States' Right	?
Utah	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?
Maryland	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?		III
North Carolina	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?
Minnesota	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?		III
Oklahoma	Proportional Electoral College, I	?	also found at remainder of text
Louisiana	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?
New Hampshire	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?
Illinois	Revenue Sharing, Other	?		III
Florida	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?
Mississippi	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?		III
Mississippi	School Management, States' Right	?	remainder of text	III
Mississippi	Anti-Subversion	?		III
Illinois	Apportionment of Legislature, II Apportionment of Legislature, Other			III
Nebraska	Proportional Electoral College, I	?		III
Nebraska	Apportionment of Legislature, I	?		III
Ohio	Revenue Sharing, Other	?		III
Kentucky	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?	remainder of text	III
Alabama	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?	remainder of text	III
New Mexico	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?		III
Tennessee	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?	remainder of text
Illinois	Apportionment of Legislature, Other			III
Indiana	Apportionment of Legislature, II	?		III
Alabama	Revenue Sharing, Other	?	remainder of text	III
North Dakota	Apportionment of Legislature, Other	?
Georgia	Revenue Sharing, Other	?	remainder of text
Texas	Revenue Sharing, Other	?		2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38
Illinois	Revenue Sharing, Other	?	remainder of text
Iowa	Apportionment of Legislature, Other	?		III
Florida	Revenue Sharing, Other	?
New Hampshire	Revenue Sharing, I	?		III IV
Louisiana	Anti-Subversion	?	remainder of text
Louisiana	Income Tax, Limit Other	?
Louisiana	Revenue Sharing, Other	?
New Jersey	Revenue Sharing, I	?		IV
West Virginia	Revenue Sharing, I	?	remainder of text	IV
Massachusetts	Revenue Sharing, I	?		IV
South Dakota	Revenue Sharing, I	?		IV
North Dakota	Revenue Sharing, I	?
Louisiana	Revenue Sharing, I	?	remainder of text
Ohio	Revenue Sharing, I	?		IV
Delaware	Revenue Sharing, I	?
Oregon	Revenue Sharing, I	?		??
Massachusetts	School Management, Other School Management, Other	? ?	remainder of text	IV IV
Michigan	School Management, No Assignment	?	remainder of text	IV
Iowa	Revenue Sharing, I	?	remainder of text	IV
Florida	Senate Control of Presiding Officer	?
Arizona	School Management, Prayer	?
Tennessee	School management, No Assignment	?
New York	School Management, Other	?	remainder of text	IV
Virginia	Balanced Federal Budget	? ? ?	remainder of text	>IV ~~III~~ IV 2004
Mississippi	Prayer in Public Buildings	?		IV
Virginia	School management, No Assignment	?		?? 2004
New Jersey	School Management, Other	?		??
Texas	School Management, No Assignment	?		2017 TX 85th Legislature SJR 38
Oklahoma	School Management, No Assignment	?
Maryland	School Management, Other	?		??
Nevada	School Management, No Assignment	?	remainder of text	IV
New Hampshire	School Management, Other	?
Arkansas	Balanced Federal Budget	? ?		III IV
North Dakota	Balanced Federal Budget	?	The wording of S.C.R. No. 4018 is extremely poor and—depending upon interpretation—it might not even be a valid Article V Convention call
Mississippi	Balanced Federal Budget	?	remainder of text	III
Missouri	Right to Life, Various	?		III
Nevada	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	?		III
Louisiana	Balanced Federal Budget	? ? ?	remainder of text
Kentucky	School Management, No Assignment	?		III
Alabama	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Georgia	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Delaware	Balanced Federal Budget	?
South Carolina	Balanced Federal Budget	? ?
Massachusetts	School Management, No Assignment	?		III
Oklahoma	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	?		III
Louisiana	Right to Life, Various	?
Alabama	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Delaware	Right to Life, Various	?
Maryland	Balanced Federal Budget	?	remainder of text
Virginia	Line Item Veto, Various	?		?? 2004
New Jersey	Right to Life, Various	?		IV
South Dakota	Right to Life, Unborn Right to Life, Sacred Life	? ?
Utah	Right to Life, Various	?	remainder of text
Arkansas	Right to Life, Various	?	remainder of text	IV
Rhode Island	Right to Life, Various	?		IV
Texas	Balanced Federal Budget	?	remainder of text	IV
Arizona	Balanced Federal Budget	?	remainder of text
Oregon	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Massachusetts	Right to Life, Various	?		??
Indiana	Right to Life, Various	?
Delaware	Appointment and Tenure of Federal Judges	?
Colorado	Balanced Federal Budget	?		V
Nebraska	Right to Life, Various	?		IV
Tennessee	Judicial Term Limits	?
Tennessee	Balanced Federal Budget	?	remainder of text
Pennsylvania	Right to Life, Various	?		IV
Oklahoma	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Kansas	Balanced Federal Budget	?		IV
Louisiana	Balanced Federal Budget	?
North Carolina	Balanced Federal Budget	?		??
Mississippi	Right to Life, Various	?		IV
Florida	Balanced Federal Budget	? ?	remainder of text
Idaho	Balanced Federal Budget	?
New Mexico	Balanced Federal Budget	?	remainder of text	IV
South Dakota	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Nebraska	Balanced Federal Budget	?		IV
Georgia	Right to Life, Various	?	The wording of H.R. No. 254 indicates that it was adopted only by the Georgia House of Representatives—therefore, it cannot be a valid Article V Convention call
Utah	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Arizona	Balanced Federal Budget
Pennsylvania	Balanced Federal Budget	?		IV
Arizona	Repeal Constitution's 16th Amendment and Prohibit Federal Government from Engaging in Business, Professional, Commercial, Financial or Industrial Enterprises			V
Indiana	Balanced Federal Budget	?		IV
New Hampshire	Balanced Federal Budget	?
Iowa	Balanced Federal Budget	?		IV
Nevada	Right to Life, Various	?		V
Louisiana	Federal Executive Branch Rules and Regulations	?
Nevada	Balanced Federal Budget	?	remainder of text	III
Idaho	Right to Life, Various	?
Arizona	Coercive use of Federal Funds
Oklahoma	Right to Life, Various	?
Tennessee	Right to Life, Various	?
Alabama	Right to Life, Various	?		IV
Alabama	Require Federal Judges to be elected, or re-elected, every six years, rather than to be appointed			V
Alaska	Balanced Federal Budget	?		V
Missouri	Balanced Federal Budget	?		V
Arizona	Line Item Veto, Various	?
South Dakota	Line Item Veto, Various	?	remainder of text
Utah	Income Tax, Limit Other
South Dakota	Term Limits on Members of Congress	?	remainder of text
Georgia	Flag Desecration	?	remainder of text
Colorado	Limited Funded Mandates, Various	?		V
South Dakota	Limited Funded Mandates, Various	?
Missouri	No Judicial Taxing Power	?		V
Delaware	Income Tax, Limit Other	?
Missouri	Limited Funding Mandates, Various	?	remainder of text	V
Arizona	No Judicial Taxing Power	?	remainder of text
South Dakota	No Judicial Taxing Power	?		III
Nevada	Term Limits on Members of Congress	?		III
North Dakota	No Judicial Taxing Power	?	remainder of text	III
Louisiana	Posse Comitatus	?		IV
Florida	Balanced Federal Budget		remainder of text	V
Nebraska	Balanced Federal Budget			V
North Dakota	Mode of Amendment, Other			V
North Dakota	Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures			IV
Alabama	Balanced Federal Budget		remainder of text	V
Louisiana	Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures			IV
New Hampshire	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Georgia	Balanced Federal Budget		remainder of text	V
Georgia	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Michigan	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Tennessee	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Alaska	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Florida	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Florida	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Florida	Legislation in Congress to contain only one subject and that one subject must be clearly expressed in the measure's title			V
Vermont	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission			V
Louisiana	Balanced Federal Budget			V
California	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission			V
Illinois	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission			V
South Dakota	Balanced Federal Budget			V
New Jersey	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission			V
Utah	Balanced Federal Budget			V
North Dakota	Balanced Federal Budget		remainder of text	V
Alabama	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Tennessee	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Florida	Term limits on Members of Congress			V
Indiana	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
West Virginia	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Alaska	Countermand Amendment, which would allow states to propose initiatives that could repeal any federal statute, executive order, judicial decision, or regulatory decision if three-fifths of state legislatures approved.			V
Oklahoma	Combination of: Balanced Federal Budget; and Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress		remainder of text	V
Louisiana	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Rhode Island	Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission''.	and	and remainder of text	V
Wyoming	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Arizona	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
North Dakota	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Arizona	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Texas	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Missouri	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Wisconsin	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Alabama	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
Missouri	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
Arkansas	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Utah	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Mississippi	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials—but specifically excluding the imposition of term limits upon members of Congress			V
West Virginia	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
Oklahoma	Combination of: Balanced Federal Budget; and Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress '			V
Missouri	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress '			V
Wisconsin	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Nebraska	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Wisconsin	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
West Virginia	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
South Carolina	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V
Missouri	Term Limits on Members of Congress '			V
Oklahoma	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
California	Regulation of Firearms; Raising Age to 21			V
Florida	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
Florida	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Florida	Prohibit Congress from making any federal law applying to the general public that does not also equally apply to all U.S. Representatives, to all U.S. Senators, and to all other persons within the legislative branch of the federal government			V
Florida	Grant to President of the United States Line-Item Veto Authority within Federal Appropriations Legislation			V
Tennessee	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
Louisiana	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
North Carolina	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
South Dakota	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
Indiana	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
South Carolina	Term Limits on Members of Congress			V
Texas	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress '			V
South Carolina	Balanced Federal Budget			V
Kansas	Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress			V

Counts by states

In 1929 Wisconsin presented a list of states having made applications for a convention exceeding the two-thirds requirement that was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with no further action. In 2013 states began listing existing state applications when joining them.

Wisconsin 1929

In 1929 Wisconsin applied to Congress to perform their constitutional duty to call a convention, listing Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin as states having made an application for a convention. There were 48 states in 1929, so 32 applications would be required to call a convention. 35 states were named.
Links to the text of applications by all states except California and North Carolina are provided in the table above. A reference to an application by California has been found in the Congressional Record and the text of an application by South Carolina is given in the table above. It may be that North Carolina was mistakenly included for South Carolina.
Three states, Missouri, Texas, and Wisconsin, had applied for a general convention. Eleven states listed had applied for a convention to prohibit polygamy, plus South Carolina. Idaho had included the direct election of the President and Vice President with their request for direct election of Senators. Thus, 16 states clearly had outstanding applications.
Alabama and Georgia had outstanding issues from 1832 and 1833, making a less certain 18. Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, and Oklahoma would be added if we include class II requests for Direct Elections of Senators, for a total of 25.
The only known records for an application New York and Virginia are their ratification documents, before the Bill of Rights. New Jersey and Kentucky applied for a convention to prevent the Civil War, and class III applications for the Direct Election of Senators. Arkansas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Utah only had documented class III applications for the Direct Election of Senators. California is most likely in this group. These ten states have applications that may have been mooted by amendments proposed by Congress.

Balanced budget

The balanced budget application of Ohio in 2013 through that of Arizona in 2017—except North Dakota—include a list of previous state applications for a balanced budget. Wisconsin's 2017 application also does not contain such a list. These lists mostly extend the previous lists, except possibly omitting state applications from the same legislative session.
Arizona has the most complete list, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. This represents 29 states.
Applications for all of the states mentioned above can be found in the list. Additionally, rescinded applications can be found for Delaware, Idaho, Oregon and Virginia. In particular, Delaware is included in lists prior to their rescission in 2016, but not after.
Wyoming and Wisconsin have made recent applications not included by Arizona, while Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado have recently rescinded their applications. This suggests a current total of 27 states, seven short of the required 34.

Convention of States Resolution

The Convention of States Resolution includes fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials, including members of Congress.
A complete list of passed resolutions with vote summaries, filing dates, and related links can be found using the .
As of, 20 of the 34 states needed have passed the resolution—with zero rescissions.

Wolf Pac Resolution

The Wolf Pac Resolution calls for regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rhode Island included a count of the states in their 2016 application.
Rhode Island has the most complete list, including the following five states: California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont. All of these applications are included in the list, with no recent additions. The legislatures of California, Illinois and New Jersey subsequently rescinded their Article V Convention applications for Wolf Pac's resolution—as well as canceling other such prior Convention-requesting resolutions on other topics.

U.S. Term Limits

The U.S. Term Limits Resolution, campaigned for by US Term Limits, calls for a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of members of Congress. States passing applications are Florida in 2016; Alabama in 2018; Missouri in 2018 ; West Virginia in 2021; Wisconsin in 2022; Oklahoma in 2023; Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee all in 2024; Indiana, South Carolina and South Dakota all in 2025—for a total of 12 states to date.

Paulsen style application counts

Michael Stokes Paulsen holds that the applications for a convention alone should govern the convention. Thus, this section contains counts of applications based on groupings not excluded by the applications themselves.
Counts including class IV, V, or VI applications would be limited to those with the same description and can be found by sorting the list by topic.

Class I and II applications

Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin have outstanding applications for a convention to propose amendments, with no accompanying issue.
Alabama has a request for a convention limiting tariffs, and South Carolina one for clarification on Amendment X, each implying that other amendments may be considered.

Class I, II, and III Applications

24 more states have outstanding class III applications. These are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
This gives a total of 31 states with known class I, II, or III applications. Three more applications would meet the 2/3rds requirement to call a convention.

Brennan style application counts

Thomas E. Brennan holds that, in 1982, it was necessary, desirable, and feasible to hold a convention. He lists the following counts in the introduction to his claim:

450 applications through 1980, plus 25 more since 1980, gives 475 total applications.
Applications from every state in the union.
36 states with more than six or more separate applications.