This post was provided by News Now Warsaw
By Sydney Byerly
The Indiana Citizen
Although Indiana has formally joined the list of states calling for an Article V Convention to amend the U.S. Constitution, the debate is intensifying over what could happen if such an unprecedented meeting is held.
During this year’s legislative session, two pieces of legislation related to a constitutional convention passed through the General Assembly. One resolution, SJR 21, calls for a constitutional convention to set a limit on the number of terms an individual may serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The other, Senate Enrolled Act 450, outlines the parameters for who can serve as delegates to a constitutional convention and requires the state legislature to limit what kinds of amendments they can vote on.
* * *
What do people think about term limits?
Check out the poll results by clicking here.
* * *
Sen. Andy Zay, R-Huntington, who co-authored SJR 21 with his colleague, Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said that now is the time to have this conversation about term limits, since he thinks many federal lawmakers have chosen to age or die in office because they see it as a lifelong commitment.
“It’s an interesting time, our country’s been around for over 200 years now, and, you know, there are certain things like this that we need to revisit,” Zay said. “The exciting thing is that the states do have a voice in this process.”
However, critics warn that such a convention could result in the delegates drastically rewriting the U.S. Constitution. Common Cause sent out a national alert June 3, saying the movement for a national convention had signed on 28 states and was just six states from reaching the threshold of 34 needed to activate Article V of the Constitution.
The nonprofit asserted the convention would have “no guardrails on what they could do — no limits, no oversight.”
Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, said the organization supports legislation for reasonable term limits for federal and state legislators, but “the mechanism by which this resolution sought to get term limits is just not the right vehicle.”
“We oppose an Article V Convention generally, because it’s dangerous; there just aren’t any guardrails on the process,” Vaughn said. “It could easily be hijacked by interests from either the far far right or far far left. Every constitutional right and liberty we have could be placed at risk.”
Confusion over hows and whys of a convention
The confusion about what would happen if a convention were held also extends to how one can be called.
Currently, multiple efforts are seeking a constitutional convention, and the language under Article V leaves a lot up to interpretation, but it does clearly say that “two thirds of the several states,” which is equivalent to 34, must call for a convention to propose amendments. Otherwise, amendments can only be added to the Constitution if they pass through Congress.
Article V does not establish that the calls must be for the same issue for a convention to be held. There’s also no universally accepted count, at present, of how many states have already passed resolutions in favor of a constitutional convention, with some claiming that as many as 28 have and others saying it’s more in the range of 15-20.
Zay said although the likelihood of an Article V Convention is in his opinion very low, he’s grateful the legislature was able to get SEA 450 passed as well, because, he said, no one wants a “runaway convention” and the intent is to only address term limits.
“We don’t want to open it up to discuss any topical issue, and so that kind of gave us the control as a state to rein in any delegates for that convention, should there be one, that would act inappropriately anytime during the course of preparing for the convention, or the actual convention itself,” Zay said. “The likelihood of the convention, of course, many know is very low. But nonetheless, if it would happen, we want to be prepared for that.”
Gerard Magliocca, an Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor and author of five books on constitutional law, said that concerns about a “runaway convention” are valid, because Article V of the Constitution is very short and avoids laying out express rules for what happens when one is called.
“Congress can tell the convention how to do things, but then what happens if the convention meets and they say, ‘Yeah, well, we’re not going to do it that way. We’re going to do it our own way.’ Can Congress really control them? Because they’re their own entity, a Constitutional Convention, not under Congress.”
According to Magliocca, problems could arise if a constitutional convention is called because there are no clear laws or precedents about how a constitutional convention would work. One view is that Congress would need to pass a law setting the rules for the convention, including how delegates are chosen, how many delegates each state gets, when it starts, etc. Another view is that it should be up to each state to decide how to send delegates, and the convention itself, sets its own rules once it convenes. But that could create major problems — for example, if states send very different numbers of delegates, it could affect fairness in representation as well as decision-making, so some kind of uniform rule might be necessary.
Magliocca also suggested that because the Founding Fathers didn’t include clear guidelines for how future conventions would work, it’s likely they wanted to keep the process vague to prevent it from happening too easily or too often.
Magliocca said it seems that the idea was, if the need for change was great enough, people would find a way to make it happen. He pointed out that what worked then wouldn’t necessarily work today — such as how the 1787 Constitutional Convention was held in secret, similar to the conclave of cardinals to decide on a new pope. Magliocca also said that would be much harder to do and be societally unacceptable now, adding that any new convention would require reimagining the process to align with modern expectations and norms.
Why Article V passed this year
This year marks a turning point in the Indiana General Assembly’s push for congressional term limits. The state legislature previously tried to introduce similar resolutions in 2018, 2021, 2022 and 2023, but they did not receive committee votes. In 2024, a House-filed version passed, but it did not receive consideration from the Senate.
When asked what made this year’s resolution successful, Zay jokingly suggested it was because he authored it, but he then added that he feels like “more people are beginning to see the light.”
“I think it’s time has come where there’s very specific and intentional momentum behind it, and we just want, I think there’s many of us that just want Washington to have that conversation and look at some options of what term limits might look like,” Zay said.
One difference this legislative session was the presence of Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith.
He served as the Indiana chair for U.S. Term Limits, a D.C.-based organization advocating for term limits at all levels of government, from November 2021 through December 2024. He resigned his position shortly before he took office as the state’s second-highest-ranking elected official in January 2025.
When Beckwith was tapped to become the state chair of that organization back in November 2021, he said in a statement, “Now more than ever before, the need for term limits is crystal clear. Polls show that the one issue Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are united about is the need for congressional term limits.
“Serving in Congress has become for many, a lucrative lifelong job rather than a public service,” Beckwith concluded. “Term limits will help end the era of career politicians and ensures that Congress works better for all Americans.”
Beckwith’s office did not respond to multiple emails asking for comment about the Article V resolution, SJR 21.
Zay downplayed any suggestion that undue effort helped get Article V across the finish line this time around. He said there wasn’t any stronger lobbying than usual, adding “I just really believe that the issue — its day — had come. So, it was time, I think it was time to do something.”
However, the senator also implied that there may have been some influence from Beckwith.
“I believe the lieutenant governor had some influence based on his relationships with some of my colleagues,” Zay said.
Vaughn, of Common Cause Indiana, had other ideas, suggesting that this year the resolution’s success was the result of an organized lobbying effort and political influence from state leaders like Beckwith, who also serves as president of the Indiana Senate in his role as lieutenant governor.
“Our lieutenant governor has been active in this U.S. Term Limits organization, so him assuming office, and interacting with this group, I think had significant impact,” Vaughn said.
In December 2024, Beckwith stepped aside after becoming the lieutenant governor-elect to announce that Mike Speedy, a former state representative and Gov. Mike Braun’s appointee for Indiana secretary of business affairs, would become the new state chair.
Speedy said, in a news release, “I am very honored to be serving as the Indiana State Chair for U.S. Term Limits and succeed our new Lt. Governor Micah Beckwith who has been a tireless advocate for congressional term limits. Now more than ever before, the need for term limits is crystal clear. Polls show that this is the one issue where all Hoosiers, regardless of political affiliation, stand united.”
In an April 3 post to USTL’s X account, the lieutenant governor is seen smiling as he signs the resolution and sends it to the Capitol. The caption reads, “Today our Indiana term limits resolution SJR21 was signed by Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith and is officially on its way to Washington D.C. ‘It was an honor to sign the Term Limits resolution this morning! I appreciate you all and the work you’re doing for our nation!’”
Concerns about a convention continue
Sen. J.D Ford, D-Indianapolis, throughout the legislative session expressed his discomfort with requesting a constitutional convention and proposed several amendments to the resolution.
“When I initially saw this, you know, I was like, ‘Oh, this is a Trojan horse,’ because they’re taking a very popular issue of term limits and connecting it to calling for a Convention of States, which is for me, highly problematic,” Ford said.
Several GOP lawmakers appear to have shared Ford’s discomfort. About 19 Republicans voted against SJR 21 and eight voted against SEA 450. However, eight Democratic representatives voted for SJR 21 and four Democratic representatives voted for HEA 450.
Zay, when advocating for the joint resolution during the General Assembly back in January, attempted to temper the opposition’s fears by asserting that an actual convention would probably not take place, because Congress would be pressured into taking action on its own as more states add their names to the Article V Convention list.
“History has shown any time that this begins to gain traction that the federal legislators act and take care of the issue,” Zay said in a Senate hearing discussing the resolution. “This isn’t a dark horse. This isn’t the end of our democracy.”
Zay might not be too far off in his theory. Congress currently has active legislation pending toward establishing term limits: South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman has introduced a resolution proposing a term limits amendment for Congress and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another Republican, introduced the legislation in his chamber. Congress must act on these proposals before 2026, or it will be another failed attempt.
Norman introduced this resolution in each of the last three Congresses, and he was joined two of those years by former Rep. Trey Hollingsworth, R-Indiana, who championed this effort throughout his time in office.
In an interview with The Indiana Citizen, Ford questioned Zay’s perspective on the resolution forcing Congress to act, asking if there was “a crystal ball.”
“I don’t believe we should be putting pieces of legislation on the Indiana Senate floor, taking up precious agenda space, to have someone back up why they’re doing it by saying, ‘Well, this isn’t actually going to happen.’
“I struggle with that, and I think that you know that all pieces of legislation that come through the General Assembly, we’ve got to think about how it impacts not just our constituents, but all Hoosiers,” Ford said. “And to put (out) pieces of legislation and defend it or explain it by saying ‘This isn’t really, actually going to happen, it’s going to be moot,’ I think is the wrong approach. And I think we need to treat it as if it could happen. … Delegates could get in there and write amendments that revoke any of our most cherished rights.”
Sydney Byerly is a political reporter who grew up in New Albany, Indiana. Before joining The Citizen, Sydney reported news for TheStatehouseFile.com and most recently managed and edited The Corydon Democrat & Clarion News in southern Indiana. She earned her bachelor’s in journalism at Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism (‘Sco Griz!).
Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org.
You can find the original story by The Indiana Citizen here.
The post Lt. Gov. Beckwith, others praise state’s call for Article V convention on term limits appeared first on News Now Warsaw.
