HJR 41 instructs the Alaska Legislature to rescind, nullify, and supersede every prior legislative resolution or enactment that petitioned Congress to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The resolution directs that the rescission take effect on passage and asks that the withdrawal be published in the Congressional Record and reflected in the official tally of state applications.
The measure is procedural and declaratory: it does not propose federal amendments or define the subjects of any convention. Its practical importance lies in attempting to remove Alaska from any count of state applications seeking an Article V convention and in creating a public record of that withdrawal for Congress, the federal clerks, and Alaska's congressional delegation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution declares that all prior Alaska legislative petitions for an Article V convention are rescinded, nullified, and superseded upon its passage. It also directs that the rescission be published in the Congressional Record and entered in the official tally of state applications, and it instructs distribution of copies to federal clerks and Alaska’s congressional delegation.
Who It Affects
The action directly concerns Alaska’s legislative enactments and state legislative staff who filed or maintain those applications, Alaska’s congressional delegation and the clerks of the U.S. House and Senate who process or maintain records of state applications, and national organizations tracking Article V applications. It also affects advocates on both sides of the convention question who rely on the state-count tally.
Why It Matters
Whether Congress and the official record-keepers treat this resolution as a valid withdrawal determines if Alaska continues to count toward the two‑thirds state threshold for calling a convention. The resolution therefore seeks to change the factual basis for any future Article V calculus without proposing federal action itself.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HJR 41 is a single-subject joint resolution that reverses Alaska’s prior posture toward an Article V constitutional convention. The text instructs that every prior resolution or enactment passed by the Alaska Legislature, or by either house separately, that petitioned Congress to call a convention be rescinded, nullified, and superseded once this resolution passes.
The Legislature also asks that the rescission be published in the Congressional Record and placed in the “official tally” of state applications.
Operationally, the resolution is a state-level withdrawal request: it signals to federal record-keepers and to Congress that Alaska no longer supports previous Article V applications. To effectuate that signal, the bill directs that copies be sent to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Alaska’s U.S. Senators and Representative.
The resolution does not set any new state policies beyond rescission, does not identify particular prior applications by date or subject, and does not define which entity maintains the “official tally.”The legal and practical force of the document depends on actions taken outside state government. Publication in the Congressional Record would create a contemporaneous federal-level statement of Alaska’s change in position; listing the rescission in whatever official tally Congress or the House Clerk maintains would alter public accounting of how many states have applied for a convention.
However, the resolution itself does not alter federal statutes or create a binding directive for Congress; it is a formal state request and public record intended to influence how federal custodians and courts treat Alaska’s prior applications.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution rescinds “all previous requests” by the Alaska State Legislature that petitioned Congress to call an Article V convention and declares those prior enactments nullified upon passage.
HJR 41 applies to resolutions and enactments passed by the full legislature or by either house separately — it does not single out individual prior applications by date or issue.
The bill requests publication of the rescission in the Congressional Record and asks to have the withdrawal entered into the “official tally” of state applications relating to calling a convention.
The resolution directs that copies be sent to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Alaska’s three-member congressional delegation by name.
The rescission takes effect upon passage of this joint resolution; it does not create new state substantive law or propose any federal constitutional amendments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Recital of past Article V petitions
The preamble states that the Alaska Legislature previously requested Congress to call one or more Article V conventions. This frames the resolution as corrective rather than substantive: it acknowledges a prior legislative record and establishes the subject matter that the rest of the resolution addresses. The practical effect is to predicate the rescission on an existing history of state-level petitions without cataloguing them.
Rescind and nullify prior applications
This operative clause instructs the Legislature to rescind and nullify all prior resolutions and enactments petitioning Congress for an Article V convention, and makes that rescission effective upon passage. For administrative purposes, the clause is broad — it covers petitions adopted by either house alone as well as by joint action — but it does not identify or amend specific prior documents, nor does it include a mechanism for notifying Congress beyond the publication request in the following clause.
Ask federal record-keepers to record the withdrawal
The resolution explicitly asks that the rescission be published in the Congressional Record and listed in the “official tally” of state applications. That is a request to federal custodians to change the public accounting of how many states have applied for an Article V convention. The text does not, however, alter federal recordkeeping rules or specify which federal office’s tally is meant, leaving ambiguity about the administrative path for implementation.
Transmit copies to federal clerks and Alaska’s delegation
The resolution directs that copies be sent to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, the Clerk of the U.S. House, and to Alaska’s U.S. Senators and Representative by name. This names the recipients who would be expected to receive formal notice, which is an administrative step toward effecting the rescission in federal records; it does not bind those recipients to any particular response or change in policy.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Alaska legislators opposed to an Article V convention — the resolution lets them formally withdraw prior state support and create a clear public record of that change of position.
- Alaska voters and civic groups who oppose a federal constitutional convention — they gain a state-level statement that can be cited in advocacy and public records.
- Federal record-keepers and members of Congress seeking clarity about state positions — the resolution supplies a contemporaneous, named document that can be used when responding to inquiries about Alaska’s stance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Advocates nationwide who count Alaska as part of the state-application tally — they lose an affirmative Alaska application in any public or political count if custodians accept the withdrawal.
- State legislative staff and clerks — they must identify, collate, and transmit records and redesign internal tracking to reflect rescission, imposing administrative work.
- Courts and litigants — if the rescission is litigated, federal and state courts could see new cases seeking rulings on whether states may withdraw Article V applications, creating potential litigation costs and legal uncertainty.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between a state’s interest in asserting control over its own prior legislative petitions and the constitutional mechanics of amending the U.S. Constitution: rescinding applications protects states from being counted toward a convention they no longer support, but it raises the unresolved question whether such rescissions can erase previously communicated state demands and whether federal record-keepers or courts must recognize them.
The resolution confronts unsettled law about whether a state may rescind an Article V application and what procedure, if any, Congress must follow to accept or record a withdrawal. Courts have not definitively resolved whether rescissions are effective, whether they must be contemporaneous with Congress’s consideration, or whether a later rescission can undo an earlier application once counted.
HJR 41 takes the practical step of asking federal record-keepers to publish and list the rescission, but it cannot by itself compel Congress or the House/ Senate clerks to alter their counts.
The bill’s language leaves two administrative gaps. First, it does not identify the specific prior enactments it seeks to nullify, which could complicate recordkeeping and verification.
Second, its reference to the “official tally” assumes the existence of a single, authoritative accounting mechanism; in practice, different federal actors, private organizations, and scholars maintain competing tallies and may treat withdrawals inconsistently. Those ambiguities create opportunities for dispute over whether Alaska remains part of any effective two‑thirds threshold for calling a convention.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.