SJR 1 directs that every application previously submitted by the California Legislature asking Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution is “rescinded, nullified, and superseded.” The resolution also directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the action to top federal officials and California’s congressional delegation, and it asks that the change be published in the Congressional Record and reflected in the official tally of state applications.
This is a legislative withdrawal rather than an implementing statute: it expresses the Legislature’s present position and seeks to alter the administrative and political record used by advocates and by Congress when tracking whether 34 states have applied for a convention. The resolution creates practical and legal uncertainty because Article V and existing practice give no clear rules for when, or whether, a state may undo a previously transmitted application.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution annuls every prior California legislative application for an Article V convention, instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to identified federal leaders and all California members of Congress, and requests publication in the Congressional Record and inclusion in any official tally of state applications.
Who It Affects
National and state advocacy groups pursuing or opposing an Article V convention, the California legislative and administrative staff who must process the resolution, and the California congressional delegation whose public record this resolution asks to change. It also affects any coalition counting California toward the 34-state threshold under Article V.
Why It Matters
If Congress and record-keepers accept the rescission, California would no longer be counted toward the two-thirds state-application threshold to call a convention, changing the arithmetic for nationwide campaigns. The move also raises procedural questions about the finality of state applications and whether states can reliably withdraw support once it has been recorded.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SJR 1 is a single-purpose joint resolution: it cancels all previous applications the California Legislature made to the United States Congress requesting a convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The text uses categorical language — “rescinded, nullified, and superseded” — to express that the Legislature no longer endorses any prior requests it submitted for Congress to convene a constitutional convention to propose amendments.
To change the federal record, the resolution directs internal transmission steps: it instructs the Secretary of the Senate to send copies to specific federal officers (the President and Vice President), congressional leaders in both houses, and every member of Congress representing California. Separately, the Legislature asks that Congress publish the resolution in the Congressional Record and that the change be noted in whatever tally Congress or others maintain of state Article V applications.Substantively the resolution is a political and administrative act by the state legislature rather than a statutory program.
It does not create penalties, timelines for federal action, or enforcement provisions; its immediate legal effect is to register the Legislature’s current position and to request that Congress and official record-keepers take note. Because Article V does not set out procedures for rescission and Congress has not adopted a settled method for counting or removing state applications, the resolution relies on Congress and record-keepers to give the withdrawal practical effect.Practically, the resolution alters the narrative and the administrative record around multistate efforts to reach the two-thirds (34-state) threshold required under Article V.
Even if Congress declines to change any tally, the rescission shifts California’s public posture and can be used by opponents of a convention to argue California should not be counted. Conversely, the lack of clear federal procedures means proponents may continue to cite older submissions unless and until Congress or a court rules otherwise.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SJR 1 rescinds, nullifies, and supersedes every application previously made by the California Legislature asking Congress to call a constitutional convention under Article V.
The resolution directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and each California member of Congress.
It requests that the resolution be published in the Congressional Record and that California’s rescission be listed in the official tally of state applications for an Article V convention.
The measure is enacted as Chapter 174 of California law and contains no implementation timeline, penalties, or regulatory instructions.
Because Article V and congressional practice offer no settled procedure for withdrawing a state application, the resolution’s practical effect depends on whether Congress and record-keepers accept the rescission.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rescission of prior legislative applications
This provision declares that all past applications from the California Legislature requesting Congress to call a constitutional convention are rescinded, nullified, and superseded. Practically, that language is intended to create a bright-line statement of the Legislature’s current position; it does not, however, create a mechanism for forcing Congress to erase or reverse any administrative entry it has already made.
Transmittal to federal officers and California’s congressional delegation
The resolution instructs the Secretary of the Senate to send copies to specified federal officers and to every California Representative and Senator. That step aims to put the rescission directly into the hands of the officials who control records and proceedings in Congress, increasing the chance that the withdrawal will be considered or entered into congressional materials.
Request for publication and updating the official tally
Beyond transmission, the Legislature requests two outcomes of Congress: publication of the rescission in the Congressional Record and listing in the official tally of state applications. Those requests are procedural — Congress controls its own records and any official tally — so their success depends on congressional action, not state command. The provision signals the Legislature’s intent to have the withdrawal reflected in national tracking of Article V applications.
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
- Organizations and advocates opposing an Article V convention — they gain a formal statewide withdrawal to cite when arguing California should not be counted toward the 34‑state threshold.
- California legislators and the resolution’s sponsor — they obtain a public record that aligns the Legislature’s official stance with current policy preferences without requiring further state-level legislation.
- Members of Congress from California who oppose a convention — the resolution provides a state-level document they can use in floor debates and in correspondence with colleagues to argue against counting California’s prior applications.
Who Bears the Cost
- Pro‑convention national and state groups — the withdrawal removes or complicates one state-level application they may have relied on in campaigns to reach the two-thirds threshold.
- Coalitions tracking state applications to reach 34 states — they must adjust their counts and potentially redirect resources to replace California’s prior support.
- State legislative and administrative staff — they must process transmittals and manage records, and may face constituent inquiries or litigation threats stemming from the change.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between a state legislature’s authority to revise its prior political commitments and the need for a stable, administrable rule for counting state applications under Article V — rescission preserves state sovereignty over its position but undermines the predictability required for multistate campaigns and for Congress when deciding whether the two-thirds threshold has been met.
The biggest unresolved legal question is whether a state can unilaterally withdraw a previously submitted Article V application and, if so, when that withdrawal becomes effective. Article V sets the two-thirds-state threshold but says nothing about rescission, and Congress has never adopted a uniform method for counting, retaining, or removing state applications.
That vacuum means the resolution’s practical effect depends largely on whether Congress or administrative record-keepers accept California’s rescission or whether opponents and proponents litigate the matter.
A second tension concerns the reliability of the multistate tally used by national movements. Allowing states to rescind applications increases flexibility for state legislatures to change policy, but it also creates uncertainty for long-running campaigns that invest time and resources based on published counts.
Finally, the resolution asks Congress to publish the rescission and update an “official tally,” yet Congress alone controls the Congressional Record and any internal accounting; the state can request but cannot compel federal action, making the resolution a strong statement of intent but a weak instrument for guaranteeing a change in national records.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.