February 9, 2026
The Case Against an Article V Convention
Who benefits, who bears the risk, and why I voted no
By: Idaho Dist. 25 Representative David Leavitt
I voted against an Article V Convention of States, not because I oppose the Constitution, but because I take it seriously.
I understand the frustration driving this idea. Many Americans see federal overreach, runaway spending, and institutions that no longer seem accountable. Wanting reform is not the problem. The question is whether an Article V convention is a responsible way to achieve it. When you look past the slogans and ask who benefits most from a convention, and who carries the risk if it goes wrong, the answer is sobering.
An Article V convention would not be driven by ordinary citizens. It would be dominated by the most organized and well-funded actors in modern politics. Lobbyists would have enormous incentives to insert themselves. Constitutional language affects every major industry, every regulatory framework, and every long-term policy fight. Unlike Congress, a convention has no established ethics rules, no campaign finance limits, and no enforcement mechanisms. It would be the single most lucrative lobbying opportunity in American history, with the Constitution itself on the table.
Activist organizations would also have significant skin in the game. Any group capable of mass mobilization would see a convention as an opportunity to apply pressure. Protests would be inevitable. Disruption would become leverage. Law enforcement responses would turn into political flashpoints. Delegates would be negotiating under pressure, not deliberating in a stable environment. Constitutional amendments should not be written under street pressure.
Foreign interest is another reality that cannot be ignored. Any process that alters the structure of the United States Constitution attracts foreign attention. Information warfare is real. Influence campaigns are inexpensive, effective, and difficult to trace. Our adversaries benefit from instability and internal division. Opening an open-ended constitutional process in today’s information environment creates a vulnerability window that did not exist when the Constitution was written.
These concerns are not new. James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, warned against a second constitutional convention. He feared that such a gathering would be driven by faction and passion rather than careful deliberation, and that once opened, it could not be safely controlled. If the man who helped design the Constitution was wary of reopening it, that warning deserves serious consideration today.
None of this means the Constitution is beyond amendment. The framers already gave us a proven, deliberate process to amend it. That process is difficult by design because foundational changes should require broad consensus, patience, and restraint. It has worked. It has corrected errors and expanded liberty without putting the entire document at risk.
I support constitutional government, not constitutional gambling. Article V conventions assume a political culture that no longer exists. Reform should occur through the amendment process already proven to work, not through an open-ended convention with irreversible risks.
