Testimony on Senate Joint Resolution 6

Before the Ohio Senate Government Oversight

 and Reform Committee 

By Catherine Turcer, Common Cause Ohio

February 18, 2026

Chair Manchester, Vice Chair Brenner, Ranking Member Weinstein and members of the Senate General Government Oversight and Reform Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to open, honest and accountable government that serves the public interest. I am here today to voice our opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 6 (SJR6). 

While many agree that there are benefits to term limits, a Convention of States or a constitutional convention to establish term limits is simply not the answer. There is not sufficient legal evidence to support the claim that a constitutional convention could be limited to one subject or limited subjects.

Georgetown University Law School Professor David Super explains that an Article V convention could not be controlled because, among other reasons:   

• There are no guidelines or rules to govern an Article V convention in the Constitution, leaving the opportunity for the convention delegation to write its own rules; 
• A convention could create a new ratification process, as occurred during the original 1787 convention; (This would render meaningless proponents’ claim that only 13 legislative bodies are needed to reject any really bad idea); and  
• No judicial, legislative, or executive body would have clear authority to settle disputes about a convention. 

In short, whatever one’s views on the merits of prospective amendments like term limits for members of Congress, there is ample reason to reject the use of an Article V convention because it places our entire Constitution at risk. 

An application for a convention that is “limited” to term limits is not limited at all. It could actually encompass everything. 

Constitutional scholars as varied as former U.S. Supreme Court Justices Warren Burger and Antonin Scalia have spoken out forcefully against an Article V convention. 

Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his September 14, 1986 op-ed in The Miami Herald that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution; and warns us that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda would almost certainly be unenforceable.” 

Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly: 

“After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda…” 

“…A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…” 

While many highlight the late US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s support for an Article V Convention when he was a professor, this is a mischaracterization. 

After decades of experience on the highest court, Scalia’s opinion had changed dramatically. In a 2014 The Kalb Report panel discussion, Justice Antonin Scalia said: “I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean, whoa. Who knows what would come of that?”

In conclusion, I strongly urge this committee to avoid the chaos of an Article V Convention. Instead, I urge proponents of term limits to seek an amendment to the US Constitution. While it is clear that this process of amending the US Constitution is frustrating, this approach is both a time tested and prudent avenue for reform.  

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony.