Georgia CommonsSenate · Engrossed · 2025-2026 Regular Session
SR 23: US Congress; limited to proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected; apply to call a convention
Last action March 20, 2026 · House Withdrawn, Recommitted
A Georgia Senate resolution formally asks the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention limited to proposing term limits for members of the U.S. House and Senate.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the resolution and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Enrolled version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
This resolution does not change any Georgia law. Instead, it uses Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which lets two-thirds of the states force Congress to call a convention to propose constitutional amendments, without waiting for Congress to act on its own. The Georgia Senate applies to Congress to call such a convention, but strictly limited to one topic: setting term limits for members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The resolution says Georgia's application should be combined with similar applications from other states on the same subject, so they can add up toward the two-thirds of states needed. It also asks Congress to create strict criminal penalties for anyone who tries to expand the convention beyond term limits, and it declares the application stays active until enough states join in. Copies would go to Congress and other state legislatures.
What the bill does
- Applies to the U.S. Congress on behalf of Georgia to call an Article V convention limited to proposing a constitutional amendment on congressional term limits.
- States that Georgia's application should be aggregated with other states' applications on the identical topic to help reach the two-thirds threshold required by Article V.
- Asks Congress to impose severe criminal penalties on anyone who tries to expand the convention beyond the term limits topic.
- Declares the application to be a continuing one that remains in effect until two-thirds of state legislatures have made the same application.
- Directs copies of the resolution be sent to federal officials and other states' legislatures to encourage similar action.
Who it affects
This resolution directly affects the U.S. Congress and the process for amending the U.S. Constitution. It also involves other state legislatures, since Georgia's application depends on being combined with similar applications from other states to reach the two-thirds threshold.
Why it matters
If enough states pass similar applications, Congress would be constitutionally required to convene a convention to consider term limits for federal lawmakers, a process that has never happened in U.S. history. The resolution itself changes no law but adds Georgia's voice to a long-running national effort.
Key provisions
- The resolution applies to Congress to call a convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution solely to propose term limits for U.S. House and Senate members.
- It specifies the application covers the same subject as other states' applications and should be aggregated with them, but not with applications on other topics.
- It asks Congress to enact severe criminal penalties for anyone who violates the limited scope of the convention call.
- It states the application remains a continuing one in effect until two-thirds of state legislatures have made applications on the same subject.
- It directs distribution of copies to federal officials, including the Senate president, House speaker, and Judiciary Committee chairperson, and to legislatures of other states.
From the bill
“this body does hereby apply to the United States Congress to call a convention pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the sole and express purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States”
“the United States Congress enact a severe criminal penalty for persons who violate the finite scope of the call”
Discussed in meetings (5)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
House Rules Committee, March 17, 2026
From 0:25:33 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SR 23 requests a convention limited to proposing congressional term limits, arguing that Congress would not limit itself without state pressure. The sponsor cited support from more than 78% of Georgia voters and about 90% nationally, and said 13 states had applied, 34 were needed to call a convention and 38 to ratify an amendment. Several members questioned whether a convention could exceed its scope or threaten constitutional protections. The sponsor pointed to language requesting criminal penalties for delegates who exceeded the scope, but acknowledged uncertainty about enforceable limits and could not confirm how delegates would be selected. Members also questioned why Georgia legislators should not face term limits and whether competitive districts would better address congressional turnover. The sponsor distinguished part-time state service from Congress and cited congressional reelection rates above 90%. Another member supported using convention applications to pressure Congress, citing earlier amendments. Asked about the proposed term lengths, the sponsor said the resolution intentionally leaves them unspecified. The committee approved the resolution by voice vote, with opposition heard and no count stated. The chair said it would be available for Rules consideration Thursday.
House Rules Committee, March 19, 2026
From 0:36:35 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 2899
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the resolution would petition Congress for a constitutional convention limited to proposing congressional term limits. A committee member questioned whether such a convention could exceed its authority, citing the 1787 convention and a warning from a historical constitutional author. The sponsor said the proposal limited the convention's scope and called for criminal penalties if that scope was exceeded. The sponsor also said states had begun this process four times and prompted Congress to act, citing women's suffrage as an example of the process's influence. Later, the committee voted to place the resolution on the Legislative Day 35 calendar. An objection prompted a voice vote, and the chair announced that the motion carried. No vote count was stated.
House floor session, March 20, 2026 (legislative day 35)
From 2:42:22 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (House Withdrawn, Recommitted)
Summary by Georgia Commons: A member moved to return SR 23 to Rules, clarifying after a question from the chair that the motion concerned the Rules Committee rather than the calendar. The clerk described the resolution as applying to Congress to call a convention under Article V. Without objection, the House withdrew the resolution from the calendar and returned it to the Rules Committee.
House Rules Committee, March 23, 2026
From 0:26:08 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SR 23 would seek an Article V convention limited to proposing congressional term limits, leaving the number and length of terms to the convention. One member asked about constituent concerns that a convention could exceed that purpose. The sponsor said 34 states would be needed to call a convention and 38 to ratify an amendment. The sponsor also said Georgia law binds delegates to legislative instructions, with recall, replacement and prosecution possible for violations, and that many other states have similar laws. A second member compared those limits to instructions for presidential electors, an analogy the sponsor accepted. A third member questioned whether the 1787 convention illustrated the risk of exceeding instructions and asked for legal precedent supporting state-imposed limits. The sponsor disputed the historical comparison and acknowledged that no Supreme Court case had resolved the issue because no Article V amendment convention had occurred. The sponsor argued that the process is constitutionally authorized and that Congress was unlikely to limit its own terms. No calendar decision followed.
Status timeline
- House Withdrawn, Recommitted (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- Senate Passed/Adopted (Senate)
- Senate Third Read (Senate)
- Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
Show full history (10 actions)
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
- Senate Hopper (Senate)
Sponsors
- Bill Cowsert (R, SD-46)
- Steve Gooch (R, SD-51)
- John F. Kennedy (R, SD-18)
- John Albers (R, SD-56)
- Brandon Beach (R, SD-21)
- Carden Summers (R, SD-13)
- Billy Hickman (R, SD-4)
- Ben Watson (R, SD-1)
- Clint Dixon (R, SD-45)
- Drew Echols (R, SD-49)
- Shawn Still (R, SD-48)
- Chuck Payne (R, SD-54)
- Kay Kirkpatrick (R, SD-32)
- Marty Harbin (R, SD-16)
- Jason Anavitarte (R, SD-31)
- Scott Hilton (R, HD-48)
Votes
- Senate voteFebruary 20, 2025
22 yea, 30 nay (0 not voting, 4 excused)
- Senate voteFebruary 20, 2025
34 yea, 18 nay (0 not voting, 4 excused)
Topics
- congressional term limits
- constitutional convention
- Article V
- federal government reform