HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF FINAL BILL ANALYSIS
BILL #: HCR 7055 PCB SAC 24-01 Equal Application of the Law
SPONSOR(S): State Affairs Committee; Alvarez and others
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SCR 7066
FINAL HOUSE FLOOR ACTION: 77 Y’s 30 N’s GOVERNOR’S ACTION: N/A
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
HCR 7055 was adopted by the House on March 1, 2024, and was subsequently adopted by the Senate on
March 4, 2024.
Congress has exempted itself from certain laws that are applicable to the other branches of government or the
citizenry at large, such as the Federal of Information Act and certain provisions of the Whistleblower Act of
1989. In 1995, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act to apply certain laws to Congress to
which they had previously exempted themselves. However, there remain federal laws from which Congress
has exempted the federal legislative branch, either through not applying the laws to itself or not fully complying
with their requirements.
Article V of the United States Constitution provides the specific process for amending the document. Congress
may directly propose amendments to the Constitution, which is the method that has been used for each of the
27 amendments ratified since the Constitution went into effect. Alternatively, upon application by the
legislatures of two-thirds of the states, Congress must call a convention for the purpose of proposing
amendments. A proposed amendment goes into effect once ratified by the legislatures or state conventions of
three-fourths of the states; the method of ratification being solely the choice of Congress.
The concurrent resolution constitutes the state’s application to Congress under Article V of the U.S.
Constitution to call a convention for the sole purpose of considering and proposing a constitutional amendment
prohibiting Congress from making any law applying to the citizens of the U.S. that does not also equally apply
to all U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators, and all members of the federal legislative branch.
This concurrent resolution does not have a fiscal impact on the state or local governments.
The concurrent resolution is not subject to the Governor’s veto powers.
This document does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives .
STORAGE NAME: h7055z.SAC.docx
DATE: 3/15/2024
 I. SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION
A. EFFECT OF CHANGES:
Background
Amending the United States Constitution
Article V of the U.S. Constitution1 provides the exclusive process for amending the document. 2
Congress may directly propose amendments to the Constitution, the method used for each of the 27
amendments ratified since the Constitution went into effect. Alternatively, upon application by the
legislatures of two-thirds of the states,3 Congress must call a convention for the purpose of proposing
amendments. A proposed amendment goes into effect once ratified by the legislatures or state
conventions of three-fourths of the states;4 the method of ratification being solely the choice of
Congress.
State Applications for an Article V Constitutional Convention
Article V requires application to be made by a state’s legislature, meaning the representative body
authorized to make laws and not referring generally to a state’s legislative process.5 The specific text
does not refer to the authority of the President or a Governor to approve or veto legislation 6 and the
Governor’s approval is not required.
Under Article V, Congress has the exclusive authority to review state applications and determine
whether they count toward the two-thirds requirement. While Congress has not specified the form,
structure, or content of a valid state application,7 the accumulation of pending applications from the
various states shows Congress groups applications according to the issues expressly stated by the
petitioning state rather than simply counting the total number of applications. For example, the current
27 applications seeking a convention on a balanced federal budget amendment are not combined with
the four applications requesting a convention for an amendment barring discrimination in public schools
to satisfy the necessary two-thirds requirement and call a convention.8
Article V requires neither a state application nor the congressional call for a convention to include the
specific text of a proposed amendment. Article V authorizes applications to Congress to call a
convention “for proposing [a]mendments,” apparently requiring the convention to study, debate, and
compose the terms of a proposed amendment within the scope of issues authorized in the call. 9 As
1
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application
of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
fourths thereof, as the one or the other M ode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made
prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall be in any M anner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Nint h Section of the first
Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Art. V, U.S. CONST.
2
“The language of the article is plain, and admits of no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or
state, to alter the method in which the Constitution has fixed.” Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, 227 (1920). See Henry Paul M onaghan, We the
People[s],Original Understanding, and Constitutional Amendment, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 121, 127 (1996); Arthur Earl Bonfield, Proposing
Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Some Problems, 39 Notre Dame L. Rev. 659 (1964).
3
Currently, 34 states.
4
Currently, 38 states.
5
Hawke, supra note 2 at 227.
6
Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Proposed Legislation to Implement the Convention Method of Amending the Constitution, 66 M ich. L. Rev. 875, 888-889
(1968); See also art. I, s. 7, cl. 2, U.S. CONST.; art. III, s. 8(a), FLA . CONST.
7
Legislation previously was proposed but never enacted. See Kenneth F. Ripple, Article V and the Proposed Federal Constitutional Convention
Procedures Bills, 3 Cardozo L. Rev. 529, 530-533 (1981-1982); Ervin, supra note 6 at 885. See also M ary M . Penrose, Conventional Wisdom:
Acknowledging Uncertainty in the Unknown, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 789, 796 (2011), citing separate prior legislation filed by Senator Sam Ervin and
Senator Jesse Helms.
8
See Selected M emorials, Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, available at https://clerk.house.gov/SelectedM emorial
(last visited M ar. 13, 2024).
9Michael A. Almond, Amendment by Convention: Our Next Constitutional Crisis, 53 N.C. L. Rev. 491, 513 (1975); Robert M.
Rhodes, A Limited Federal Constitutional Convention, 26 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (1973).
STORAGE NAME: h7055z.SAC.docx PAGE: 2
DATE: 3/15/2024
 Article V does not restrict the scope of a state’s application, states may request a general convention
for any purpose or a convention limited only to certain issues.10
There is no court decision on whether a time limit applies to state applications. However, the U.S.
Supreme Court determined Congress has sole authority to set a time limit for states to ratify proposed
amendments.11 Federalist Papers 43 and 8512 imply that applications for a convention should be
reasonably contemporaneous, addressing a particular problem or issue recognized by at least two-
thirds of the states as requiring consideration of constitutional amendment.
Calling an Article V Convention on Application by the States
Article V states that “Congress…on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
states, shall call a Convention…” (emphasis supplied). As the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the
text as “plain” and its interpretation “admits of no doubt,”13 the general consensus appears to be that
once two-thirds of the states apply for a convention on a common topic, Congress has no discretion
and must call for the requested convention.14
Article V is silent on such matters as the selection of delegates by the states, voting requirements at the
convention, and the procedural rules of the convention. Under the Supremacy Clause, 15 because
Congress would be exercising its national power provided in Article V, congressional action on these
issues would be controlling, particularly on national matters such as the date, time, place, and financing
of the convention. Congress also could determine the number of votes allocated to each state and
establish uniform requirements for the selection, guidance, removal, and replacement of state
delegates. Absent congressional action, each state may be able to decide such matters for itself.
Florida Control of Delegates to an Article V Constitutional Convention
The Article V Constitutional Convention Act16 provides guidelines for Florida to qualify, appoint, remove,
and recall delegates to an Article V constitutional convention. These statutes would control absent
express directions by Congress on the same issues, whether in the convention call itself or established
in separate federal legislation.17
Due Process in the U.S. Constitution
The statement that no person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is
contained in substantially similar form in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.18 The Fifth Amendment, which includes the primary Due Process Clause, applies to the
federal government; upon the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states must also comply with
the requirements of due process.19 Both amendments work together to ensure that no governmental
10 William W. Van Alstyne, A Response to Justice Thomas Brennan’s Remarks at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School Article V
Symposium, 28:1 Thomas M. Cooley L. Rev. 51, 54 (2011); Ripple, supra note 7 at 548; William W. Van Alstyne, The Limited
Constitutional Convention – The Recurring Answer, 1979 Duke Law Journal 985; Rhodes, supra note 9 at 18.
11 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 454 (1939); Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 375-376 (1921).
12 See James Madison, The Federalist No. 43 (January 23, 1788); Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 85 (May 28, 1788).
13 Hawke, supra note 2 at 227.
14 Michael B. Rappaport, The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis, 81 Constitutional Commentary 53,
80 (2012); Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Brinksmanship: Stumbling toward a Convention , 65 A.B.A. J. 1046, 1048 (1979); Almond,
supra at 498; Ervin, supra note 6 at 885; Bonfield, supra note 2 at 675. See also Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 85 (May 28,
1788)
15 Art. VI, cl. 2, U.S. CONST .
16 Ss. 11.93-11.9352, F.S
17 See art. VI, cl. 2, U.S. CONST ., the “Supremacy Clause.”
18 “…nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Amend. V, U.S. CONST .; “…nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Amend. XIV, s. 1, U.S. CONST .
19 Bill of Rights, including Fifth Amendment, was incorporated and made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Legal Information Institute, Due process, Cornell Law School (last updated Oct. 2022),
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process (last visited Mar. 13, 2024); see also Legal Information Institute, Incorporation
doctrine, Cornell Law School (last updated Oct. 2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/ wex/incorporation_doctrine (last visited Jan. 31,
2024).
STORAGE NAME: h7055z.SAC.docx PAGE: 3
DATE: 3/15/2024
 entity acts arbitrarily in creating or enforcing laws, and to ensure that every person is entitled to fair
procedures.20 There are two categories of due process (substantive and procedural), but both protect
citizens from unfair or undue governmental deprivation.
Equal Protection in the U.S. Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in
1868.21 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
While the Fourteenth Amendment applied explicitly to the states, the U.S. Supreme Court has
interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which binds the Federal government, as also
guaranteeing a right to equal protection of the laws.22 Taken together, the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from enforcing laws
that are discriminately applied to individuals or groups of citizens. 23 This is the notion of equal
protection, which, in other words, ensures that laws apply equally to all citizens and that the
government does “not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to
a legitimate governmental objective.”24
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
In response to concerns, complaints, and a conception that Congress was unduly and unfairly
exempting itself from complying with multiple laws, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability
Act (CAA) in 1995.25 Prior to the CAA’s enactment, the federal legislative branch was exempted from
several of Congress’ laws specifically regarding workplace discrimination and civil rights.26 The CAA in
turn required Congress to comply with these labor laws that already applied to private and other
governmental entities; it also established what is now the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights,
which checks for compliance with and otherwise enforces the CAA within the federal legislative
branch.27
For example, prior to the CAA’s enactment, the legislative branch was not covered by the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) of 1970, despite reported hazardous conditions within Congress’
facilities.28 The OSH Act and 13 other federal laws were made applicable to Congress with the CAA. 29
20 Legal Information Institute, Due process, Cornell Law School (last updated Oct. 2022),
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process (last visited Mar. 13, 2024).
21 National Archives, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), available at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-
documents/14th-amendment#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws (last visited
Mar. 13, 2024).
22 See Adarand Constructors Inc. v Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
23 Legal Information Institute, Equal protection, Cornell Law School (last updated Nov. 2022),
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).
24 Id.
25 Jay M. Zitter, Construction and Application of Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”), 2 U.S.C.A. §§ 1301 to 1438 , 59 A.L.R.
Fed. 2d 493 (2011).
26 Id.
27 The Congressional Accountability Act, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, https://www.ocwr.gov/the-congressional-
accountability-act/#:~:text=The%20CAA%20requires%20Congress%20to,%2C%20on% 20January%2023%2C%201996 (last visited
Mar. 13, 2024).
28 James W. Stanley, Statement on how OSHA would apply to the legislative branch , OSHA Archive (July 14, 1994),
https://www.osha.gov/news/testimonies/07141994 (last visited Mar. 13, 2024).
29 Legislative Branch Whistleblowing Fact Sheet, Office of the Whistleblower Ombud, https://whistleblower.house.gov/sites/evo-
subsites/whistleblower.house.gov/files/Legislative_Branch_Whistleblower_Fact_Sheet.pdf (last visited Mar. 13, 2024).
STORAGE NAME: h7055z.SAC.docx PAGE: 4
DATE: 3/15/2024
 Current Congressional Exemptions
Despite the CAA’s passage in 1995, there are still laws from which Congress has exempted itself or
with which Congress does not fully comply; below are some examples.
Freedom of Information Act of 1967 (FOIA)
The definitions section of FOIA explicitly excludes Congress from the meaning of “agency” as it relates
to federal governmental entities who are bound by the disclosure law.30 There are uncertainties about
some forms of communications between applicable agencies and Congress. For example, if “Congress
manifested a clear intent to control the document,” items sent from Congress to agencies could be
exempt from FOIA.31
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA)
Title II of the CRA prohibits discriminatory or segregationist access to places of public accommodation,
and Title III specifies that such prohibition applies to state and local governments. 32 Given that much of
the federal legislative branch’s facilities include public accommodations, the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights (OCWR) and others have opined that Congress should also be required to comply
with these two titles of the CRA.33
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Although Congress is currently not exem