Progressive groups are speaking out against the idea of a constitutional convention, warning it could be used to impose conservative policies on things such as civil rights, guns, voting rights and abortion.

Right-wing groups such as the Federalist Society have said they want to require a balanced budget and limit the power to tax, moves critics say would lead to huge cuts in Medicare, Social Security, education, Medicaid, and environmental protection.

Nancy MacLean, professor of history and public policy at Duke University, noted Article Five of the Constitution requires consent from just 34 states to call for a convention.

"The organizers of the convention effort have made clear the votes taken would not be based on population but on one vote per state, so as to grossly underrepresent the majority of Americans," MacLean pointed out.

It would give outsize influence to states with tiny populations such as Wyoming at the expense of huge states such as California. Over the years, many states have called for a constitutional convention on specific topics. Golden State lawmakers just called for one on gun control. Conservative groups argued the requests could be aggregated to reach the 34-state threshold and force a convention.

Russ Feingold, president of the American Constitution Society and a former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, just wrote a book, warning a convention is likely if Republicans win full control of Congress next year.

"They're asserting that you can just mix and match these and that meets the constitutional requirements," Feingold emphasized. "It's not right. And the Supreme Court doesn't appear to have the authority to step in and stop it."

Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of California Common Cause, said the risk of a runaway convention is too great, because there are very few rules in place.

"We would have no idea who's seeking to influence the members of the constitutional Convention," Stein pointed out. "What lobbying would be happening behind the scenes? Would there be public-records requirements? Would there be transparency requirements? We just have no idea."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

A set of border security bills under consideration by Texas lawmakers will cause harm to migrants, residents, and state law, according to a state civil rights group.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas is opposed to Senate Bill 11, which would make it a state crime for illegally entering Texas from Mexico, and authorize state police to arrest violators.

It's similar to legislation that failed to pass in an earlier session this year.

Traditionally, the Texas Legislature met every other year - but this is the third time lawmakers have convened in 2023.

ACLU Senior Staff Attorney David Donatti said the never-ending sessions are relentless and exhausting voters.

"A part of what makes it feel so relentless is that this is a special legislative session," said Donatti, "and it is perplexing and troubling, and not the way that the Texas Constitution or laws envisioning lawmaking in the state is supposed to happen."

Donatti said Texas should treat immigration like the human right that it is and create a humane, fair and welcoming process - instead of dehumanizing narratives.

The bills have bogged down due to infighting, and the special session will end tomorrow. Should they pass, Donatti said citizens and non-citizens could be subjected to racial profiling and harassment.

Earlier this year Texas began deploying chains of specially designed buoys down the middle of the Rio Grande River to deter migrants from crossing illegally.

Another deterrent used is "concertina" or razor wire - which Donatti said he's witnessed.

"I've been on the border and I have seen the concertina wire, and I've not only seen the concertina wire I've seen families separated by the concertina wire," said Donatti. "And it really defies all common sense - and it defies all humanity."

Last week a judge ordered federal border patrol agents not to interfere with razor wire that Texas has installed. A second hearing in the case is scheduled for this week.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

In Arkansas and across the nation, book bans are becoming more common. The American Library Association says there were almost 700 attempts to censor library materials nationwide from January to August, and more than 1,900 challenges of specific book titles.

In Saline County, Patty Hector said she was removed from her position as library director for not banning books.

She said a county judge and Quorum Court wrote a resolution advising her to pick out "harmful" books and move them so children couldn't access them. Hector said her response led to her being fired.

"There's no place in the library that people can't get to. So I said no, and then that was what got me in trouble," she said. "I said no to them. And you don't say 'no' to a bunch of men. And the books they picked out are LGBTQ and race - two-thirds of them are."

As Hector described it, a resolution accusing her of fraud "was written by the Saline County Republican Committee." She added that after the committee reported her for "violating the Freedom of Information Act 90 times," she had to spend many months answering questions about her job and library expenses.

Hector said the committee also put up a billboard on Interstate 30 that said "Stop X-Rated library books, SalineLibrary.com."

She said some Arkansas lawmakers worked to pass a bill that would criminalize librarians - but that law was blocked by a federal judge this year.

"Act 372 was going to make it a felony for a librarian to give anybody a book that's 'obscene,' which they couldn't define," she said, "and that has been determined by a judge to be unconstitutional."

Hector noted that several books with topics on sex education and homosexuality were under scrutiny. And a book entitled "The Talk", about conversations that Black parents have with their children, was another title the committee objected to.

Fair-housing advocates are concerned about changes the Legislature made to tighten restrictions on emotional-support animals for Montana renters.

While Montana House Bill 703 prohibits a landlord from asking detailed questions about a potential renter's medical condition or diagnosis, landlords are now allowed to ask the renter's health care provider if their emotional support animal is medically necessary before deciding whether to rent to a tenant.

Amy Hall, a board member of the nonprofit Montana Fair Housing, said the law creates potential roadblocks for would-be tenants because it requires them to have a relationship with a Montana health care provider for at least a month before being able to provide verification to the landlord.

"Sometimes that can pose a hardship for tenants," Hall contended. "Because they may not have lived in Montana for 30 days and they may not have established a relationship with a provider here."

The law also holds tenants liable for damages the emotional support animal may do to the landlord's property. The statute only applies to emotional support animals. It does not apply to service animals such as seeing-eye dogs with special training to help people with disabilities perform everyday tasks.

Hall pointed out federal law still applies in Montana, which states the verification of the need for an emotional support animal does not always have to come from a certified medical professional in order for the applicant to get a lease. She added, however, it will take something more official than an online document -- which have become popular in recent years -- to verify the animal is medically and emotionally necessary for the renter.

"That's just a warning to all tenants out there," Hall stressed. "If your only verification that you need an emotional support animal is that you have some kind of online certificate, your landlord may question that, and may ask for sufficient verification of your need for the emotional support animal and of your disability."

The new law went into effect Oct. 1.