Half the states needed to call a constitutional convention are now on board with the idea, and Ohio could join them.

Ohio House Joint Resolution 1 proposes a convention of states to draft amendments to impose fiscal restraints on Congress, limit federal power and jurisdiction, and set term limits for federal officials.

Michael Gentithes, associate professor and faculty fellow in the Center for Constitutional Law at the University of Akron School of Law, said Article V of the Constitution does not provide a framework for a constitutional convention of states, so essentially, the group could write its own rules.

"If you assume everyone is acting in good faith and really wants to see this convention successfully make an amendment or several amendments, then sure, it's possible," Gentithes contended. "But there would be a lot of opportunity for political polarization to seep its way into this process. So, it seems unlikely that this would succeed."

He also pointed out any amendments to come from the convention would require ratification by three-quarters of the states. Last week, Nebraska became the 17th state to approve a resolution to call a constitutional convention, and the Ohio House Joint Resolution recently had its second committee hearing.

Viki Harrison, director of state operations for Common Cause, said fringe groups from both sides of the aisle have called for a convention of states over the years, but her organization is opposed, noting the gathering could easily be influenced by powerful special interests.

"Who's going to choose who goes to the convention?" Harrison wondered. "We already see how outside special-interest groups, big-money donors, have so much influence in elections, so why would we think this would be any different?"

Supporters argued Article Five was written by the founding fathers as an option for states to respond should the federal government overstep its powers. Harrison countered they failed to create guardrails, leaving the Constitution open to unpredictable changes.

"Anything that we hold dear, whether you care about education, or environmental rights or gun rights, no matter what you care about in the Constitution, if we called an Article V convention, it's up for grabs," Harrison cautioned.

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

Data show older voters are an influential demographic in Wyoming elections and a new series of videos asks candidates questions specific to the group.

The Secretary of State said more than two-thirds of Wyoming voters in 2022 were over age 50.

Tom Lacock, associate state director for AARP Wyoming, said sometimes issues important to the group get overlooked. The organization is producing a series of short videos with candidates asking straight-to-the-point questions about property taxes, funding ambulance services and how the state can best help older adults age in their homes and communities.

Lacock explained the questions are designed to focus on issues important to older voters.

"We're hoping that doing this helps cut through some of the other stuff that you see online," Lacock emphasized. "And becomes less about maybe a specific party or even a specific traction of a party and more issues-based."

Lacock reported candidate participation is increasing. As of Wednesday, the AARP Wyoming Facebook page and website featured videos from 18 races and 44 candidates across the state. Many Wyoming races will be decided during the primary and Lacock pointed out the group is working to release more videos before the Aug. 20 election.

Lacock noted AARP started the video series before the 2022 election. The number of video views for this year's primary, he added, shows voters aged 50 and up are continuing to pay attention.

"We're approaching 2,300 over the course of the last month," Lacock observed. "People are taking the time to look through these to figure out where candidates sit on issues that are important to them."

A University of Nevada-Las Vegas law professor said the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has issued major decisions dramatically changing the country's legal landscape.

David Orentlicher said the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to an abortion two years ago was a pivotal moment in history. Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the court, which helped delegate the issue of abortion to states.

Orentlicher noted it is unknown how many appointments a president may be dealt, which can be unsettling.

"It is unpredictable which is a reason why one common reform proposal is to say, instead of having justices serve for life, have them serve 18 years and every two years," Orentlicher outlined. "One justice's term will expire so we'll know that every president will get two appointments."

He pointed out looking at today's voter's political ideals, the court should ideally reflect a closer 50-50 split. And while some have made the case for Supreme Court reform initiatives to bring more balance, the initiatives have not advanced. Republicans in Congress argued the changes would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the Court.

Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could reshape legal precedent in the U.S. for generations. Her group conducted a survey and reported nearly 75% of voters said the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming races.

"It's important to think about generations after us, because many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially," Harris emphasized. "Justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."

Harris added four of the current justices on the bench will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. The next president could have the opportunity to potentially put two to three new justices on the bench.

Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, the court awarded him a major win by giving him immunity from criminal prosecution for what are known as "official acts" taken while in office.

New data show a majority of voters in Arizona and around the country are paying attention and understand the impact the next president could have on the future of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could select and appoint up to four new justices, reshaping the legal precedent in the U.S. for years to come.

"It's important to think about generations after us," said Harris. "Many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially as justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."

Harris noted four of the current justices will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. Her organization's recent poll finds nearly 75% of voters say the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming presidential and Senate races.

Some argue the scandal-ridden Supreme Court makes the case for term limits. The Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, led by U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, would create 18-year term limits for current and future justices as well as provide two appointments to the court in each four-year presidential term.

Harris said the justices should not be treated as if they're above the law.

"No one deserves power for life. What we've seen is that the court cannot regulate itself, and so having term limits would be really, really important," she continued.

The TERM Act was initially introduced in 2022, but died in committee. It was reintroduced last year, with no action since. But that proposal, and other Supreme Court reform initiatives, have faced pushback from Republicans who argue it would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the court.