Among those testifying this morning on SCR 103, the resolution calling on Idaho to petition for an Article V constitutional convention for the purpose of enacting a balanced budget amendment:

Julie Custer, co-president of AAUW Idaho, spoke against a balanced budget amendment. “Sometimes incurring a certain amount of debt is necessary,” she said. “I was reminded recently that many of us would not enjoy the quality of life we have if we had not incurred debt, for example getting a loan to purchase a home, a car or a college education.” Custer said a balanced budget amendment would “come on the backs of vulnerable Americans, including women, students and working families.”

McKay Cunningham, a lawyer and a law professor from Boise, told the senators, “As you know, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. Each time it has been amended through the singular process where Congress proposes an amendment and states ratify it. Here we are proposing an alternative process.” He said, “A constitutional convention is ill advised. Its parameters are unknown. Its internal processes are untested, and its remedies for deviation are non-existent.” Cunningham said the idea that the state of Idaho through a statute could limit the scope of such a convention is legally suspect. “The uncertainties inherent in a constitutional convention counsels against it,” Cunningham said. “The Constitution represents who we are as Americans, and risking that identity … when Idahoans are not clamoring to do so is ill advised.” The large audience burst into applause and cheers at the conclusion of Cunningham’s remarks; Chairman Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton, banged his gavel and threatened to clear the room and end the hearing if the crowd didn’t stay quiet.

Charles Tate of Boise told the committee, “Our Constitution has stood the test of time. ... We should never open the entire document to the possibility of wholesale changes. This is especially true when any one political party has the final say about approval.”