Constitutions and Elections

Section I GONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS 1. Constitutions 2. Elections 1 Constitutions STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION, 1972-1973 BY ALBERT L. STURM* MENDMENT AND REVISION of State Con constitutional conventions and 11 consti stitutions continued at a high level tutional commissions. The voters acted on A^ during 1972-73. Compared with the a total of 17 proposals submitted by four previous two biennia, the States placed constitutional conventions in four States: less emphasis on general revision by con Montana—a new constitution and three stitutional conventions and constitu separate propositions; North Dakota—a tional commissions and more on pro new constitution and four alternate posals by their Legislatures. During the propositions; Tennessee—one amend 1972-73 biennium, electorates of 46 ment; and Rhode Island—seven amend States voted on proposed changes in their ments. Montana was the only State to state constitutions, ranging from minor adopt and make effective a new constitu alterations to an entirely new document. tion proposed by a constitutional conven In Delaware, where the basic law is tion during the biennium. amended by legislative action without Official action was taken on a total of submission to the voters, the General As 530 proposed changes, including 389 of sembly for the second time gave the first statewide applicability in 47 States and of two required approvals to a proposed 141 local amendments in five States. The new constitution.1 The only three States electorates of five States voted on the ques that took no action to alter their consti tion of calling a constitutional conven tutions during the period were: Arkansas, tion and approved three. In Louisiana, which in 1970 had rejected a new consti the Legislature called a constitutional tution drafted by a constitutional conven convention without submitting the issue tion; Illinois, where a new constitution to the electorate. written by a constitutional convention To facilitate comparison, this analysis became effective in 1971; and Vermont of major constitutional developments where a 10-year time-lock precludes con during 1972-73 follows the same general stitutional change at more frequent in format in the last two volumes of The tervals. Book of the. States. The five principal Official action to modernize state consti parts of the analysis are: first, moderniz tutions included the operation of four ing procedure; second, use of the amend ing process; third, constitutional commis *Dr. Sturm is University Research Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute sions; fourth, constitutional conventions; and State University. - and, finally, constitutional studies. Elec ^In an advisory opinion, the Delaware Supreme tions divisions in offices of the Secretaries Court ruled in 1971 that failure to comply with of State and state legislative service agen the constitutional mandate on publication invali dated action by the General Assembly for the cies provided most of the data for this second approval. Opinion of the Justices, 275 A. analysis. Salient features of constitutional 2d 558 (I97I). change are presented in tabular form. THE BOOK OF THE STATES proved substantially over the last bien MODERNIZING PROCEDURE: USE OF nium but failed to achieve the high point AUTHORIZED METHODS of 1968-69. As always, legislative proposal The four authorized methods of initiat was the method used to initiate the vast ing state constitutional change are: pro majority of proposed alterations. Use of posal by the Legislature, authorized in all the constitutional initiative more than the States; the constitutional initiative, tripled over the preceding biennium, and available in approximately one third of almost tripled over 1968-69. Although the States; the constitutional convention, proposals by constitutional conventions which may be called in all the States but were almost three times the number for is specifically authorized in four fifths of 1970-71, they numbered only half those state constitutions; and the constitutional in 1968-69. commission, which is expressly authorized The percentage of proposals by both as ah independent organ for proposing^ the constitutional initiative arid constitu formal changes only in the Florida consti tional epnventions during 1972-73 was tution, but is widely used as an auxiliary more than twice as great as during 197.0- body to assist Legislatures. During the 71; nevertheless, well over nine of every biennium, the first three methods were 10 proposals were initiated by legislative used formally to propose alterations in assemblies during both periods. Legisla the basic laws of the States, but constitu tive proposals also achieved the highest tional commissions continued to be level of acceptability to the electorate, widely employed by Legislatures to study with a percentage of 71.6. During each the constitution and to submit recom of the three biennia shown in Table A, mendations for legislative action. constitutional initiatives won less voter Table A summarizes state constitu approval than proposals initiated by tional changes by the three methods of other methods. formal initiation used during 1972-73 and the two preceding biennia. USE OF THE AMENDING PROCESS Included are totals of proposals, adop All formal methods of change may be tions, percentages of adoptions, and the. used to propose piecemeal amendments aggregates for all methods. Significantly, to state constitutions but, as noted above, more changes were proposed during proposal by state lawmaking bodies is by 1972-73 than the two preceding biennia. far the most used technique. Submission The increased number of proposals indi to the voters of all legislative proposals for cates a continuing high level of interest constitutional change is required in every and concern for modernizing state consti State except Delaware, where only legis tutions. The percentage of adoptions im lative action is necessary. Before consider- TABLE A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES BY METHOD OF INITIATION 1968-69, 1970-71, 1972-73 Number of States involved Total proposois Total adopted Percentage ad opted ,, ., A ^, __A Method of 1968-- 1970- 1972- 1968- 1970- 1972- 1968- 1970- 1972- 1968- 1970- 1972- initiation 69 71 73 69 71 73 69 71 73 69 71 7J All methods 44 48 47 490 403 530 372 224 "368 75.9 55.6 69.4 Legislative proposal 41 47 46 450 392 497 340 222 356 75.6 55.6 71.6 Constitutional initiative 5 4 7 6 5 16 0 1 3 0 20.0 18.8 Constitutional convention 5 2 4 34 6 17 32 1 9 94.1 16.7 52.9 CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS ing in detail the number and content of Of the 47 States that took some official proposals initiated by this method, the action to amend or revise their constitu use of the constitutional initiative is sum tions during 1972-73, Tennessee was the marized; consideration of the role of com only one not to use the legislative ap missions and conventions in the amend proach for some or all proposals. Of the ing process is deferred to later sections. 46 States that used this method, one or Constitutional Initiative Proposals. more proposals initiated by the Legisla The constitutional initiative is intended ture were approved by the electorate in 42 to be used to propose amendments when States; all such proposals were rejected by lawmaking bodies fail to act on matters the voters in Kentucky (2), Montana (1), for which there is considerable popular New Hampshire (2), and Rhode Island support. It is not an appropriate method (2). The number of proposed changes for proposing extensive constitutional ranged from one each in three States to 94 change. During 1972-73, 16 constitu (24 general and 70 local) proposals in tional initiatives were submitted to the Georgia. The tabulation below lists, with voters in seven States. The numbers pro the number of proposals and adoptions, posed and adopted in each State were: the States that used this method to the California (5—1), Colorado (4—1), Michi greatest extent during 1972-73. gan (2-0), North Dakota (1-0), Ohio Substantive Changes. Table B classifies (^1-0), Oklahoma (1-0), and Oregon constitutional changes diiring 1972-^73 (2—1). Thus, only three were adopted in and the two preceding bienhia by subject three States, with rejections of all initia matter. All proposals are grouped under tive proposals in four States. This tech two major categories: first, those of gen nique obviously is of relatively minor eral statewide applicability, which in importance in the total spectrum of con clude all proposed changes in all except stitutional reform and the rate of adop five States; and, second, proposed local tions is substantially lower than that for amendments in Alabama (27), Georgia other methods. The most noteworthy use (70), Louisiana (16), Maryland (6), and of the constitutional initiative during South Carolina (22), which affect a single 1972-73 was the Tax and Expenditure political subdivision or a restricted num Limitations proposal advocated by Gov ber of such units. Proposals of general ernor Ronald Reagan of California and statewide applicability are further classi rejected by the voters at the November 6, fied under subject matter headings that 1973, referendum. conform broadly to the principal subject Legislative Proposals. Table A shows matter areas of state constitutions. The approximately 14 percent increase in the last group includes proposals for general number of legislative proposals during constitutional revision. The percentage of 1972-73 over those of 1970-71, and 10 adoptions of proposals of statewide ap percent increase over 1968-69. Not only plicability improved very substantially in do these figures indicate sustained atten 1972-73 compared with 1970-71, increas tion to constitutional modernization, but ing from 58.2 to 70.7 percent. also the concern of state lawmaking Table B indicates that by far the largest bodies for this subject. Legislative pro number of proposed changes during each posals varied from minor matters of local of the three biennia was in the area of concern to entire new articles and major state and local finance, including taxa sections of the constitutional system.

Load more