Kentucky Law Journal Volume 35 | Issue 2 Article 2 1947 Amending and Revising State Constitutions J. E. Reeves University of Kentucky Kenneth E. Vanlandingham University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Reeves, J. E. and Vanlandingham, Kenneth E. (1947) "Amending and Revising State Constitutions," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 35 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMENDING AND REVISING STATE CONSTITUTIONS J. E. REEVES* and K-ENNETii E. VANLANDINGHAMt Considerable interest in state constitutional revision has been demonstrated recently. Missouri and Georgia adopted re- vised constitutions in 1945 and New Jersey voted down a pro- posed revision at the general election in 1944. The question of calling a constitutional convention was acted upon unfavorably by the Illinois legislature in May, 1945, and the Kentucky legis- lature, at its 1944 and 1946 sessions, passed a resolution submit- ting" the question of calling a constitutional convention to the people of the state who will vote upon it at the general election in 1947. The reason for this interest in revision is not difficult to detect. Vast social and economic changes have taken place since the adoption of most of our state constitutions. For instance, the Constitution of Kentucky, which is rather typical as to age, was framed in 1891 before the age of automboiles, airplanes, and radios, and before scientists had begun to dream of television, radar, and atomic energy. During the ensuing years govern- ment has grown and expanded to meet changed conditions. Toll roads were common in 1891, public schools were chiefly a matter of local concern, and public welfare, except for limited institu- tional care, was largely unknown. Today the states spend over twice as much for these services as for all other purposes com- bined. Parks, recreation, forestry, soil conservation, and public health, are other services that have been added or tremendously expanded since most of our state constitutions were written, to say nothing of the tremendous growth in the regulatory services. The performances of these services has demanded new laws, new forms of administrative organization-new approaches to governmental problems. It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the states are passing upon the question of fundamental ;: Assistant Professor of Political Science and Acting Director, Bureau of Government Research (1945-1946), University of Ken- tucky. IIResearch Assistant, Bureau of Government Research, Univer- sity of Kentucky. KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL changes in their basic laws, so as to enable them more readily to meet new conditions. The means by which state constitutions may be changed thus become considerations of great importance. M'ETHODS OP CHANGE Constitutions change to meet the needs of changing society primarily by four means: (1) customary growth and develop- ment, (2) interpretation, (3) amendment, and (4) complete revision. Customary growth and development, while important, can never be rapid enough to keep pace with rapidly changing conditions such as society has experienced during the past sev- eral decades. Interpretation, the second means by which constitutions grow and develop, is facilitated by a short elastic document such as the Federal Constitution, and is materially impeded by a long restrictive document such as most state constitutions are. For instance, the Constitution of Kentucky has nine long sec- tions,' containing a total of more than 1200 words, dealing with railroads and commerce. This is to be compared with the Federal Constitution's brief but effective provisions relating to the con- trol of commerce. The difference means the effective expansion of the Federal document to meet the needs of an expanding national economy, while the Kentucky and other similar state documents remain static and unchangeable, except as subterfuge or effective nullification may occasionally be employed to evade the apparent meaning of constitutional provisions obviously unsuited to conditions which have to be met.2 The Kentucky example is typical of state constitutional pro- visions. While the Kentucky Constitution contains about 21,000 words, as compared with approximately 6,000 words in the Fed- eral Constitution, the Kentucky document is not more than 'Sections 209-18. KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION (1891) sections 209-18. 'The latter point may be illustrated by the Kentucky provision limiting the amount of indebtedness which the Legislature may in- cur to $500,000, and the decision of the State's highest court that the issuing of warrants for a part or all of a legislative appropriation did not necessarily create a debt in violation of the Constitution. See Stanley v. Townsend, 170 Ky. 833, 186 S. W. 941 (1916). By this means a state "debt" of over $25,000,000 in interest bearing warrants was created. STATE CONSTITUTIONS averag'e in length. Examples of longer ones are South Carolina's with 30,000 words. Virginia's with 23,000 words, and Louisi- ana's, which covers approximately 280 average sized pages. As a consequence, state constitutional development relies heavily on amendment and revision. The amendatory and revisory pro- visions of the forty-eight constitutions are, therefore, of more than ordinary interest. This is particularly true at the present time when state constitutional revision is, or recently has been, before the people of many of the states. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL A IENDIENT Generally speaking, it can be said that state constitutional amendment requires submission by the legislature and approval by popular vote, but beyond this, methods of amendment show such wide variation that it cannot be said that any particular mode predominates. Requirements for submission of amendments by state legis- latures differ widely. Some constitutions require proposals to pass only one legislature; others require passage by two legis- latures. The Constitution of South Carolina requires that the proposal be submitted by two thirds vote of the members elected, adopted by a majority of those voting in a general election and ratified by a majority vote of both houses of the next legisla- ture. M1assachusetts requires that amendments be proposed in joint session by a majority vote of all the members elected. New Hampshire is the only state having no provision for constitu- tional amendment. In a g-roup of :32 states, requiring passage by one legisla- ture, the following majorities in each house are required: Majority of members elected ........................................8 states' M ajority of quorum ..............................................................1 state' 3/5 of members elected ...................................................6 states' 3/5 of quorum ......................................................................1 state' 2/3 of members elected ....................................................14 statese 2/3 of quorum ......................................................................2 states' 'Arkansas, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Okla- homa, Oregon, and South Dakota. 'Minnesota. "Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska (only one heuse), and Ohio. North Carolina. California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 'Maine and Mississippi. KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL Fifteen states require passage of proposed amendments by two regular sessions of the legislature. In this group, eleven states require the following majorities in each house: Majority of members elected, 2 sessions .................... 10 states9 2/3 of members elected, 2 sessions .................................. 1 state"° Four states have rather unique requirements in regard to submission of proposed amendments. Connecticut proposes amendments by a majority vote of the House of Representatives in the first session of the legislature and requires a 2/3 vote of each house in the second session. Tennessee requires that a pro- posed amendment pass in the first session of the legislature by a majority vote of all members elected and in the second session 2/3 of all members elected must approve. In Vermont, where amendments may be proposed every ten years, 2/3 of the Senate must concur with a majority of the House in the first session and in the second session there must be approval by a majority vote of the members of each house. The method of amendment in South Carolina has already been discussed. Amendments are ratified by the people in either general or special elections. Most usually it is necessary that they be submitted in a general election although some constitutions per- mit the option of choosing between the two. It is mandatory, however, for amendments to be ratified in New Jersey in a special election. While this may be desirable, the expense in- volved is necessarily great. It is not necessary that the people ratify amendments in Delaware. Most state constitutions require amendments to be adopted by a mere majority of those voting on the amendment in