State constitutions tend to change more often than the U.S. Constitution. The numerous constitutions adopted by Texas and other states over the past two centuries demonstrate the point.
Today only six states operate under Constitutions drafted before 1850. One fourth of today's state constitutions were adopted after World War II. Each of the fifty states has averaged three constitutions. Though some have had as few as one or two constitutions for their entire existence, many have had four or more. Louisiana with eleven constitutions, and Georgia with ten top the list.
In contrast to the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions tend to be long and very detailed, with numerous amendments. Alabama's is the longest state constitution by far. Today it includes more than 766 amendments, some 70 percent of which are so-called local amendments (applicable only to the localities that ratified them in popular elections). The Texas Constitution has the fourth highest number of amendments behind Alabama, California, and South Carolina.
State constitutions average about 36,000 words in length, which is approximately four times the length of the Constitution of the United States, whose total length counting amendments is about 7,400 words.
The relative impermanence of state constitutions is also evident in their frequent amendment. The average state constitution has been amended approximately 100 times. Only six of fifty state constitutions have been amended fewer than twenty-seven times - the number of amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Length and number of amendments seem to be related, because great length usually means greater specificity of detail, which in turn reduces flexibility. When the foundational document upon which government is based contains a lot of policy details, it takes nothing short of a constitutional amendment to change those details.
Amendments also beget still more amendments. Every time an amendment is added, more details are added to the basic plan of governance. When the need is felt to change these new details, newer amendments often need to be proposed.
You might think that constitutional amendments are proposed only for matters of great policy or institutional importance. Not necessarily. The Voting, Campaigns and Elections chapter mentions several typical Texas examples. In the 2003 special election, voters were asked about donating surplus fire equipment, in particular whether a constitutional amendment should be adopted to authorize municipalities to donate surplus fire-fighting equipment or supplies for the benefit of rural volunteer fire departments. Earlier amendments dealing with the subject apparently did not cover all instances of donating surplus fire equipment. In the 2007 election voters were asked about abolishing the office of inspector of hides and animals and exemption of judges from the mandatory state retirement age if they are already serving on the bench. Matters such as these might more easily and effectively be dealt with through legislative, executive, or even local administrative authority. But because the Texas Constitution addresses such policy details, only the voters through a special statewide election can make needed changes.
Of course, some amendments deal with important issues and fundamental principles. It is generally easier to propose and ratify these more substantial and potentially controversial amendments on the state level than on the federal level. Policy advocates of all stripes often seek to shape national policy by first working to shape state constitutions.
Beyond these structural characteristics (length, detail, and number of amendments), state constitutions tend to have a philosophical approach to the democratic process that differs significantly from the U.S. Constitution. While the national constitution certainly expresses a concern to divide and check governmental powers, the states as a group tend to carry this concern a step further by decentralizing their executive branches and exposing their state judiciaries to popular election.
Consistent with this philosophical view of government is a greater emphasis among state constitutions on processes of direct democracy as opposed to the emphasis in the U.S. Constitution on representative democracy.
Generally, the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that the relationship between citizens and their government should be mediated by representatives. These elected or appointed officials would promote the public interest, but one step removed from the passions of direct self-interest or the public mood of the moment. Many of the framers were concerned to blunt or deflect the sharpest edges of temperamental and sometimes transitory majorities. For instance, as originally required by the U.S. Constitution, each state's members in the U.S. Senate were elected by that state's legislature. The 17th Amendment, which specified direct popular election of the U.S. Senate, reduced this double-layered system of representation to a single layer. The U.S. Constitution also created a relatively unified executive branch under the direct control of the President, the representative of all citizens of the United States.
Many state constitutions provide mechanisms for much more direct representation in government. In many states, multiple offices within the executive branch are elected directly. In all but eleven states, members of the judiciary are subject to election at some point in their tenure (see the section on judicial selection in the chapter on the Justice System). [9]
Twenty-seven states have initiative and/or referendum provisions that allow voters and interest groups to put policy proposals on the ballot or to vote on legislation proposed by their state legislatures. Eighteen states have recall provisions that allow voters to remove an elected official from office.
These provisions give voters more opportunities to vote for a broad range of offices, go around their elected representatives, and even threaten to remove them. But busy election calendars, long ballots with lots of elected offices, and direct democracy provisions also reduce the ability of the government and elected representatives in government to make and implement public policy. Popular influence thus comes at the expense of government efficiency and clear accountability.
Texas is not alone in its periodic attempts to amend, revise, or even overhaul its Constitution. As the Thinking Comparatively chart Living Documents: Trends in Constitutional Change by Decade shows, states have used a variety of means in recent decades to attempt to modernize or otherwise alter their constitutions. The National Municipal League also provides a model state constitution for states that might be looking to start over.
