The Texas Constitution is like other state constitutions in key respects, only bigger, you might say. These characteristics of the Texas Constitution can be outlined with a few brief terms:

• overly long
• extremely detailed
• confusing in organization
• poorly written

The Texas Constitution had approximately 23,500 words in 1876 before any amendments. With amendments, it is today the second longest of the fifty state constitutions, as the chart Size Matters illustrates.

The level of detail can be excruciating. For example, coverage of ad valorem taxes in the original constitution and its numerous amendments span fourteen subsections and several pages of text. Other details cover administration of water boards, water bond sales, parks administration, municipal retirement systems, road construction, interest rates on bonds, elections for sheriff, the sale of school lands, creation of hospital districts, operation of railroads, seawalls, and dueling.

The high level of detail is accompanied by confusing organization. Coverage of individual subject areas, like local government, is found in several different parts of the Constitution. Also, in its current form the Constitution contains gaps where whole sections have been repealed. Indeed, an entire article (Article XIII - Spanish and Mexican Land Titles) was repealed in 1969, leaving only the title but no text. Five of the seven original sections in Article XII covering "Private Corporations" have been repealed, as have seven of the eight sections in Article XIV on "Public Lands and the General Land Office."

The large number of amendments has made it more practical to add to or delete from the relevant article or section, rather than simply accumulating all the amendments at the end, as with the U.S. Constitution. Amendments aimed at undoing a provision of the Texas Constitution simply specify that section's removal. The result looks like a patchwork of original provisions, combined with later additions and deletions. Contributing to the confusion, there are several pairs of subsections with the same number, like the two subsections in Article VIII labeled "1-n."

The confusing organization in turn is compounded by prose that is difficult to understand. The original framers worked very quickly and refused to hire a stenographer, reportedly because of their unwillingness to spend public money. No doubt the document could have used some professional editing and transcription.

From a contemporary vantage, the language used in the 1870s can seem arcane and unclear. This problem is compounded in the U.S. Constitution, written as it was some ninety years earlier. But perhaps the dated locutions of Texas conventioneers come through more forcefully because of the sheer volume of text they produced, a direct result of the greater detail with which they grappled. When writing new amendments, legislators find that the existing level of detail and disorganization makes it more difficult for modern writers to produce straight-forward prose.