Arizona Government Lesson 4: Direct Democracy and Constitutional Amendments in Arizona
Question 4: How are most constitutional amendments ratified in Arizona?
- By a majority of the voters in a single election.
- By a majority of voters in consecutive elections.
- By a supermajority of voters (60%).
- By a majority of voters in three-quarters (3/4) of the state’s counties.
Background
Not all broadly democratic societies have constitutions. Most famously, the British government does not have a formal written constitution; instead, majorities of Parliament can legally change any law if the voters wish it. In a sense, Arizona’s Constitution resembles this model insofar as it is arguably the easiest to amend in the entire Union. (California’s was massively rewritten at the same time that Arizona’s was and is similar in this respect). The result is that the constitutions of the federal government and many states are amended rarely, not so in Arizona.
Although like-minded on many issues, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison sharply disagreed on this question. Jefferson thought constitutions ought to be amended and replaced frequently; in a letter to Madison, Jefferson specifically recommended that constitutions expire and be remade roughly every twenty years, thus ensuring the constitution remained up to date and citizens were not bound by the past.
Conversely, in Federalist 49, James Madison argued that it was important for citizens to be able to change their Constitution—that was essential to republican government—but that such changes, especially fundamental changes, should be relatively rare and deliberate, enabling the people to develop a basic reverence for the Constitution, rather than treating it as regular law and constantly refighting the essentials. Madison also argued that society would normally be too fractious and divided to hold constitutional conventions debating such fundamental questions, and they could not always count on the fond feelings and personal ties created by the Revolutionary War. In other words, Madison might ask, would we even be able to agree to the Bill of Rights today?
Arguably in between the two, and perhaps surprisingly, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the federal Constitution should be made somewhat easier to amend, which he believed would reduce the temptation for justices to themselves update the US Constitution instead of having the people change it through the Article V amendment process.
At the time of Arizona’s Founding, political thinkers argued that the American constitutional system needed massive reform to more closely resemble the British system and its more direct democracy. The most prominent skeptic of the American constitutional order was the political scientist, turned New Jersey Governor and US President, Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive thinker, though former President Theodore Roosevelt ended up adopting several of Wilson’s ideas (and vice versa). Wilson admired the efficiency and flexibility of the British system, which he compared favorably to the American system; it was much simpler (no separation of powers) and easy to change, and thus much more responsive to voters, who Wilson and his allies believed would be a sufficient check against tyranny and government overreach.
Defenders of the Madisonian Constitution, such as Roosevelt’s allies William Howard Taft, Elihu Root, and Henry Cabot Lodge, would argue that that was precisely the point: republican constitutions are supposed to be protectors of liberty and they should be changed only after extended deliberation and with broad agreement, not with a bare and perhaps temporary majority forcing its wishes on the minority. After all, in this account, voters may be perfectly willing to violate rights—they may be the source of tyranny themselves.
Arizona’s Constitution makers confronted this debate headon and made clear which side they took. Most observers would argue Arizona’s Constitution leans much more closely to Wilson’s progressive vision of constitutionalism, more akin to parliamentary sovereignty, with a deep trust in the voters, rather than the normal constraining objectives a constitution usually fulfils. The primary purpose of the Arizona Constitution is to create the structures that channel pure majority rule, a more direct form of democracy, rather than guard citizen’s liberties. In other words, if the classic tension in democratic republics is between efficiency and responsiveness, on the one hand, and liberty and deliberation on the other, Arizona’s Founders chose efficiency and responsiveness.
This focus on direct democracy becomes even clearer when one compares the Arizona amendment process with that of either the United States or most states’ constitutions. While easier to change than the Articles of Confederation, the federal Constitution requires supermajorities of both Congress and the states—2/3 of the former, and ¾ of the latter (though majorities within the states to ratify are sufficient). Most states include one or more of the following in their amendment process: supermajorities of the legislature to propose, supermajorities of the voters to ratify, or approval by legislators or voters in consecutive sessions or elections to ensure deliberation rather than a brief whim.
As detailed by Article XXI of its Constitution, Arizona has none of these: bare majorities of the legislature can propose an amendment, bare majorities of the voters can ratify most amendments (except for tax increases, which require threefifths approval), and one election is sufficient for approval. Nor does the Arizona Constitution require geographic consensus to amend, as the United States does in ensuring representation from most of the different sovereign states.
The unusually democratic nature of Arizona’s constitution becomes clearer yet when one adds citizenproposed initiative amendments to the process. Indeed, because initiated constitutional amendments are relatively easy, and the constitution’s Voter Protection Act forbids legislatures from modifying or repealing statutes initiated by citizen, one could argue that citizen initiated statutes and constitutional amendments are functionally the same in many respects. The higher signature requirement for amendments is the primary difference. There used to be another difference: Arizona courts interpreted Article XXI to mean all amendments must be confined to a single subject, like legislative statutes (Article IV, Part 2, Section 13), whereas citizeninitiated statutes could be more expansive and cover multiple topics. However, Arizonans approved an amendment applying the single subject rule to initiated statutes. Thus, initiated statutes, initiated amendments, and all legislatively passed statutes can now only cover a single subject .
Finally, like many states, Arizona has the possibility of calling a constitutional convention to amend the constitution, but this has never been used here. A few states rewrote their constitutions like this in the 1960s and 1970s, but the practice has faded since then.
[Note: this material can be paired with Questions 5 and 7 from Section 1 of the main Civic Literacy Curriculum]
Introduction
There are many different models for amending state constitutions in the United States. Arizona makes it exceptionally easy; other states use processes more like the United States Constitution, requiring a more substantial consensus. In this exercise, students will compare the Arizona Constitution to different models and have a bracket playoff to decide the best model to amend state constitutions.
Required Materials
Background
Comparative State Constitutions, Amendments Handout (Print from the respective state websites)
Instructions
- Provide each student with the necessary materials and time to read it. (You will likely want to assign the readings the night before to have more class time to play the activity.)
- There are four questions to consider listed on the handout; you can either use these to lead the discussion, or alternatively, as part of the debriefing.
- There will be three rounds of playoff bracket discussion and voting on different methods to amend state constitutions. The companion document includes excerpts from thirteen constitutions, which have various institutional differences. For each contest, have the students offer a few minutes of comments about which competitor should win and why, and then have them vote at the end.
- A mock first-round bracket grouping eight similar ones is below, but you could feel free to substitute other states if you wish (with recommendations for similar states provided). One region will be Democratic, which is AZ v. CO (or CA or NM). The winner of that will face the winner of the Unusual region, which is FL v. MT. The other side of the bracket is Supermajority Single Election, which is NC v. DE, the winner of which will face the winner of Consecutive Elections, which is VT (or NJ or SC or TN) v. IN.
- Instead, You could substitute California, Colorado, or New Mexico for Arizona in Round 1, and add an additional final round in which Arizona faces off against the winner of the rest of the states.
- Spend a few minutes in each quadrant in the first round, but most of these should go more quickly since there is more similarity between them. Allow more time for the latter rounds as the students will see more to contrast.
- After the last round, have a debriefing discussion. Questions to ask: what features of the amendment processes do you like, and why? Would you keep the Arizona model of amending the state’s constitution? Or would you replace it with an alternative, either one of the alternative states considered, or some combination of their features?
Prompt 1:
What are the two basic ways that constitutional amendments are proposed and ratified in Arizona? Why did the state’s Founders choose this model instead of how other constitutions work?
Prompt 2:
The Arizona Constitution is easy to amend, and the federal Constitution is relatively hard. Should both be easy to amend? Should both be hard to amend? Or is the basic idea right, with the federal constitution more stable and Arizona more flexible? Why? Use current or past events in your answer.
Middle Grades:
Not all democracies have written constitutions. For example, Britain doesn't have a formal constitution. Its government can change any law if most members of Parliament agree. Arizona's Constitution is somewhat similar because it's one of the easiest in the U.S. to change. While the U.S. Constitution is amended rarely, Arizona’s can be changed much more easily.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison disagreed on how often constitutions should change. Jefferson thought they should be rewritten every 20 years to stay updated. Madison believed changes should be rare so people could respect their constitution. He thought frequent changes would cause too much disagreement. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was in the middle of these views. He thought the U.S. Constitution should be a little easier to change, so judges wouldn’t be tempted to change it themselves.
When Arizona’s Constitution was written, many political thinkers wanted the government to be more like Britain’s system, where the people had more control over government decisions. President Woodrow Wilson, a leader in this thinking, admired how flexible and easy to change Britain’s system was. He believed that voters would prevent the government from taking too much power. Others, like President William Howard Taft, disagreed and thought a constitution should be hard to change to protect people’s rights.
Arizona’s Constitution reflects Wilson’s idea of direct democracy, where voters have more control. It is easier to change than most other state constitutions, which usually require large majority approval. In Arizona, a simple majority of legislators can suggest, and a majority of voters can approve, most amendments, though tax increases need more votes. Voters can also propose changes through initiatives. Because these are easy to pass, they act almost like laws, and once passed, the legislature cannot easily change them. Arizona has never used a constitutional convention to rewrite its constitution, though this is allowed in some states.
In short, Arizona’s Constitution allows for more direct control by voters, making it easier to change compared to other states or the U.S.
Elementary:
Not all democracies have written constitutions. For example, Britain doesn’t have one, and its government can change any law if most of Parliament agrees. Arizona’s Constitution is similar because it is one of the easiest in the U.S. to change. While the U.S. Constitution is rarely changed, Arizona’s can be changed more often.
Thomas Jefferson believed that constitutions should be changed more frequently to stay current. James Madison disagreed, saying changes should be rare so people would develop more respect for the constitution.
Arizona’s Constitution follows the idea of "direct democracy," meaning voters have a lot of power to make changes. Arizona’s constitution is easier to amend than most states. A simple majority of lawmakers can suggest a change, and a majority of voters can approve changes. Voters in Arizona can also can suggest changes through initiatives. This gives people in Arizona more direct control over the laws.
In summary, Arizona’s Constitution makes it easier for voters to change laws compared to other states and the U.S.
Vocabulary:
1. Democracy – A system of government where people have the power to make decisions by voting.
2. Constitution – A set of rules that explains how a government works.
3. Parliament – A group of people in some countries who make laws for the government.
4. Amend – To change or add something to a document, like a constitution.
5. Majority – More than half of a group.
6. Direct Democracy – A system where people vote directly on laws and decisions.
7. Initiative – A process that allows voters to propose a new law or change an existing one.
8. Change – To make something different.
9. Law – A rule the government makes that everyone must follow.
10. Respect – To have a positive feeling towards something or someone, often by treating it well.