Posted by About 150 people attended the Roundtable on Constitution Reform last night featuring former Governor Albert Brewer, Rep. Paul DeMarco (R – Homewood), Lynn Douglas (Board President, Alabama ARISE), Gary Palmer (President, Alabama Policy Institute), and Lenora Pate (Co-Chair, ACCR).
An ongoing thread of conversation around the edges of the event was about the unhappiness among some Democrats that the event, sponsored by the Over the Mountain Democrats, was giving a platform for Republicans Paul DeMarco and Gary Palmer, or as moderator Barry Ragsdale called Palmer, “a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.” More on this later.
Governor Brewer gave an interesting history of constitution reform in the state and an overview of the options for changing the constitution.
In 1983, he said, the Senate proposed an amendment to the Constitution that had the text of a new constitution in it and which was meant to supercede the 1901 Constitution. The amendment passed the Senate and the House with the required majorities and went to a vote of the people.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a suit to enjoin the election on the argument that the entire Constitution could not be changed in this way, but it was too late to print new ballots without the amendment issue. Though the election was not valid, the results showed that the amendment would have passed had it been a valid question.
Brewer outlined advantages and disadvantages of reforming the constitution via an amendment process versus doing it by convention.
Comments on advantages to the amendment process:
- It’s simple.
- It’s familiar. (We’ve amended the constitution 799 times, plus scores of amendments were not approved.)
- It’s a defined process.
Comments on disadvantages to the amendment process:
- It’s slow and tedious.
- There are 21 articles. Will we ever get to them all? (The last major step forward was in the judicial section, and that was over 30 years ago.)
- Citizens have no right of initiatives.
- It all has to come from legislative proposals. We have to depend on legislators’ initiatives. Confidence and trust in the legislature is not at an all-time high.
- Amendments will only make the world’s longest constitution longer.
Comments on advantages to a constitutional convention:
- Citizens are intimately involved.
- They vote on whether to call for a convention.
- They vote on delegates to attend the delegation.
- They vote on whether to ratify the proposed constitution.
- Self-government can be realized.
Comments on disadvantages to a constitutional convention:
- It’s more complicated.
- An example of this is the three elections, though the first two could be handled at the same time. You could vote at the same time on whether to have a convention and on what delegates would represent you if a convention is held.
More to come especially on the comments from panelists.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Thanks, Danny. I’m going to link to each of your posts as you put them up. Just to clarify for anyone who doesn’t know Barry, the “member of the vast right wing conspiracy” remark was meant in jest. Well, mostly. :) Barry did a great job as moderator, and the panel was really impressive. There will be video highlights posted soon on the OTM Dems website. I’ll let you know when they’re up.
[...] Gov. Brewer Speaks at Const. Reform Roundtable [...]
One of those attorneys in the GOP house primary in Cullman is pushing
the initiative process as one of his priorities if he’s elected to the house.
Its not Parker but that other attorney…his name escapes at the moment.
Incredible job summarizing this first part, Doc – I don’t know how you got that all down. I shoulda had you taking notes for me in college! Kathy commented earlier today that this event was similar to an upper-level college seminar and doggone if she’s not right. I don’t think there were many in that crowd last night who didn’t learn a great deal. Thank you for reporting on it. One thing mentioned that I look forward to learning more about: one of the various commissions generated a model document a convention could use to reassure the citizens of Alabama of its intended destination. I realize all bets are off once the convention is convened, but if the delegates all take a pledge and we take their loved ones hostage, well, who knows what we could accomplish…
Thanks again for the work you do!
“one of the various commissions generated a model document a convention could use to reassure the citizens of Alabama of its intended destination.”
I’ve said before that asking voters to approve a convention is akin to asking them to “buy a pig in a poke” and then if the convention produces a document voters reject it will have been a costly exercise in futility — a waste of time, energy, and taxpayer dollars. If that happened, I believe it would sour voters on the idea of a new constitution and set back the agenda of ACCR.
If a model document has been generated, why can’t it be available and presented to voters to accept or reject without going through the convention process? I’ve said that ACCR itself should write a version of a new constitution an open it up to public scrutiny. Does our present constitution require a convention to write a new constitution?
Don, I believe ACCR has written a draft of a new constitution. Gov. Brewer appointed a commission in 1969 that wrote a draft. And I agree that your approach would be a good one. However, one thing Gov. Brewer pointed out on Tuesday night is that Big Jim Folsom attempted to get a convention called in order to re-apportion the legislature, and the courts ruled that a convention could not be limited to specific actions before the fact. So we couldn’t call a convention with the requirement that it approve a specific document.
The only two approaches permitted under the current constitution are a citizens’ convention (which must be called by the Legislature) or an article-by-article rewrite by the Legislature. The last time there was a major (and by all accounts excellent) rewrite of a constitutional article was in the 1970s, so I’m not holding my breath for our part-time Legislature to get around to the rest of it anytime soon. Unless, that is, we hold their collective feet to the fire.
Kathy, thanks for answering my question about the 1901 constitution.
Wouldn’t be helpful, though, if there are any drafts for a new constitution from any source that they be disclosed to the public and ask for comments to see what folks think of them? And couldn’t legislation seeking a convention suggest that the convention members take all drafts and comments about them into consideration as they draft their own document. It seems like that might be better than starting from scratch and it should conform to the prior ruling by the Supreme Court. I’m just thinking out loud and perhaps outside of the box.
Best I can tell, Gov. Brewer and ACCR would love for a convention to consider the 1969 draft and the ACCR Commission’s draft. I don’t think the drafts are secret, and I’ll try to find out where you can get copies.
Please post a pointer to ACCR’s proposed constitution. After glooming around their site, couldn’t find much substance other than “tax fairness” an end to earmarking tax revenue and “home rule”.