I’m voting no on all ten state constitutional amendments on the ballot this election. Because I think it’s time to rewrite Louisiana’s constitution. And it seems like the only way we can force our elected officials to the negotiating table is by shutting down the endless cycle of ad hoc amendments.
This isn’t as radical as it may sound. In fact, it’s what it took to get Louisiana’s current constitution enacted. If you think 10 amendments are bad, in 1970 there were 53 (!) amendments on one ballot. All of them failed, forcing state leaders to put in the work to write a new constitution.
While the 1921 constitution originally had less than 50,000 words, by 1973 it had grown to more than 250,000 words by way of more than 800 proposed amendments, 600 of which passed.
The 1974 constitution cut things back to about 35,000 words. But it has now grown to more than 75,000 words, with voters approving 221 of the 330 amendments that have been put on the ballot since. (Fun fact, the U.S. Constitution has been amended just 27 times in 235 years and has grown from about 4,500 words to about 7,600.)
Altogether over the last century, Louisiana voters have faced 1,132 proposed amendments. That’s an average of almost 11 per year, making constitutional amendments another thing we’re first in the nation in — like chlamydia rates and crime. Based on my research, the second highest average number of state constitution amendments per year is California, at 6.3.
While I may be a liberal on social issues and a conservative on fiscal issues, I’m a libertarian when it comes to regulatory issues. So seeing this kind of bloat in the literal size of the set of words that govern our state’s laws is inherently icky to me.
Also, while I am a radical when it comes to democracy and public participation, I’m also pragmatic enough to question the value of having this much of this kind of engagement.
It’s difficult to educate the public about issues to make informed decisions. And it can feel impossible to get enough people to show up so that these votes truly represent the will of the people.
I’m not sure if having the most amendments and one of the most complex constitutions in the U.S. are the kinds of lists that are necessarily good for Louisiana to be at the top of.
Over the last decade there have been five failed attempts to write a new constitution. So change is coming and everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done. They just can’t agree yet on how to get it done.
And getting that alignment isn’t going to be easy. Public trust in all levels of government feels like it’s at all-time lows and trust across the aisle within government feels at a similar nadir.
Whatever one side proposes the other side automatically opposes. It’s politics as a zero-sum game, where the minority is always fighting to avoid getting steamrolled by the majority, rather than politics as the way we debate ideas to build towards a consensus that’s ideally stronger than the sum of its parts.
Maybe it sounds naive to talk about politics in such idealistic terms. Especially at a time when policy-making feels disconnected from the day-to-day needs of Louisiana’s citizens.
But I think writing a new constitution forces us to revisit our ideals. Because the process we use and the words that we write to enact a new constitution is a literal reflection of whatever our shared ideals are. And because the resulting document enshrines those ideals as the basis of how our state will run for decades to come.
That’s why I believe a constitutional convention needs to not be driven by partisanship or political expediency. And we shouldn’t just streamline government. This is an opportunity to evolve how it functions to create a better Louisiana for us all.
Let’s take the process of how we handle the constitutional amendments themselves as a prime example.
What if we limited the number of amendments that could be put on the ballot every year? That might limit decision overload for the public and force legislators to prioritize the amendments that matter most.
What if we limited amendments to the November general election? That way, we’d only change our constitution by what’s typically the largest representation of the will of the people.
What if we shrank not just the size but the scope of the constitution? Parish governments could have more autonomy, and state lawmakers could handle more through laws than amendments.
What if we allowed for citizen-led initiatives? That way, the public could put an amendment on the ballot without having to rely on their state legislators. Remember California and its average 6.3 amendments per year? That includes initiatives proposed directly by citizens.
What if we required two-session approval? It’d give the public more time to review and scrutinize amendments before voting on them.
All of these are ideas that exist in some form in other states. It feels like there’s a lot Louisiana could learn from America’s laboratories for democracy to figure out what our state’s first 21st century constitution should look like.
The 1921 constitution lasted for 53 years. Next year, the 1974 constitution will turn 53 years old. It seems like the time has come for us to sit down and get this done.
It’ll likely be decades until we get another shot at making changes like this, so my hope is that whenever we get enough will to do that, we commit to doing this the right way.
Until then, I’m going to keep voting no to every amendment. Because the only way we’ll be able to rewrite the constitution is if we’re willing to stop amending it.
