Taxas Constitutional Reform

On the most fundamental level, a constitution is a plan or contract between the government and the people governed. A constitution details the agreed-upon powers, responsibilities and limitations upon all involved parties, while asserting the proper procedure for action. The constitution is the foundation for all basic laws upon which the legal system rests. In the history of the existence of the state of Texas, seven separate constitutions have been drafted and approved, with the last one receiving approval on February 15, 1876. The preceding six constitutions were adopted during the following years: 1827, 1836, 1845, 1861, 1866 and 1869. At this time, the current constitution contains amendments that were approved by voters as recently as November of 2017.

An examination of the Texas constitution reflects certain insights about the state and its unique viewpoints about government, autonomy and self-protection. Any state constitution should assert a basic structure of government, itemizing who has which powers when it comes to the people versus the government. Secondly, constitutions have the duty of narrowing the overall power of government by establishing civil liberties held by the people that the government dare not breach. While the Texas Constitution technically fulfills its essential duties, the mistrust of government that pervades within the state lineage and culture ensures that the creation of government policy is a difficult task.

One of the more striking elements about the Constitution of Texas is that it contains a striking mistrust of government and a marked resistance to change. One of the ways that it manifests its mistrust of government and change is the sheer size of the document. The document is 93,000 words long, making it unwieldy and difficult to use and apply effectively. As some scholars assert, “It reflects the state’s individualistic political culture and a mistrust of government, which have translated into weak political institutions across the board. Consistent with its original intent of ensuring state government would never be oppressive, the Texas Constitution fragments and limits government power” (Coleman). The massive size of the document makes it both too long and too complicated to use, along with the fact that many have criticized it of being deliberately badly organized. The overwhelming length and often indecipherable structure undermines all efforts to create change, particularly for a modern society with all the complexities of life in the modern world.

Some argue that an overall distrust of government is the most prominent feature of the constitution of Texas as a whole (Collier et al., 62). “Article I underscores the attitudes of most Texans that ‘all political power is inherent in the people, all free governments are founded on their authority… they have all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such a manner as they may think expedient’” (Collier et al., 62). Anti-government notions such as these are riddled throughout the document. For example, another way this manifest is via the context that the government can tax and accumulate debt are clearly itemized: this is so the government can be kept small the powers and money given to the executive branch and state legislature are intentionally kept limited. Another manifestation of this trend is the usage of the long ballot, meaning that all positions in the state are given via election, not simply appointment (Collier et al., 62).

This can at times conflict with the political preferences for limited government as constitutional reform and revision continues to struggle to gain support (Collier et al., 62). Some of the aspects of the document that seek to limit government power undermine this objective by making the document so long-winded. For example, the constitution itemizes the categories of taxes the legislature can and cannot charge, clearly thwarting property tax and forbidding the government from imposing a state income tax without the express approval of the bulk of voters. While the powers of government might by limited, the constitution fails to create an efficient political system.

The rationale for significant changes to the Texas Constitution revolve around how unusable the document is. Many have described it as unwieldy or unmanageable and that it undermines the need for the creation of a streamlined effective government that the fast-paced and intricate needs of modern society require. While this paper has stated repeatedly that the Texas Constitution is way too long, one needs to compare it to the national constitution in order to really get a sense of how long it is: as the document that governs 50 states, the US constitution has 6500 words and 27 amendments. The Texas constitution is 15 times the size of the national document. It has 98,000 words and 491 amendments. Many residents of Texas and constitutional scholars think the constitution is only going to increase over time (Bruff, 1339). One could argue that the constitution has become this long because it favors particular parties over others. The sheer size of the document means that voters don’t bother to learn their rights within the law, but rather just vote for new amendments. Lawmakers keep adding more amendments to promote their own favor.

Furthermore, one of the problems that begs for constitutional change is not simply the length of the document, but how many minute details are included. The excessive details make the document hard for the average individual to both comprehend and absorb. All the added details should be put in smaller statutory laws that could be forwarded by a legislature, later ratified by the government. Another issue caused by the Texas constitution is that it helps to create a fragmented executive branch. The governor is unable to control the state authorities, but rather has to share power with them; this is also mimicked at the county level. Hence, in doing its best to limit the power of the state government, the constitution essentially cripples the government from providing any sort of meaningful service of value in modern society. It’s one thing to limit a government’s power and to insure that the individual citizen is protected from tyranny. It’s a far different issue to render the government almost ineffective. Significant changes could make the Texas Constitution a living document able to better meet the needs of an economically intricate and modern world, while doing its part to create a successful political system.

An attempt in the mid-1970s tried to change the state constitution, only to result in ultimate failure. The 62nd Texas Legislature called for the creation of a Constitutional Revision Commission, put on the ballot on a special election in November 1972, and ultimately approved by more than half of all voters, placing it within section two of Article XVII of the constitution. The revision commission was autonomous and composed of members who had strong reputations, though still targeted by those groups looking for special treatment (utexas.edu). Many issues came under contention, which undermined the strength and momentum of the revision committee. For example, some members thought that urban areas should streamline their multiple and controversial political jurisdictions by an increase in the authority of city governments, a move which was thwarted by those wanting to maintain the power of county governments. The convention during which these recommendations were discussed and assessed on January 8th 1974 turned out to be very contentious and only approved of submitting eight amendments as part of the new constitution, to voters. However, only less than 25% of voters even submitted ballots, with many citizens admitting their ignorance of the issues at hand (utexas.edu). Furthermore, Governor Briscoe didn’t help matters by telling citizens that adopting these amendments would result in the passing of a state income tax, a more expensive state government, powerful legislative branch and the creation of a Missouri Plan form of judicial selection (utexas.edu). The negative press and contentious period that attempts at revision caused, made many believe that constitutional revision was a non-issue. Essentially, this movement failed because it quickly became contentious, because voters were not well-informed about it, and because Governor Briscoe sabotaged its efforts.

A constitutional convention allows many benefits for freedom of discussion and allowing a free flow of all pertinent ideas. In this day and age, there’s no reason why the convention can’t be online or at the very last, live-streamed to the citizens of Texas. With today’s technology, there’s no reason why the convention has to be in person. A virtual convention might work just as well, while still allowing all interested parties to air their opinions. A virtual convention would allow the average Texan more knowledge about the process and what’s at stake, while creating an environment of higher transparency. Since Texas is a place where popular sovereignty reigns above all else, making the next constitutional convention one which is more interactive and subject to the will and voices of the people is fitting. For example, citizens should be able to tweet or email in questions or comments that the convention attendees have to respond to. Likewise, citizens should be able to chart or regulate the agenda of the convention. The Texas constitution is such a flawed document that there’s no reason why it can’t be improved aggressively to make it more responsive to the needs of modern society.