3.4: Prospects for Revision

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 129149

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

Is the Texas Constitution too confusing? The answer from most observers across the board is a resounding yes. You may have noticed that certain subjects are dealt with in a variety of different Articles. For example, the structure and function of counties is mentioned in the Articles on municipal corporations and the judiciary in addition to Article 9. It would make more sense if it was all contained in one Article. So why not clean it up? Why not have a rewrite of the Texas Constitution and make it easier to understand?

After years of frustration with the clumsy structure and poor organization of the Texas Constitution, the Sixty-Second Session of the Texas Legislature proposed to the voters that a Constitutional Convention should be held to revise it. On November 7, 1972, the voters approved the Convention. The next session of the legislature created a Constitutional Revision Commission, which reported back a series of recommendations encompassing most of the existing document except Article 1—the Bill of Rights—which, as you saw in the previous description of the Article 1, cannot be changed as it must remain inviolate.

In an unusual move, the Sixty-Third Legislature met at a Constitutional Convention from January 8 to July 30, 1974, but it did not approve the proposed constitution by the necessary two- thirds vote. The subsequent meeting of the legislature tried to resurrect the proposal by turning some of its provisions into separate constitutional amendments. These were all rejected by the voters. You can see the proposed amendments and the results of the election that defeated them.

The proposals would have made state government more streamlined and efficient, and apparently that was a problem with a population that had grown comfortable with the cumbersome nature of the existing constitution. Among the rejected changes were annual sessions for the legislature along with longer terms and higher pay, cabinet level positions to assist the governor, a unified Texas Supreme Court with appointed judges subject to non-partisan retention elections.

While this might provide for a government that more effectively addresses the needs of the people of the state, it would do so by granting it additional powers. That went against the grain of the citizens of a state that, while rapidly becoming modernized, was still largely agrarian—at least in spirit. The consequence of this defeat? No serious movement has developed to change the fundamental design of the Texas Constitution.