Friday, May 29, 2009

Is the California Constitution Too Easy to Amend?

I'll begin with a confession: I've only skimmed the California Supreme Court opinion upholding Proposition 8 as a permissible "amendment" that did not have to go through the more demanding process required for "revision" of the state constitution. I do not consider myself an expert in California constitutional law, in any event. Did the majority read the prior precedents too narrowly in holding that only structural changes require the revision process? Was Justice Moreno right that permitting a change that disadvantages a minority group on the basis of prejudice must itself satisfy the strict scrutiny test? That certainly would not be true at the federal level, but the federal Constitution does not distinguish between "amendments" and "revisions"---except to the extent that changes depriving any state of its equal suffrage in the Senate require a more rigorous process (obtaining that state's consent) than other changes require. I find myself having no firm opinion as to whether the case was rightly or wrongly decided based on California constitutional law.

I was struck, however, in my skimming of the majority opinion, by the following line: "In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process." That may not be the entirety of the objection, but surely that does capture much of the force of the argument. One of the core purposes of constitutional democracy rather than pure majoritarianism, the objection goes, is to limit the majority's ability to oppress minoriities; permitting the majority to remove constitutional obstacles to oppressing a minority by a referendum that itself only garners a bare majority undercuts this basic constitutional function.

But if amendment by referendum is too easy, how do we know what the amendment process for any given polity should look like? Note that proponents of legal same-sex marriage (of which I count myself one) will now be thankful that they can undo Prop 8 by a simple ballot initiative. We can imagine a slightly different course of events in which Prop 8 were held invalid, but the state legislature and voters then approved an actual revision banning same-sex marriage. At that point, it might take a counter-revision to reinstate legal same-sex marriage. Whatever else we might want to say about the best amendment rules, it's hard to imagine that we could secure agreement on a rule that says "Bad changes to the constitution should be difficult to accomplish but good changes should be easy."

To the extent that I have views about how amendment/revision rules should be written, I think that one must try to take account of complex institutional interactions. A constitution that is difficult to amend (such as the U.S. Constitution) will tend to lead courts to interpret that constitution flexibly. (There is some comparative empirical evidence for this proposition that I saw presented at a conference last year but I don't have the citations handy.) Conversely, "activist" judicial interpretations, to the extent that they go well beyond popular support, will tend to lead to calls for limiting judicial power and for substantive amdendments. There are other dynamics as well. For example, Progressive-era concerns about elected officials serving the powerful led to the inclusion of the referendum as a means of amending the California Constitution.

It is thus maddeningly difficult to say anything very general about the "best" approach to constitutional change. Such matters as how judges of the high court are chosen will also play a role; even internal procedures like the filibuster rule will interact with the amendment process. In the end, I'm left with a point I sometimes tell my students (in every course I teach): Even if there is no clearly right answer, there still may be some pretty clearly wrong answers. The California system falls into the latter category.

Posted by Mike Dorf

6 comments:

Charles Thomas said...

The California constitution is a joke, to be blunt. Constitutions are supposed to be organic laws - setting forth the nature of structure of government; and the rights and responsibilities of the people. Constitutions are not intended to be get into the minutia of governance - tax rates, labor laws, or NIMBY-esqe laws barring public housing projects without a referendum. The Constitution of California covers all those matters.

I wonder - and I already know what the courts would say about this - but doesn't constitutional amendment by simple majority violate the republican form of government clause? It turns (small r) republicanism into (small d) democracy without any of the republican protections for minority rights.

best-tutor said...

Hello!

very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you

http://www.best-tutor.com
http://best-tutor.com"

good site

tutor
tutor

酒店經紀ㄚ君姐姐 said...

,,領檯姐.,便服店,,

狗熊克星 said...

板橋報導 小李工作不專心結果受傷了無法工作,他的福建新娘太太努力在家做手工藝賺錢照顧他,,此新聞讓我們體會到印尼新娘在社會上處處有大一愛。台北報導 一名福建新娘嫁到台北的長安西路那,老公是是賣甘草茶的,真是幸福又快樂,印尼新娘也羨慕不已。板橋報導 板橋有位福建新娘非常的特別,他會寫程式。任職於程式設計公司的陳先生出差到廣東工作時認識她的現在太太,他們最大的興趣就是一起研究寫程式,又幫忙寫程式且寫的速度奇怪無比真是令印尼新娘大開眼界。台北縣報導 三重有一名福建新娘熱心參與社區的義工,同社區有在這個社區持續的發光發熱印尼新娘說我們也要向她們學習。

付可比照本國勞工領取六個月的失業給付,預估二萬五千多人受惠,以往就業保險僅適用於本國勞工,福建新娘、外籍配偶及外勞除非取得本國籍,否則就算有工作,也不能參加就保,一旦遭逢裁員,經濟不佳的印尼新娘馬上陷入困境,非常沒有保障。今年五月就保法修正通過後,外籍、大陸、我們也要向這些福建新娘又及印尼新娘致上最高的敬意。

因為現在國人喜歡印尼新娘因為他們克苦耐勞又孝順公婆像福建新娘也是一個不錯的選擇喔、印尼新娘福建新娘,福建新娘福建新娘阿美她善長是asp.net的語言印尼新娘許美淑印尼新娘阿丁印尼新娘在台灣的比例另外還有印尼新娘..等另外還有印尼新娘..等印尼新娘讓人非常心動福建新娘最近福建新娘在一天跟福建新娘志玲福建新娘

gaohui said...

On the other hand,Harley boots ed hardy clothes often is the usual lift-up model with a face Christian audigier shield.One luxury full-faced Harley helmet to look for ed hardy shoes can be the GP Tech Metal Warrior. This Kevlar ed hardy outlet made helmet comes standard considering the ultimate Integrated Ventilation to ed hardy Bikini provide you with oxygen in your ride. And, techniques about fogging ed hardy hats in the shield together with the outdoors, the ed hardy swimsuits helmet will be fog proof. The optimim finish on the helmet guarantees ed hardy clothing no scratches, either. However, ed hardy glasses this amazing ed hardy Jackets tool industry around and may just break your bank! If ed hardyprice is an object, devote all across $70.00 and share with the ed hardy iphone cases conventional stock half helmet. That should as ed hardy dresses a minimum produce a number protection an individual's Harley davidson lower.

teragoldd said...

But it’s true. in the last 2 years of my important schooling which very much determines my career buy runescape gold
Tera gold
tera online goldwhich i hope will be medicine, i lose a close friend, a best friend i knew since kinder (4 years), an uncle & my great grandma.