Texas Constitution

The Texas Constitution has gone through many transformations over the years. Texas has had 7 unique constitutions, including one under Mexico, the Confederacy, Independent Texas, and 4 different constitutions as a state in the United States.  The current Texas Constitution went into effect in 1876. Bit by bit, the Texas Constitution has been revised and updated, essentially creating a new constitution every two years. The United States Constitution is broad and has the “necessary and proper” clause, allowing lawmakers more freedom.  Texas has no such loophole in its constitution and the laws in the Texas Constitution are very detailed and specific, which is why it requires frequent and many amendments.  Many Texans would argue that the Texas Constitution is outdated and over amended.

            The 29^th Congress of the United States approved admission for Texas to join the United States.  The Texas State Constitution was submitted to the United States Congress and the President of the United States as a part of the admission process (“Voters”).  State constitutions were mandated by congressional authority of the United States prior to being admitted as a state in the United States (Williams).  Congress again mandated Southern states to hold constitutional conventions to revise each state’s constitution after the end of the Civil War to include verbiage consistent with the Reconstruction Amendments (Williams).

Nearly 10,000 amendments to state constitutions have been proposed, leading to nearly 6,000 amendments to state constitutions across the United States (Williams).  Some people might say that state constitutions are too easy to amend.  The ease at which state constitutions can be amended lends to more “trial and error” to see what works and what doesn’t (Williams).

There is a four-stage process to amend the Texas Constitution.  First, the legislature proposes an amendment.  The proposed amendments must be approved by 2/3 of the of the Texas legislature.  Once approved by the Texas legislature, an explanation of amendments must be published in well known newspapers 2 different times.  Finally, a majority of Texas voters have to approve amendments.

The purposes of a constitution is to explain and limit the power of those in authority in the government, delegate power to individuals and institutions, provide checks and balances, and to explain the limits of powers.  Four goals of the current constitution are to: 1) have strong popular control of government by the voters; 2) limit the powers of individuals and institutions; 3) maintain restraints on spending; and 4) promote interests in agriculture.

Texas voters vote on proposed constitutional amendments every few years.  To date, the United States Constitution has only had 27 amendments, while the Texas Constitution has had nearly 500.  Since the Texas Constitution is very detailed and specific about everyday policies and tasks, amendments are needed to change outdated language and remove information about unused programs and offices.

A huge problem with the current Texas Constitution is the fact that there are 6 different versions (Boatright).  Four versions of the Texas State Constitution were submitted to the voters in English, German, Spanish, and Bohemian.  None of these constitutions, even the English versions were the same as the 2 English versions framed at the conventions (Boatright). According to an article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, “No particular version is clearly more or less legitimate than the others” (Boatright 4).

Different versions of the Texas constitution have been cited in different legal cases.  Different intentions and meanings construed by different punctuation, capitalizations, spelling, italics, slightly different wording, and translations can make the meaning of the text dramatically different.  This is especially true of copies of the Texas Constitution in different languages, where words or phrases may not translate to mean the same thing (Boatright).

The article “No One Knows What the Texas Constitution Is” brings to light the fact that the Preamble to the Texas Constitution, which is only one sentence, has 3 slightly different texts in the English versions.  Taking into consideration that the remainder of the Texas Constitution is very long, there is much room for error, confusion, and different translations as to which part is correct (Boatright).

In the English version of the Texas Constitution that was ratified, 188 of the 279 sections are different than the framed versions (Boatright).  Because there were 3 ratified version in German, Spanish, and Bohemian, “Every section of the original text of the current Texas Constitution has a ratified version that differs from a framed version . . . “ (Boatright 18).

Although the original Texas Constitution authorized governor appointment of judges, with approval from Texas Senate, under the current constitution, judges are elected (Monroe).  Election of judges leads to many problems, including severe criticism and distrust of judges who appear to be “up for sale” to the highest bidder of campaign contributions that helped to get the judge elected.

Due to the fact that the specific details of selection and term limits of Texas judges is written into the Texas Constitution, a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the procedure (Monroe). Although amendment to reform the selection of judges from election based to merit based started in 1946, all such proposals have been consistently rejected by the State Bar of Texas, as well as the Texas Legislature (Monroe).

The Judicial Campaign Fairness Act of 1995 put limits on the amounts individuals and law firms can donate to judges as campaign contributions (Monroe).  Even so, the corruption in Texas courtrooms is evidence by a study of judges, attorneys, and courtroom personnel, of whom about half believed judges in Texas were making courtroom decisions based on the influence of funds received for campaign contributions (Courts).

A hotbed issue in the current special session of the Texas Legislature is the proposed “bathroom bill,” which would mandate that a person use the restroom that matches the sex on the person’s birth certificate, as opposed to the gender the person identifies with.  Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick have tried to get this bill passed with support from some religious leaders.  The National Episcopal Church is standing against the proposed “bathroom bill” (Ura).  Church officials and leaders joined together in Austin to show that they oppose the passing of the “bathroom bill,” and reject the idea that religion should be used as a reason to support the bill.  Church leaders noted that the current discrimination and fear of transgender bathroom rights are “. . . very similar to Jim Crow discrimination [laws in the past] . . . “ (Ura).  The church leaders were holding signs reading, “My faith DOES NOT discriminate” (Ura).  The bill recently passed the Texas Senate committee on July 21, 2017 (Katz).  

The problems with the Texas Constitutions are not likely to be solved in the near future.  Choosing one version over another would devalue the original will of the framers or of the voters of the current Texas Constitution (Boatright).  A possible solution would be to completely redo the state constitution.  Since Texans are generally untrusting of government and would suspect possible corruption with the framing of an entirely new state constitution, this is not likely to happen.  Lawmakers and other special interest groups with deep pockets also don’t want to lose any benefits that the current Texas Constitution gives them.  Many Texans don’t realize the problems that exist with the Texas Constitution, and wouldn’t necessarily see the need to have a new Texas Constitution.

Works Cited

Boatright, Jason. "No One Knows What the Texas Constitution Is." Texas Review of Law & Politics, vol. 18, no. 1, Fall 2013, pp. 1-26. Academic Search Complete, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94798299&site=ehost-live. Accessed 11 July 2017.

The Courts and the Legal Profession in Texas--The Insider's Perspective. Data Appendix : A Survey of Judges, Court Personnel, and Attorneys :A Joint Project. Austin, Department of Research and Analysis, State Bar of Texas : Texas Office of Court Administration, 1999.

"Government: Constitution of Texas." Texas Almanac, 2014/2015, pp. 471-72. Texas Reference Center, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tih&AN=90581791&site=ehost-live. Accessed 11 July 2017.

Katz, Ryan. "After Emotional Day, Texas’ Bathroom Bill Moves to Full Senate Debate." The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company LLC, 21 July 2017, www.thedailybeast.com/texas-bathroom-bill-has-its-day-of-reckoning. Accessed 24 July 2017.

Monroe, Billy. "Partisan Elections in Texas: Best Choice or Reform Failure." Texas Hispanic Journal of Law & Policy, vol. 21, Spring 2015, pp. 1-29. Academic Search Complete, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=110558159&site=ehost-live. Accessed 11 July 2017.

Ura, Alexa. "National Episcopal Church Urges Defeat of Texas 'Bathroom Bill.'" The Texas Tribune, 20 July 2017. www.texastribune.org, www.texastribune.org/2017/07/20/national-episcopal-church-urges-defeat-texas-bathroom-bill/. Accessed 24 July 2017.

"Voters Approve Changes to the Texas Constitution." TIPRO Target Newsletter, vol. 18, no. 22, 5 Nov. 2015, p. 1. Texas Reference Center, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tih&AN=110948081&site=ehost-live. Accessed 11 July 2017.

Williams, Robert F. "Evolving State Constitutional Processes of Adoption, Revision, and Amendment: The Path Ahead." Arkansas Law Review, vol. 69, no. 2, 2016, pp. 553-77. Academic Search Complete, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=118436508&site=ehost-live. Accessed 11 July 2017.