Texas Constitution Essay

Republican Texas and Its Problematic Constitution

Patricia Obinku

Spring 2018 GOVT 2306-86086

Professor Mian Hayaud-Din

1190 Words

From the time the Texas Constitution was constructed, and still until today, a general distrust and dislike for a strong government presence manifested itself in the form of articles and amendments. Looking at the relationship between those who wrote the initial constitution, those who amended it, and its citizen whom ratify it, it may become apparent why there is so much discord, why there have been many calls to rewrite the constitution, and why those attempts have failed.

Two constitutions have been known to the state of Texas. The constitution of 1836, drawn up after independence from Mexico,

which was not nearly as long as the document that has been come to know and love today. That constitution was also more aptly named the constitution for the Republic of Texas.

A new constitution written in 1845 was double the size and meant to prepare Texas for admittance into the United States of America, which is simply called today the Texas Constitution. "Seven different state constitutions have governed Texas…The current Texas Constitution is commonly known as the Constitution of 1876…it has been amended 474 times in seventy different ratification elections" (Boatright 2). Still, despite its many changes one thing has rang true throughout-Texas dislikes a strong government presence and is very resistant to change. Republican Governor E. J. Davis is perhaps one of the most prominent causes for Texas' strong stance and according to modern day republicans for very good reason too. Before his election in 1870, 1869 saw another form of the Texas Constitution ratified which allowed the governor to exercise most state powers, gave more time for a governor to stay in office, and a host of other decisions which had no hint that Texans distrusted a centralized government. When Governor Davis, a former Union soldier, found his new home in a confederate office it wasn't surprising that "his service…was

a bitter reminder of Texas's defeat in the Civil War" (Jones et al. 59). Even without his link to the embarrassing loss Governor Davis did exhibit tyrannical behavior, toppling Texas' system of law and order, drastically increasing taxes, and leaving a state debt the likes of which those times had not seen. 1874 brought a political opponent and victor to the forefront. Richard Coke, a democrat, won the election that should've sent Governor Davis out of office. Instead of going quietly, however, Governor Davis tried to use the vast political latitude allotted to him by the 1869 constitution to try to invalidate Coke's election. He called upon then President Grant (and deaf ears at that) for assistance and surrounded himself in the governor's office with state police. It was only when an equally matched group of Richard Coke's supporters rallied together to march to the capitol that David ran; taking with him what all Texans at the time "would regard as the most corrupt and abusive in the state's history" (Jones et al. 59) and ushering in the age of government mistrust.

After ridding the capital of E.J.

Davis in 1874, it came as no surprise that in 1875 Texans were eager to once again rewrite the constitution in such a way that the governor could never again hold most of the power to use and abuse as he saw fit. A democratic group called the Texas Grangers, which had started forming in 1873, championed the new constitution. By the time the Grangers were done local government retained the power, the governor's term had been shortened, officials' salaries slashed, appointments by order of votes, and a requirement of segregation. The constitution of 1877 catered to white men, their fears, and their wants so despite outcry from African Americans, republicans, and many other in 1876 the constitution was ratified. It is this constitution that stands today, albeit with several amendments attached. Nevertheless, having such a lengthy constitution which is centered around desiring the least amount of government interference possible is conflicting. It is conflicting especially in Texas because second to only state taxes, grants from the federal government is the largest source of revenue. With Texas' growing population, large number of seniors, and citizens in poverty it doesn't appear that the need for federal assistance is going to decrease any time soon. Since 1975 the dependence on federal aid has steadily increased, reaching a peak during the recession at 41% now settling down around 35%--still showing a substantial

need.

Being that Texas continues to grow, inviting new minds and nationalities, there have been several attempts at constitution reform. All attempts have been met with discourse and few meaningful changes have been made. Article 17 of the Texas Constitution establishes the constitutional amendment process as a two-step process, meaning at least 21 senators and 100 representatives must support the proposal of a new amendment and then it must receive a majority vote from those voting to actually be put into effect. In a place with a Republican state of mind it has been understandably difficult for those who would want to amend, and more recently shorten, the constitution to make it come to fruition. Since the 1876 constitution which was written by white male democrats for white male modern day republicans, anything short of supreme court mandates or amendments to further push the "less government intrusion" agenda have fallen flat. As aforementioned the Texas Constitution has been amended 474 times, the fourth most among the states and second in length only to Alabama. "Change [to the constitution] is necessary partly because of outdated provisions written during a rural, frontier era" (Robison). Amendments can also be proposed by interest groups hoping to favorably affect their own interests. In the mid 1970's a major attempt was made to change the constitution. The point of the attempt was to rid the document of deadwood which is defined as inoperable constitutional provisions that have been either voided by a conflicting U.S. constitutional or statutory law or made irrelevant by changing circumstances and contexts. With that, it aimed to short the constitution a considerable amount, reorganize it, and make it a document that Texas citizens could then more easily understand. Nonetheless, "proposals to voters in the November 4, 1975 election included eight amendments that…all were rejected by the voters" (Calkins). Those against the amendments highlighted the points which could be presented to voters as a push for an increased a government presence and a selfish push for power. Billy Monroe hit the nail on the head saying, "party affiliation is always very important in explaining election outcomes so the political parties have no incentives to move to an alternative system" (3). A republican dialect heavy document, voted on by a republican majority needs not yield to the screams for change by the minority.

All things considered, it seems increasingly important to attempt to have another Constitutional Convention to address the problems with the current Texas Constitution. Due to the fact that those in charge seem content to keep a document better suited for a century ago, it is without a doubt that it becomes necessary to not only amend it but continue to consider a major revamping. Jason Boatright wrote in his article "No One Knows What The Texas Constitution Is," "the frequency with which the current constitution has been amended has made it notoriously long, detailed, and difficult to understand" (2). Since the Texas Constitution is so outdated and there has been 474 amendments, it can be inferred that the frequency with which voters have been called to make decisions is exceptionally large and there is no reason to think this trend would decrease without major action taken. Having said that, it's to a great degree negligible to expect the citizens of Texas to be able to understand their constitution as it stands as well as make informed decisions regarding it. "In reality, faced with trivial, confusing, or technical proposals, voters display little interest in amendment elections" (Jones et al. 71). With reform, there could be room for the Texas Constitution to flourish while still keeping its need of a less powerful government. Even so, that would require clearing the previously referred to deadwood and a group of politicians willing get behind the wheel of a bulldozer to do so.

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. EBSCOhost, ezp.tccd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94798299&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Calkins, Howard A. "The Need for Constitutional Revision in Texas," Texas Law Review
21, May 1943, https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mhc10.
Jones, Mark et al. Texas Politics Today 2017-2018 Edition. Wadsworth Publishing.
Kindle Edition. 2016
Monroe, Billy. "Partisan Elections in Texas: Best Choice or Reform Failure." Texas
Hispanic Journal of Law & Policy, vol. 21, Spring 2015, pp. 1-29. EBSCOhost, ezp.tccd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=110558159&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Robison, Clay. "Why so many amendments to the Texas Constitution?" Houston
Chronicle, 11 November 2007, https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Why-so-many-amendments-to-the-Texas-Constitution-1796858.php.