Texas Constitution Of 1876 Essay

The Texas Constitution of 1876 changed E.J. Davis’s radically Republican Constitution of 1869 into that of a farmer supporting, conservatively Democratic one. Written by 90 delegates determined to lessen the strong power of the government, the Constitution of 1876 was a document written precisely for its people and society at the time. However, with changing times and the declining population in rural areas, it becomes apparent that the agricultural era based constitution is in dire need of alterations. Although the Texas Constitution has been called many things since its ratification, one thing both supporters and opponents of rewriting the historic document can agree on, is that it is anything but flawless.

For many years now the question

regarding whether the Texas constitution should be rewritten has been a topic of much debate. Many agree that the document is old and outdated, and requires a plethora of amendments to be passed in order to adequately run the state and its people. Supporters of changing the constitution believe that there is a ridiculous amount of amendments that have been added over the decades, many of which ask voters to decide on complex proposals that do not even make sense to the common man. The main reason for the lengthiness of the constitution is because there is “no equivalent of the ‘necessary and proper clause’ [making] our state’s document [grow] like kudzu” (Editorial: Bloated Texas Constitution needs full revision). A necessary and proper clause would give the government more power, but would also require less amendments to be ratified by the people to get more work done. Many citizens do not believe that it is necessary to weigh in on other counties’ problems, especially if their own county has issues of its own that need to be dealt with. As a result, “turnout is typically less than 10 percent- often far less” (Editorial: Bloated Texas Constitution needs full revision). For this reason, many people are in agreement with giving more power to the government, so that they may go on with more important things that may affect their own personal life. It is these people that are frustrated with the constitution and its continuous need for new “tire patches every two years” (Editorial: Bloated Texas Constitution needs full revision).
On the other hand, there are strong believers that think the Texas constitution functions fine and should not be revised despite its defects.

People who oppose the ratification of another constitution generally believe that the amendment process is a suitable way to allow changes to the document when needed, while also taking the power from the elected and giving it to the electorate. In other words, by adding amendments to the constitution, the constitution can still cover modern issues while limiting the finalizing power of the government, and instead, leaving this decisive power in the hands of the people. Additionally, the ratification of a new constitution could not only be a risky decision, but could potentially be a chance of failure for yet another Texas constitution. Although the current constitution is based on the infrastructure of a society that was established over a hundred years ago, the moralistic and individualistic views of conservative Texans are in compliance with the main ideas of this historic document. The present day constitution also makes it extremely difficult for any legislation to be passed or even considered, fulfilling many citizens’ wishes that the government not intervene in one’s personal life. The Texas constitution keeps the power in the electorate, always allowing for its citizens to a have a say in what should be added, while keeping as much government intrusion out as

possible.
In order for change to happen, however, certain steps would have to take place. For example, with approval from voters, the legislature can call a constitutional convention to propose the writing of a new Texas constitution. An amendment would be passed by the voters that allows for the legislature to come together and create a new constitution. After drafting a fresh constitution at the convention, the “new constitution would then be presented to state voters for ratification” (Champagne & Harpham 90). This gives a lot of power to the people because candidates “have to be elected, and proposed changes adopted by a constitutional convention also must be approved by voters,” giving the electorate the first and final say. (Texas Constitution 48).
I personally believe that the Texas constitution does not need to be revised.

Although there are many benefits that may come from rewriting the constitution, I think that as of now, the people of Texas are simply not interested enough in participating in this sort of change. A lot of Texans live by the saying “If it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it,” but I think there is more to this argument than just leaving things the way they are because of laziness. The state of Texas has always favored minimal government intervention and has always been a state of moralistic/individualistic mentality. For that reason, I believe that the action of keeping the current constitution, no matter how flawed, would be the best decision. This constitution makes it painfully difficult for legislature to be passed, however, this also limits the amount of government involvement that could potentially be implemented into one’s life. In addition to this, by adding amendments to the constitution, it is guaranteed that the citizens of Texas will have the last word on whether the amendment should be ratified or not. This ultimately allows for the citizens to have the last say, no matter how low the voter turnout may be. Until Texas becomes a liberal state, with the yearning for more government involvement, I do not think it will be necessary to write a new Texas constitution that will undoubtedly expand the power of the

government.