Difference between revisions of "Constitutional revision"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
A '''constitutional revision''' is a holistic and fundamental change to a [[state constitution]], in contrast to a [[constitutional amendment]], which is a piecemeal change to part of a constitution.
+
{{law}}A '''constitutional revision''' is a holistic and fundamental change to a [[state constitution]], in contrast to a [[constitutional amendment]], which is a piecemeal change to part of a constitution.
  
 
Whether a particular change to a constitution is a revision, or an amendment, is a gray area that has been the subject of litigation.
 
Whether a particular change to a constitution is a revision, or an amendment, is a gray area that has been the subject of litigation.
Line 5: Line 5:
 
After [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]] was approved in [[California]] in [[California 2008 ballot measures|2008]], one of two main lines of reasoning in the various lawsuits filed against it is that it amounted to a '''revision''' of the [[California Constitution]], rather than an amendment.  [[Article XVIII, California Constitution|Article 18]] of the [[California Constitution]] says that voters can initiate an amendment.  The legal claim was that Proposition 8 amounted to a revision, and revisions can't be accomplished through the [[ballot initiative]] process.  (The [[California Supreme Court]] ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment, not a revision.)  
 
After [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]] was approved in [[California]] in [[California 2008 ballot measures|2008]], one of two main lines of reasoning in the various lawsuits filed against it is that it amounted to a '''revision''' of the [[California Constitution]], rather than an amendment.  [[Article XVIII, California Constitution|Article 18]] of the [[California Constitution]] says that voters can initiate an amendment.  The legal claim was that Proposition 8 amounted to a revision, and revisions can't be accomplished through the [[ballot initiative]] process.  (The [[California Supreme Court]] ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment, not a revision.)  
  
===Relevant legal cases===
+
==Relevant legal cases==
  
 
* ''[[McFadden v. Jordan]],'' 1948.
 
* ''[[McFadden v. Jordan]],'' 1948.
Line 11: Line 11:
 
* ''[[People v. Frierson]]'', 1979.
 
* ''[[People v. Frierson]]'', 1979.
 
* ''[[In re Lance W.]],'' 1985
 
* ''[[In re Lance W.]],'' 1985
* ''[[Raven v. Deukmejian]],'' 1990.  In this case, the court struck down an initiative that would have barred the state courts from interpreting the state constitution in a more defendant-friendly way than the federal constitution is interpreted, on a wide range of constitutional provisions.<ref>[http://volokh.com/posts/1214187366.shtml ''Volokh Conspiracy'', "Is the Proposed California Same-Sex Marriage Ban an Unconstitutional "Revision" by Initiative?", June 23, 2008]</ref>
+
* ''[[Raven v. Deukmejian]],'' 1990.  In this case, the court struck down an initiative that would have barred the state courts from interpreting the state constitution in a more defendant-friendly way than the federal constitution is interpreted, on a wide range of constitutional provisions.<ref>[http://volokh.com/posts/1214187366.shtml ''Volokh Conspiracy'', "Is the Proposed California Same-Sex Marriage Ban an Unconstitutional "Revision" by Initiative?," June 23, 2008]</ref>
 
* ''[[Adams v. Gunter]]''.  This is a 1970 decision of the [[Florida Supreme Court]] that struck down an initiative to change Florida's state legislature to a unicameral rather than a bicameral body on the grounds that the initiative was a revision, not an amendment.
 
* ''[[Adams v. Gunter]]''.  This is a 1970 decision of the [[Florida Supreme Court]] that struck down an initiative to change Florida's state legislature to a unicameral rather than a bicameral body on the grounds that the initiative was a revision, not an amendment.
 
In these cases, the initiatives in question were found to be amendments, not unconstitutional revisions.
 
In these cases, the initiatives in question were found to be amendments, not unconstitutional revisions.
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references/>
+
{{reflist}}
 
{{State constitutions}}
 
{{State constitutions}}
[[category:State constitutions]]
+
[[Category:State constitutions]]
 
[[Category:Terms and definitions]]
 
[[Category:Terms and definitions]]

Latest revision as of 07:50, 18 March 2014

Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Laws governing
local ballot measures
A constitutional revision is a holistic and fundamental change to a state constitution, in contrast to a constitutional amendment, which is a piecemeal change to part of a constitution.

Whether a particular change to a constitution is a revision, or an amendment, is a gray area that has been the subject of litigation.

After Proposition 8 was approved in California in 2008, one of two main lines of reasoning in the various lawsuits filed against it is that it amounted to a revision of the California Constitution, rather than an amendment. Article 18 of the California Constitution says that voters can initiate an amendment. The legal claim was that Proposition 8 amounted to a revision, and revisions can't be accomplished through the ballot initiative process. (The California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment, not a revision.)

Relevant legal cases

In these cases, the initiatives in question were found to be amendments, not unconstitutional revisions.

In McFadden in 1948, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative as an unconstitutional revision on the grounds that it added 21,000 words to what was then a 55,000-word Constitution. The 1948 court said the initiative was 'revisory rather than amendatory in nature,' because of the 'far reaching and multifarious substance of the measure ...; (p. 332) which dealt with such varied and diverse subjects as retirement pensions, gambling, taxes, oleomargarine, healing arts, civic centers, senate reapportionment, fish and game, and surface mining. We noted that the proposal would have repealed or substantially altered at least 15 of the 25 articles which then comprised the Constitution."[2]

References