Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

Community Voices features opinion pieces from a wide variety of authors and perspectives. (Submission Guidelines)

The politics of constitutional amendments: Lessons from Minnesota’s history

All indications are that there will be at least one if not multiple state constitutional amendments on the 2012 ballot for Minnesotans to consider. Possibilities include a ban on same-sex marriage, photo identification for voting, a requirement for a 60 percent legislative vote to raise taxes, and perhaps others. Supporters of these proposals contend the public has a right to vote on them;  critics respond no, asserting that resorting to amending the Minnesota Constitution is unprecedented and inappropriate. Who is right?  There may be no definitive answer, yet state history reveals 150-plus years of amendments, yielding interesting conclusions about constitutional politics.

Since ratification of the Minnesota Constitution in 1858, there have been 211 constitutional amendments proposed to the voters, with 119 adopted. Until 1898, constitutional amendments required a majority of both houses in the Legislature to propose them to the voters, with a simple majority of those voting on the amendments to approve them. In 1898 the amending process was changed, thereafter requiring a qualified majority of all who voted in a specific election to vote in favor the amendment. Voting in the election but not voting on the amendment counted as a no vote. Amending the Constitution was made more difficult because critics claimed special interests and groups were using the process to further their politics.

Over time, interesting patterns have developed regarding when amendments have been offered and adopted.

Era Dates Proposed Adopted Percentage adopted

Nineteenth Century

1858-1898 66 48 73%
Progressive Era 1900-1918 45 10 22%
1920s 1920-1928 15 7 47%
Depression & WWII 1930-1944 20 8 40%
Post WWII 1948-1972 38 26 68%
Contemporary 1974-2012 27 20 74%
  Total 211 119 56%

 

During the 19th century, 73 percent of the 66 proposed amendments were adopted. After changes in the amendment process, the Progressive Era — a period supposedly notable for significant social and economic reform in the Minnesota and across the country — only 10 of 45 or 22 percent  of the amendments were adopted. Many amendments were offered during this time, but few were accepted by the voters.

Conversely, since World War II, and especially since the Constitution was reorganized in 1974, nearly 70 percent of all proposed amendments were adopted.

Constitutional amendments come in bunches. Many times in Minnesota history three, four, or more amendments have been on the ballot at the same time. The record was made in 1914, with 11 amendments proposed, one adopted. Because of frequent amending, no definitive pattern emerges regarding whether they encouraged turnout, but there is no doubt that in their day proposals to let women vote or authorize gambling drove excitement and turnout. Moreover, in years when more than one amendment appeared on the ballot, usually one dominated the public’s attention, sometimes damaging the prospects of the other amendments from passing.

Looking at the types of amendments proposed, they fall into four groups. There are structural amendments addressing the organization of government, such as the length of the legislative session, giving the governor the veto, or regulating the size of the judiciary. Financial amendments include authorizing the state to impose taxes, bond, give special bonuses to military veterans, or otherwise to spend money. Rights amendments deal with matters of individual rights, such as franchise and jury trials. Finally, regulatory amendments dealt with various aspects of regulating private corporations, such as the liability of its officers.

Of the  211 amendments proposed, they can be classified as follows:

  Proposed Adopted Percentage adopted
Structural 97 57 53%
Finance 82 50 61%
Rights 17 12 71%
Regulatory 15 6 40%
Total 211 119 56%

 

What do we learn about the content of the amendments proposed and passed?  

Clearly many addressed contentious issues of the time. No, they did not address abortion or marriage, and surprisingly none sought to ban alcohol sales. These are today’s hot-button issues, or ones that we might consider contentious. But controversial is relative to the times, and amendments dealing with regulation of railroads during the robber-baron era, or giving women or blacks the right to vote were the headlines of the day. Resorting to constitutional amendments as a populist political strategy has been a part of Minnesota politics from the beginning.

But looking at the content of the amendments adopted, some interesting patterns emerge. Among the 12 adopted amendments addressing individual rights, five of them expanded voting rights. In the entire history of the state only one constitutional amendment, in 1896, restricted voting rights. Here it limited the practice, in place until then, that allowed aliens or noncitizens to vote in Minnesota. This practice encouraged and welcomed Scandinavians to Minnesota. Three other amendments also limited rights, addressing issues surrounding use of juries in civil and misdemeanor cases. The message is clear — amendments to the Constitution have generally expanded rights, especially voting, and not contracted them.

Second, among the 50 adopted amendments dealing with finance, 17 authorized new taxes, bonding authority, or spending, and only six restricted or made it more difficult for public spending. Of those six, four in the 19th century restricted the ability to use public money to help the railroads (again seeking to limit the power of the robber barons), one in the 19th century barred the spending of public money for religious schools (Minnesota’s Blaine Amendment, similar to those adopted in many other states about the same time), and one amendment during the Depression prohibited the taxing of personal property and farm equipment. Minnesota’s history thus demonstrates more a pattern of enabling spending to build schools and undertake public projects than restricting it.

Votes and not history will decide whether amendments on the ballot in 2012 will pass. Yet the current amendments directed toward restricting rights, voting, and public financing seem out of sync with Minnesota’s history.

But for good or bad, resorting to the amendment process is a part of Minnesota history to address politically charged issues of the day.

David Schultz is a professor at Hamline University School of Business, where he teaches classes on privatization and public, private, and nonprofit partnerships. He is the editor of the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE).

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by Lena Gardner on 05/18/2011 - 11:25 am.

    Just a possible correction if I am reading the article correctly. The article reads:

    “In the entire history of the state only one constitutional amendment, in 1896, restricted voting rights.”

    However, in 1865 and 1867 a proposed constitutional amendment giving African-Americans the right to vote was rejected by the votes. In my mind those would count as restricting voting rights. Nonetheless, in 1868 the same proposed amendment was voted on again and this time passed by the people. I think your point still clearly stands but I did just want to offer that that sentence about the “only one constitutional amendment, in 1896, restricted voting rights” doesn’t seem entirely historically accurate to me though in the end the same process was used to ultimately expand vote rights.

    http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/mngov/constitutionalamendments.aspx

    thanks,
    Lena

  2. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 05/18/2011 - 12:39 pm.

    Since the B.S. in support of these amendments will be flying fast and thick, the most important factor will be for those who care and have the resources,…

    to commit themselves to making sure even the most INattentive voter knows what it is that each of these proposed amendments would REALLY do.

    Lacking that, those throwing the B.S. into the distribution fans of the media in order to blanket the state with it will convince the voters that they’re not smelling B.S. at all, but ROSES, and, thereby, convince them to vote against their own self interest and that of the children and grandchildren.

    And where, exactly, is that “Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!” amendment, anyway?

  3. Submitted by Cecil North on 05/18/2011 - 02:49 pm.

    Thanks, David, for providing facts to back up what many of us already feel: that the politics of this legislature are as alien to Minnesotan values as the Man on the Moon. Sadly, I don’t think they know or care.

  4. Submitted by David Schultz on 05/18/2011 - 03:57 pm.

    Lena is correct about the two no votes. My point was that of amendments actually adopted only one limited voting rights.

    One more correction: The Legislative Reference Library is the source of some of my research. They (we) found two more amendments that had been proposed in 1914. One was rejected and one rejected. This means a total of 213 amendments have been proposed, 120 adopted. The Secretary of State’s website and the Legislative Reference Library now have the correct the numbers, as do I. No one meant to confuse or trick anyone here, we just missed two amendments in our historical research.

    Thank you.

  5. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 05/18/2011 - 05:06 pm.

    “…the law should change to reflect new circumstances and public opinion and judges should calibrate interpretations in light of new facts and circumstances. The law should not be fixed in the past, reflecting old prejudices and beliefs. To argue that is to assert that the law should be frozen in the past. Democracy is about consent of the present, not of the past.” David Schultz, Minnpost, May 3

    It seems apparent that Mr. Schultz does not like the law that was passed denying same sex marriage.

    It also seems apparent that Mr. Schultz is not a big fan of amending the constitution, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.

    However, he is in favor of judges making these decisions rather than the legislature or the people.

    Is this a fair characterization?

  6. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 05/18/2011 - 10:58 pm.

    Ron G. says: “It also seems apparent that Mr. Schultz is not a big fan of amending the Constitution, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.

    “However, he is in favor of judges making these decisions rather than the legislature or the people.”

    Did we read the same article, Mr. Gotzman?

Leave a Reply