Unformatted Attachment Preview
Amending the Texas Constitution
The Texas constitution, like most state constitutions, is
generally classified as unorganized and hard to navigate. The
amount, length, and specificity of the constitution has led to
491 approved amendments, putting the Texas constitution amongst
the most amended in the nation (Legislative Reference Library of
Texas). This excessive amount of revision leads many to believe
that the amending process must be very simple. However, amending
the Texas constitution is a task that requires many steps and
procedures before it is approved.
Unlike many other states, the Texas constitution only has
one way to be amended. First, two-thirds of the legislative
branch must vote to approve the amendment. Next, a date is set
for a public election to vote on the amendment’s approval, at
least three months prior to which the amendment must be posted
on every county newspaper once a week for four weeks. If the
public votes for the amendment by a simple majority, more than
one-half, the governor proclaims the amendment approved. Also,
it is important to note that, unlike the national government,
the Texas governor is not permitted to veto after the two-thirds
legislative vote for the amendment has been met (Newell et al.
54).
The 1970’s was an important decade for the Texas
constitution because it clarified the legislators’ ability to
hold a constitutional convention, which was authorized by a 1972
amendment. That same amendment also provided the basis for a new
constitution proposed in the following years. (Newell et al.
57,58). A constitutional convention was held, and a proposal for
a modern, more streamlined constitution was drafted. This was
quickly shut down by two red herrings, triggering bible belt
conservatives and organized labor groups to vote against the
draft, preventing it from going to public vote. Despite this,
interest in a new constitution did not cease. Drawing from the
1973 revision commission, a new constitution was again drafted
in 1975 which gave more power to the governor and would provide
property tax relief and a tax on the refining of petroleum. With
strong interests battling on both sides of this proposed
constitution, the approval went to a public election. Despite a
campaign to convince voters of the need of a new constitution,
the possibility of increased governmental power and spending far
outweighed the worth of the new constitution. By a two-to-one
vote, the constitutional reform was ultimately shut down by the
public, and another attempt at constitution reformation has yet
to make it to public vote. (Newell et al. 58)
With the failure to reform the constitution, the amount of
amendments to the constitution have increased drastically since
1975, with a combined total of 259 proposed amendments from
1980-2010, of which 225 amendments were approved (Newell et al.
55). This staggering statistic supports my opinion that Texas
would benefit from a broad and flexible constitution versus the
current, rigid one that requires constant revision. Broad
constitutions allow amendments to be reserved for more pressing
matters while rigid constitutions call for changes to be
constantly made, wasting the public’s time, energy, and money.
Works Cited
Library, Texas Legislative Reference. “Constitutional
Amendments.” Legislative Reference Library | Legislation |
Constitutional Amendments,
www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/ConstAmends/index.cfm. Accessed
14 July 2017.
Newell, Charldean, et al. Texas Politics.
cengagebrain.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781285616995/cfi/2!/4
/4@0.00:29.7. Accessed 14 July 2017.
Writing Assignment 1
Writing Assignment requirements are listed in Papers/Projects
Writing Assignment Rubric
Description
Rubric Detail
Levels of Achievement
Criteria
Profient
Competent
Novice
Unsatisfactory
Key Elements
Weight
25.00%
100 %
Learner fully correlates
and integrates key
elements to substantiate
thesis statement
85 %
Learner mostly correlates
and/or integrates key
elements to substantiate
thesis statement
60 %
Learner partially or did not
correlate and/or integrate key
elements to substantiate
thesis statement.
0 %
Learner neither correlated
nor integrated key elements
to substantiate thesis
statement
Analysis
Weight
25.00%
100 %
Learner presented and
substantiated a clear
debatable claim
85 %
Learner mostly presented
and/or substantiated a clear
debatable claim.
60 %
Learner partially or did not
present and/or substantiate a
clear debatable claim.
0 %
Learner neither presented
nor substantiated a clear
debatable claim
Writing Conventions
Weight
25.00%
100 %
Learner fully included and
transitioned between a
clear beginning, middle,
and ending. No significant
errors in grammar were
evident.
85 %
Learner mostly included and
transitioned between a clear
beginning, middle, and
ending. Moderate errors in
grammar may have been
evident.
60 %
Learner partially included
and/or transitioned between
a clear beginning, middle,
and ending. Significant errors
in grammar may have been
evident.
0%
Learner neither included nor
transitioned between a clear
beginning, middle, and
ending. Significant errors in
grammar may have been
evident.
Citations/References
Weight
25.00%
100 %
Learner fully integrated
and cited source material
within evaluation.
85 %
Learner mostly cited and
integrated source material
within evaluation
60 %
Learner partially integrated
and/or cited source material
within evaluation
0 %
Learner neither integrated
nor cited source material
within evaluation.