constitutional amendment

  • October 24, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Jason Steed, Associate at Bell Nunnally, and president of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Lawyer Chapter

    *This is part threeof a three part series.

    In part 1, I suggested that predictability is the real value that term limits have to offer, and that this ought to be the focus in nonpartisan arguments for judicial term limits. And in part 2, I tried to briefly address some of the practical problems that must be solved before term limits can be imposed. In this post I want to have a little fun thinking about what term limits might look like in real life.

    In part 1 I mentioned the circumstances surrounding the 1968 election, which led to Nixon making four appointments to the Supreme Court in a single term. Let’s imagine that the public’s reaction to this revolution in the Court’s composition produced (quickly!) a constitutional amendment to impose the 18-year term limits we’ve been talking about. And let’s imagine that the only way the Republicans would go along with this, in 1972, was if everything could go into effect immediately—so that Nixon, who was a shoo-in for reelection (beating George McGovern 49 states to 1), could be assured the opportunity to appoint two more Supreme Court justices before leaving office. (Of course, no one would know at the time that Nixon would be forced to resign in 1974.)

  • September 18, 2014
    Guest Post

    by U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn). This post is part of our 2014 Constitution Day symposium.

    The right to vote is under attack in many of our states. The Supreme Court is piling on. If you take the decisions in Shelby, McCutcheon, and Citizen’s Untied, you could conclude that the Supreme Court is making it easier to buy an election than to vote in one. 

    We need to amend the Constitution to declare an affirmative right to vote for all Americans. Prior to ratifying the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments to the Constitution, millions of Americans were denied the right to vote based on the color of their skin, their gender, and their age. All three amendments, along with the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, outlawed discrimination, but didn’t protect Americans’ right to go to the polls. 

    Many states have found ways around outright discrimination based on race, gender, and age through voter ID laws, ending same-day registration and early-voting, and slowing the move to online voter registration. Widespread voting fraud is often the justification for these laws; however dozens of non-partisan organizations have discredited this claim. In fact, voter fraud is very rare.  Thirty-two states have voter ID laws that keep some 23 million Americans from voting. Those without photo ID are disproportionately low-income, disabled, minority, young, and older voters.  

    Voters in 15 states will find it’s much harder to vote this year than it was in 2012. Some of the Americans in these states were protected by section four of the VRA before it was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelby. They’re now victims of a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters who might threaten their majorities. 

    At a time when the Supreme Court is gutting the Voting Rights Act and opening the campaign finance flood gates, we should be vigilant in fighting laws that suppress voting and drown out the political speech of everyday Americans. An affirmative right to vote means Americans can exercise their right to vote without political interference. Under our current system without a guaranteed right to vote, over 8,000 voting jurisdictions make decisions about how to administer elections. The result is massive inequality between jurisdictions, both unintentional and intentional. 

  • December 11, 2012
    Guest Post

    by Dan Mayer, Legal Fellow at Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign, which is working towards a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United v. FEC and limiting the influence of corporations and money in elections.

    Six billion dollars. That’s just the reported amount spent to elect or defeat the entire slate of federal candidates in the 2012 cycle.

    To be sure, some of the biggest players in the super PAC game weren’t very efficient about how they used the unlimited contributions they took from their ultra-wealthy individual and corporate patrons. Court rulings in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania put some of the most egregious voter suppression efforts on hold while invigorated civil rights groups worked to turn out every eligible voter they could find. Several prominent candidates suffered “legitimate” humiliation and defeat. And apparently, 47 percent of America wasn’t going to vote for Mitt Romney anyway (or so we hear). 

    Does any of that mean that money doesn’t matter, that the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission era is over as quickly as it began? Don’t bet your democracy on it.

    The Obama campaign outspent the Romney campaign, $549 million to $336 million. The national party committees were close in fundraising (a mere $50 million GOP advantage), but Democrats actually outspent Republicans $814 to $776 million. Outside groups, some disclosing their donors, some not, favored conservatives by $855 million to $406 million in “independent” spending. For all that, in the first full-scale conflagration since Citizen United, the great powers basically fought to a draw, barely moving the lines in Congress.

  • September 13, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service Law George Washington University Law School. This post is part of an ACSblog Constitution Day Symposium.


    As Constitution Day approaches, there is much that will be and should be said in praise of the document that has successfully guided the United States for more than 220 years.  But when there is some part of our governance system that is broken, it does not denigrate the Constitution to recognize that and to propose to do something about it. That is, after all, why the Framers included Article V that makes it difficult, but not impossible, to correct a flaw in the grand design.

    Over 12 years ago, I signed on to a publication of The Constitution Project entitled "Great and Extraordinary Occasions: Developing Guidelines for Constitutional Change."  The authors argued that constitutional amendments should not be used without a showing of great need for an important part of our system and the absence of any lesser means of solving a problem.  I continue to hold that view, but have now concluded that those stringent criteria have been met and that only a constitutional amendment can fix the problem of uncontrolled spending in elections for public office.  Some would disagree because they believe that elections awash with money from those with strong economic (and sometimes other) interests in the outcome are good for democracy (or for the interests that they support), and hence would oppose such an amendment on its merits.  But for those who decry the current excesses in campaign contributions and expenditures, there is little choice other than to amend the Constitution.

    Much of the discussion about this issue lays the blame solely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. But as I have detailed elsewhere, “It’s Not Just Citizens United,” that decision is only one part of a much larger set of problems, going back to 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, when the Court held that the First Amendment precluded the Government from limiting the amount of money that individuals could spend to support candidates via independent expenditures.  In those days, that may have meant expenditures of at most tens of thousands of dollars, but in 2012 that has ballooned to tens of millions, significant portions of which go through organizations that collect money from multiple sources and whose independence is at least open to question.  Citizens United permitted for-profit corporations from doing what individuals can do on the independent expenditure side – albeit with vastly greater resources than all but a very few individuals – and many observers think that the century old ban on direct contributions by corporations is set for a similar demise.  Finally, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, the Court has put a serious crimp in the effort to create a public funding system by outlawing the effort to augment basic public funding to counter massive spending by an opponent that chooses not to be part of that system.  Additional disclosure would be good (assuming that Congress can pass it), but alone it cannot be enough to overcome these major rulings.  It is possible that the composition of the Court will change, but it is highly unlikely that all of these decisions will be overturned, which is pretty much what is needed.

  • September 10, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The effort to amend the Constitution to counter the ever-growing corporate influence on lawmakers and elections is a noble one, but there is a more useful and far-reaching way to correct the matter – make corporations more democratic. That’s law Professor Kent Greenfield’s take in a new article for Democracy.

    It’s an extensive piece that helps explain why the Supreme Court’s 2010 opinion in Citizens United v. FEC is quickly producing a corrosive effect on elections from coast to coast, but also why seeking a constitutional amendment is a wobbly strategy.

    Not long after the high court in Citizens United invalidated some major campaign finance regulation and found that corporations have nearly unfettered rights to funnel their expenditures into elections, an effort was launched to amend the Constitution.

    John Bonifaz and Jeffrey Clements co-founded Free Speech For People a group devoted to a constitution amendment overturning Citizens United.

    A recent debate with Bonifaz helped spur Greenfield to write the Democracy piece. Greenfield, who teaches business and constitutional law at Boston College, says that too many progressives have decided that constitutional law solution is needed to trump the Citizens United. Instead, Greenfield argues that it is corporations and how we understand them that need to change.

    “While the constitutional effort is defensive and palliative, a campaign to redesign the corporation itself would be affirmative and transformative,” Greenfield writes. “To cure Citizens United, we don’t have to amend the Constitution – we need to rethink corporations.”

    The nation’s laws governing corporations are weak and shareholders, despite widespread belief, do not have much to do with running corporations. (He notes for instance that shareholders are “not ‘owners’ in any meaningful way. If you own a share of General Motors, you will still be tossed out of its headquarters as a trespasser if you try to enter without an appointment.”) In Citizens United the Supreme Court majority, Greenfield notes, saw corporations as “associations of citizens,” but in reality America’s corporations are largely representative of the wealthy few, the 1 percent.