1
The Texas Constitution
Central Ideas
1. A constitution is a binding contract between a government and its citizens that reflects the
influence of the time and place in which it was written.
2. State constitutions tend to differ from the U.S. Constitution in that they are longer, more
frequently amended, and more likely to distribute power among numerous elected
officials and the people.
3. Texas’s multi-constitutional history is one of crisis, response, influence from political
elites, and accumulation of principles.
4. The contemporary Texas Constitution is extremely long, detailed, and disorganized, but a
close analysis of its structure can help to clarify the framers’ intentions.
5. Modern attempts at revising the constitution have been hampered not only by an inability
to reach consensus given the interests at stake, but also by the difficulty of presenting
complex issues to an uninformed electorate.
Introduction
The 1876 Constitution of Texas is a crumbling parchment booklet, a museum artifact stored
safely in the law library of the University of Texas at Austin.
Yet it’s this dog-eared booklet that established the contours, confines, and responsibilities of
Texas’s government that remain in effect to this very day. This is not to say, however, that it has
remained unchanged. Just as life experiences alter a person, nearly each year the unfolding
history of Texas prompts amendments to the state constitution. Lawmakers regularly adjust it in
response to changing circumstances, hoping that their revisions will better enable it to meet the
complex demands of modern life. So while those aging parchment papers carry much symbolic
weight, the constitution itself is actually a living document.
The Texas Constitution has two real-world jobs: it defines the pact between the state government
and its citizens, and it establishes the law that is the basis for Texas’s legal system. And as much
as it lays out lofty principles that guide the organization of society, it also affects the daily life of
ordinary Texans. The quality of the state roads you drive on and the public schools you attend is
determined, at least in some sense, by the words in the constitution.
I A constitution is a binding contract between a government and its citizens that reflects
the influence of the time and place in which it was written.
A constitution is a charter or plan of government that represents a pact between a government
and the people it governs. Just as a contract for buying a house or car outlines what the seller and
buyer each must do, a constitution identifies the powers, duties, obligations, and limitations of
the parties involved—in this case, the government and the people. In so doing, the constitution
establishes the fundamental law upon which the state legal system is built and creates procedures
for making laws, participating as a citizen voter, and taking other actions.
, 2
Constitutions define “the rules of the game” that are the basis of a functioning democracy, and
for this reason, people tend to revere their constitution as an institution above and beyond the
day-to-day politicking typically associated with government. Often, citizens think of their
constitution as a nearly sacred symbol that defines their political identity. Similarly, the mere
mention of “constitutional authority” seems to suggest a force that mere mortals dare not
question.
Constitutions do play an important role in our civic lives—defining them, in many ways. But is
such extreme reverence for constitutions warranted? A balanced view may be best. After all, the
people who write constitutions are deeply influenced by the historical and cultural context of
their time as well as by inherited rules and norms. It is true that constitutions express traditions
and lofty democratic ideals, which makes them command a certain respect. Yet they are also
pragmatic documents written to address real needs of society and government.
The priorities of society and the functions of governments tend to evolve over time, and so
updating constitutions through amendments can keep them relevant in the face of unavoidable
change. But sometimes mere amendments aren’t enough to maintain a constitution’s usefulness.
In response to great societal turmoil, leaders may sometimes choose—or be required by
circumstances—to discard the old constitution and create a new one to take its place.
In the United States we revere our Constitution so much that the idea of replacing it seems sacrilegious.
But top U.S. judges have pointed to the constitutions of Canada, South Africa, and the European Union
as being “sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace” thanks to
these documents’ treatment of the rights of diverse groups, including women and people with
disabilities.1 Even Thomas Jefferson saw constitutions as having limited shelf lives, writing that every
constitution “naturally expires” after 19 years because “the earth belongs always to the living
generation.” Apparently the rest of the world has agreed; on average, countries tend to discard their
constitutions about every two decades.2 By contrast, the U.S. Constitution has endured for more than
two centuries, and hasn’t even been amended since 1992.
State constitutions tend to differ from the U.S. Constitution in that they are longer, more
frequently amended, and more likely to distribute power among numerous elected
officials and the people.
Structure
In comparison to national constitutions, state constitutions are typically longer and are amended
more often. Today, only six states continue to operate under constitutions drafted before 1850.
One-quarter of today’s state constitutions were adopted after World War II, and the average state
has had three constitutions in its history. Though some have had as few as one or two
constitutions for their entire existence, many have had four or more. Louisiana (with 11
constitutions) and Georgia (with 10) top the list.
State constitutions average about 36,000 words, roughly four times as much as the U.S.
Constitution, whose total length, including amendments, is about 7,400 words. Alabama’s is the
, 3
longest, with more than 856 amendments—some 75 percent of which only cover a single city or
county. The Texas Constitution has the fourth highest number of amendments behind Alabama,
California, and South Carolina.
The length of a given constitution and its number of amendments seem to be related. When the
foundational document upon which a government is based contains a lot of specificity, this
reduces the flexibility with which the document may be interpreted; it then takes nothing short of
a constitutional amendment to change those details.
The average state constitution has been amended about 100 times. Only six of the 50 state
constitutions have been amended fewer than 27 times (the number of amendments to the U.S.
Constitution). Amendments often beget more amendments, because every time an amendment is
added, details are added as well. This increases the specificity of the document and, along with it,
the need to make further revisions as circumstances change.
You might think constitutional amendments are proposed only for matters of the greatest
importance, but this is not the case. In the 2003 special election, for instance, Texans were asked
about surplus fire equipment. Specifically, the question was whether a constitutional amendment
should be adopted to let municipalities donate surplus firefighting equipment to rural volunteer
fire departments. Matters like this might be more easily and effectively dealt with through
legislative, executive, or even local administrative authority. But because the Texas Constitution
actually addresses such policy details, only the voters, through a special statewide election, can
make the necessary changes.
Of course, some amendments deal with important issues and principles. In that same 2003
election, Texans also approved an amendment that would allow the Texas Legislature to set
limits on the noneconomic damages that courts can award in civil disputes, long a goal of tort
reform advocates trying to limit litigation in the state. Since it’s generally easier to propose and
ratify such substantial and potentially controversial amendments on the state (as opposed to the
national) level, policy advocates often try to shape national policy by first shaping state
constitutions.
Philosophy
Philosophically, the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that elected or appointed officials
would promote the public interest while being one step removed from the public mood and the
passions of self-interest. The principle of federalism, which creates state governments with their
own proper realm of authority over the lives of their citizens, lends importance to state
governments and, by extension, the state constitutions that establish democratic institutions in the
states. State constitutions see more popular influence because of two main philosophical
tendencies: decentralized government and direct representation.
Where the federal constitution divides power into executive, judicial, and legislative branches,
and provides checks and balances on that power, states often go a step beyond and divide powers
among multiple authorities. As a consequence, many lower-level officials have shared or
overlapping responsibilities that in a more centralized system might reside in one top
The Texas Constitution
Central Ideas
1. A constitution is a binding contract between a government and its citizens that reflects the
influence of the time and place in which it was written.
2. State constitutions tend to differ from the U.S. Constitution in that they are longer, more
frequently amended, and more likely to distribute power among numerous elected
officials and the people.
3. Texas’s multi-constitutional history is one of crisis, response, influence from political
elites, and accumulation of principles.
4. The contemporary Texas Constitution is extremely long, detailed, and disorganized, but a
close analysis of its structure can help to clarify the framers’ intentions.
5. Modern attempts at revising the constitution have been hampered not only by an inability
to reach consensus given the interests at stake, but also by the difficulty of presenting
complex issues to an uninformed electorate.
Introduction
The 1876 Constitution of Texas is a crumbling parchment booklet, a museum artifact stored
safely in the law library of the University of Texas at Austin.
Yet it’s this dog-eared booklet that established the contours, confines, and responsibilities of
Texas’s government that remain in effect to this very day. This is not to say, however, that it has
remained unchanged. Just as life experiences alter a person, nearly each year the unfolding
history of Texas prompts amendments to the state constitution. Lawmakers regularly adjust it in
response to changing circumstances, hoping that their revisions will better enable it to meet the
complex demands of modern life. So while those aging parchment papers carry much symbolic
weight, the constitution itself is actually a living document.
The Texas Constitution has two real-world jobs: it defines the pact between the state government
and its citizens, and it establishes the law that is the basis for Texas’s legal system. And as much
as it lays out lofty principles that guide the organization of society, it also affects the daily life of
ordinary Texans. The quality of the state roads you drive on and the public schools you attend is
determined, at least in some sense, by the words in the constitution.
I A constitution is a binding contract between a government and its citizens that reflects
the influence of the time and place in which it was written.
A constitution is a charter or plan of government that represents a pact between a government
and the people it governs. Just as a contract for buying a house or car outlines what the seller and
buyer each must do, a constitution identifies the powers, duties, obligations, and limitations of
the parties involved—in this case, the government and the people. In so doing, the constitution
establishes the fundamental law upon which the state legal system is built and creates procedures
for making laws, participating as a citizen voter, and taking other actions.
, 2
Constitutions define “the rules of the game” that are the basis of a functioning democracy, and
for this reason, people tend to revere their constitution as an institution above and beyond the
day-to-day politicking typically associated with government. Often, citizens think of their
constitution as a nearly sacred symbol that defines their political identity. Similarly, the mere
mention of “constitutional authority” seems to suggest a force that mere mortals dare not
question.
Constitutions do play an important role in our civic lives—defining them, in many ways. But is
such extreme reverence for constitutions warranted? A balanced view may be best. After all, the
people who write constitutions are deeply influenced by the historical and cultural context of
their time as well as by inherited rules and norms. It is true that constitutions express traditions
and lofty democratic ideals, which makes them command a certain respect. Yet they are also
pragmatic documents written to address real needs of society and government.
The priorities of society and the functions of governments tend to evolve over time, and so
updating constitutions through amendments can keep them relevant in the face of unavoidable
change. But sometimes mere amendments aren’t enough to maintain a constitution’s usefulness.
In response to great societal turmoil, leaders may sometimes choose—or be required by
circumstances—to discard the old constitution and create a new one to take its place.
In the United States we revere our Constitution so much that the idea of replacing it seems sacrilegious.
But top U.S. judges have pointed to the constitutions of Canada, South Africa, and the European Union
as being “sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace” thanks to
these documents’ treatment of the rights of diverse groups, including women and people with
disabilities.1 Even Thomas Jefferson saw constitutions as having limited shelf lives, writing that every
constitution “naturally expires” after 19 years because “the earth belongs always to the living
generation.” Apparently the rest of the world has agreed; on average, countries tend to discard their
constitutions about every two decades.2 By contrast, the U.S. Constitution has endured for more than
two centuries, and hasn’t even been amended since 1992.
State constitutions tend to differ from the U.S. Constitution in that they are longer, more
frequently amended, and more likely to distribute power among numerous elected
officials and the people.
Structure
In comparison to national constitutions, state constitutions are typically longer and are amended
more often. Today, only six states continue to operate under constitutions drafted before 1850.
One-quarter of today’s state constitutions were adopted after World War II, and the average state
has had three constitutions in its history. Though some have had as few as one or two
constitutions for their entire existence, many have had four or more. Louisiana (with 11
constitutions) and Georgia (with 10) top the list.
State constitutions average about 36,000 words, roughly four times as much as the U.S.
Constitution, whose total length, including amendments, is about 7,400 words. Alabama’s is the
, 3
longest, with more than 856 amendments—some 75 percent of which only cover a single city or
county. The Texas Constitution has the fourth highest number of amendments behind Alabama,
California, and South Carolina.
The length of a given constitution and its number of amendments seem to be related. When the
foundational document upon which a government is based contains a lot of specificity, this
reduces the flexibility with which the document may be interpreted; it then takes nothing short of
a constitutional amendment to change those details.
The average state constitution has been amended about 100 times. Only six of the 50 state
constitutions have been amended fewer than 27 times (the number of amendments to the U.S.
Constitution). Amendments often beget more amendments, because every time an amendment is
added, details are added as well. This increases the specificity of the document and, along with it,
the need to make further revisions as circumstances change.
You might think constitutional amendments are proposed only for matters of the greatest
importance, but this is not the case. In the 2003 special election, for instance, Texans were asked
about surplus fire equipment. Specifically, the question was whether a constitutional amendment
should be adopted to let municipalities donate surplus firefighting equipment to rural volunteer
fire departments. Matters like this might be more easily and effectively dealt with through
legislative, executive, or even local administrative authority. But because the Texas Constitution
actually addresses such policy details, only the voters, through a special statewide election, can
make the necessary changes.
Of course, some amendments deal with important issues and principles. In that same 2003
election, Texans also approved an amendment that would allow the Texas Legislature to set
limits on the noneconomic damages that courts can award in civil disputes, long a goal of tort
reform advocates trying to limit litigation in the state. Since it’s generally easier to propose and
ratify such substantial and potentially controversial amendments on the state (as opposed to the
national) level, policy advocates often try to shape national policy by first shaping state
constitutions.
Philosophy
Philosophically, the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that elected or appointed officials
would promote the public interest while being one step removed from the public mood and the
passions of self-interest. The principle of federalism, which creates state governments with their
own proper realm of authority over the lives of their citizens, lends importance to state
governments and, by extension, the state constitutions that establish democratic institutions in the
states. State constitutions see more popular influence because of two main philosophical
tendencies: decentralized government and direct representation.
Where the federal constitution divides power into executive, judicial, and legislative branches,
and provides checks and balances on that power, states often go a step beyond and divide powers
among multiple authorities. As a consequence, many lower-level officials have shared or
overlapping responsibilities that in a more centralized system might reside in one top
