Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It may take a while, but elections and voting could be the force behind constitutional change

United States Constitution
LPETTET/Getty Images

LaRue writes commentary at Structure Matters. He is a former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, and of the American Society of International Law.

As impossible as changing the Constitution may seem today, amendments are in our future. It may be years or decades away, but it will happen. And election reform could be the topic.

Historically, amendments have been added in clusters every half century. Ten of the 15 post-Bill-of-Rights amendments still in effect were adopted in relatively brief windows right after the Civil War (three in 1865-70), during the Progressive era (three more in 1913-20) and in the Civil Rights era (another four in 1961-71).

Had this cycle held, we would have expected several amendments in the 2010s. But we had none and none are on the horizon — with the exception of the still-unlikely Equal Rights Amendment. Why? Hyper-partisanship and polarization may top the list. Shortened political attention spans could be a factor. Maybe we simply have lacked a compelling enough need for a change to command the required two-thirds majorities in Congress and then ratification by 38 states.

Or perhaps the cycle broke because the dominant focus for constitutional change is shifting away from individual rights. Two-thirds of all the amendments so far have advanced individual liberty, from freedom of speech and religion in the 18th century to voting rights in the 20th century. Other than the faint hope that the ERA might be resurrected, no rights-based amendment has garnered widespread consideration in this century.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Could long-unattended, election-related issues be emerging instead as subjects for consideration? Our government may rest on principles and rights, which have deserved defense or expansion. But the Constitution is mostly about the structure of the government built on top of those rights, much of it electoral.

This structure has only been repaired twice, and only following a breakdown of the system. The 12th Amendment in 1804 enabled members of the Electoral College to cast separate votes for president and vice president, thus consigning to history the fiasco of the tied 1800 election — and between running mates, no less. Then the 22nd Amendment in 1951 limited presidents to two terms after Franklin Roosevelt twice violated the two-term tradition. (The 17th Amendment is a notable hybrid. In 1913 it shifted the selection of senators from state legislatures to the public, so it was about both rights and structure.)

Will another breakdown bring about constitutional change? Quite possibly. If a presidential election is ever put in the hands of the House, because no candidate secures a majority 270 electoral votes, popular pressure may finally force replacement of the Electoral College. Or perhaps another misfire or two, when the popular and electoral vote winners differ as in 2000 and 2016, will be enough. (And we should be ready with an alternative, one that assures the popular majority prevails, since systemic breakdowns have led to repair in a matter of years, not the usual decades).

Voting rights are also percolating in the not-quite-bad-enough-to-fix-constitutionally-yet space. The focus of much attention now in state legislatures, the challenges nonetheless make plain the need for an amendment to affirm the right to vote — not merely prevent or penalize its denial.

Such an amendment could advance the obligation to vote, which constitutes part of the structure beneath our elected leaders, giving them their mandate of legitimacy. Accordingly, it would be similar to the 17th Amendment — about structure as well as individual rights.

Other election-related topics, such as redistricting or campaign finance, may appear as candidates for an amendment, as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens advocated in 2014. But both may be addressed by the states — as is occurring for redistricting — or through federal statute, as proposed in the For the People Act, now pending in the Senate after passage by the House. But not all such statutory solutions prove to be adequate.

Looking ahead toward possible national constitutional change is a fraught exercise in the current political climate. Even reasonable election reform ideas can't avoid the "pipe dream" label. But in less than two decades, or four presidential elections from now, the circumstances may be very different. Republicans may be against the Electoral College if Texas has finally turned blue — or if they realize they'd rather get something for all the votes they earn in California, which at 6 million were more than those cast for former President Donald Trump in carrying Texas last fall.

Many state responses to improve voting administration or to limit partisan gerrymandering may be working well in the 2030s, prompting demand for constitutional amendments that standardize, simplify and spread those benefits across the country. Or they could have failed, creating demand for a national solution.

Timing could be the key. If we have moved away from bursts of amendments to improve our rights every 50 years, when might we next see another? Has the underlying social pressure for such constitutional change dissipated or does it continue to build? Are structure-of-government amendments on any cycle at all, or do they only occur following a breakdown? Given how this topic lacks emotional or personal pull, are there dual-purpose changes that might be modeled after the 17th Amendment?

When the winner of the presidency in 2036 is inaugurated, it will be the 250th anniversary year of the signing of the Constitution. What if we were to commit to repairing the Constitution that year in order to celebrate it?

Sixteen years may seem a long way off. But it will pass quickly. The 250th anniversary of the launch of the world's first and still-lasting constitutional democracy may present the emotional tug we need to elevate election reform to the front of the constitutional line. Let's not waste it.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less