Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Constitutional amendments will come, but only after this

Book page introducing the amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Benjamin Clapp/Getty Images

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

If the next wave of constitutional amendments is coming, as I laid out in my previous article for The Fulcrum, two questions emerge: What will the amendments cover, and what will need to occur for the nation to ratify them?

I want to look at the latter question now and will highlight amendment candidates in the future. But first, a reminder that amendments mostly have come in single-decade waves, separated by gaps of four decades or more. We are now in the current gap’s sixth decade, and also find ourselves in the late-gap stage when conventional wisdom says that amendments are impossible.


We don’t know how long this stage will last, or just what will produce the civic energy needed to elevate amendments into the public realm. But there are signs of change. First, grassroots amendment efforts exist, for example, to rein in electoral campaign spending or oppose the Electoral College. Their paths are hard, but such persistent pursuit of foundational change is heartening to see as well as critical to eventual success.

Second, thought leaders are leaving the “unamendable” conventional wisdom behind. Last year, best-selling authors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt stepped forward to advocate for a set of democracy-saving amendments in "Tyranny of the Minority.” This year already, Richard Hasen proposed an affirmative voting rights amendment in "A Real Right to Vote,” and Maxwell Stearns challenged us to consider a deeper, amendment-requiring shift to a parliamentary system in "Parliamentary America.”

Books and ideas may not a movement make, but good ones can anchor it or offer credibility for thinking big – a necessity when it comes to amendments. Importantly, these authors and other proponents correctly frame their proposals beyond the near term and always in conjunction with needed non-constitutional reforms. And Hasen makes the point that these other reforms derive their own benefit from active association with a related amendment goal.

Third, there’s the vital work of outlets like The Fulcrum, which deserves kudos for taking long-term ideas out of the classroom, think tank or office. By sharing the views of Beau Breslin, Kevin Frazier, Seth David Radwell, myself and others, it reminds readers that what’s beneath our government’s day-to-day machinations also is important. Cracks in the foundation can be ignored for a while, even with good reason, when the roof is leaking, but the underlying erosion worsens and eventually needs repair. Such as amendments.

Fourth, our civic environment also signals when an amendment gap is ending. Sadly, history tells us that the signs include sharp divisions, frequently involving violence. But the violence need not be organized, as it was with the Civil War. Consider the devastating income inequality, labor exploitation and child abuse that preceded the Progressive Era’s four-amendment wave. Today, we have our work cut out for us to keep our polarization from devolving into the worst humans are capable of.

Fifth, specific events can change the environment to spur civic restoration leading to amendments. If a presidential election were to end without a candidate winning at least 270 Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state’s delegation having one vote. While our democracy would likely survive this debasement, we would do so in part by finally abandoning the Electoral College.

More plausibly, we could have another Electoral College misfire, when the selected president does not win the popular vote. A third such case since 2000 could similarly represent a bridge too far for citizens and politicians alike. Or a campaign finance scandal, such as millions of dollars in foreign donations helping to elect a president or defeat a senator, could rouse the public and stiffen a few legislators’ backbones to support an amendment embracing reasonable limits on campaign spending.

Events might also change the existing partisan support for amendments (and partisan advocacy early in an amendment campaign’s life is not unusual; most amendments began that way). A fiscal crisis, for example, might prompt traditionally right-wing spending cutters to forge common ground with advocates of fairer and sufficient public revenues, or even to pursue their aims legislatively rather than constitutionally. Or evolving demographic and political affiliations may shift Electoral College support from red to blue.

These five factors will affect the paths to future amendments. Against this still-uncertain backdrop, we must continue working to shape the change we need, restore respect for the truth, regain our ability to disagree agreeably, and embrace treating foundational causes for our problems and not just their symptoms.

And we should not minimize the second factor – change among thought leaders – which signals where we are today. A set of books alone may seem an unlikely source for a tipping point, but when an election law expert as prominent as Rick Hasen put his reputation on the line for a constitutional amendment, all election reformers took notice. When other leaders join him, more Americans should take notice as well.

In my next piece, I’ll review the issues that may lead, follow or be swept up in the next amendment wave when — not if — it arrives.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less