Opinion ID: 1264934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Revision and Amendment

Text: The Framers of Alaska's Constitution explicitly contemplated the importance of the differentiation between amendments and revisions and between their respective fields of application. [8] In debating the text of article XIII, section 4, one constitutional convention delegate stated [t]here is a big difference between revisions, which implies rewriting the constitution, and making amendments to specific articles or sections of the constitution. [9] Although no precise definition of the terms was reached by the Framers (perhaps because such a task is not possible), there was consensus that amendment contemplated a simple change, whereas revision would encompass broader and more comprehensive changes. [10] The Framers also understood that [r]evision includes amendment but amendment does not include revision. [11] In recognition of these distinctions, the Framers fashioned more stringent procedures for adopting revisions than for adopting amendments. As first proposed to the convention, article XIII allowed revisions and amendments to be adopted by two successive legislatures. [12] Delegates offered changes during floor debate distinguishing between revisions and amendments. Delegate Cooper proposed a change allowing revisions to be adopted by a two-thirds vote of two successive legislatures, a constitutional convention, or a three-fourths affirmative vote of a single legislature. [13] Under this proposal, amendments were to be adopted by a popular, three-fifths majority vote. [14] As ultimately passed, article XIII retained procedural distinctions for adopting revisions and amendments, but specified constitutional conventions as the only available avenue for revisions. The Framers' decision to narrow the alternatives for adopting revisions by making constitutional conventions the sole permissible procedure demonstrates not only their awareness of the distinction between revisions and amendments, but also their desire to give the distinction substance, thereby ensuring that it would be observed by future generations of Alaskans. Scholars have also concluded that a distinction exists between the two methods of constitutional change. Judge John A. Jameson, in his Treatise on Constitutional Conventions, wrote that the legislative process of amending a constitution should be confined to changes which are few, simple, independent, and of comparatively small importance, whereas a constitutional convention is required for a general revision of a Constitution, or even for single propositions involving radical changes as to the policy of which the popular mind has not been informed by prior discussion. [15] Judge Jameson's examples of topics properly considered amendments include changes designed to address a doubt ... as to the construction to be put upon a particular clause[,] ... or a new distribution among the agencies of government of their constitutional powers ... to facilitate the transaction of business, or to render public operations more safe or more economical. [16] One purpose of requiring a constitutional convention for revisions of the constitution is to promote stability. Some political thinkers have interpreted the written constitution in the American political system as a stabilizing element which operates to retard change or requires a more deliberate selection of what changes society deems desirable, hence acceptable. As a document embodying the fundamental political beliefs of the people and an accepted general arrangement of governmental powers, there is indeed good reason to examine searchingly any major changes proposed in the basic structure and philosophy.[ [17] ] Another purpose is to provide a specialized body of citizens whose sole purpose is to consider the constitution as an organic whole, and to make the appropriate and necessary changes. [C]omplete revisions or even alterations of a very thorough character should be made by conventions expressly chosen for that purpose. Legislatures will usually have their time taken up with other matters and be unable to devote sufficient time to [the] subject, and the election of a body for the one purpose concentrates public attention upon questions of a constitutional character.[ [18] ] According to Judge Jameson, constitutional changes of a magnitude which can only be accomplished by a revision are not a task for the legislature: The legislature is a body chosen for temporary purposes. It is a mirror of political passions and interests, and, with the best intentions, cannot be expected to be free from bias, even in questions of the highest moment. It is composed, moreover, in general, of politicians rather than of statesmen.... But, when a Convention is called, it is sometimes possible to secure the return of such men. It is not necessarily because such a body is recognized to be, as it is, the most important ever assembled in a State, but because the measures it is expected to mature bear less directly on the interests of parties or of individuals. Party management, therefore, is not usually so much directed to the seeking of control of a Convention as of a legislature. Besides, the proper function of the latter body, that of municipal legislation, being one of the highest vested by the sovereign in any governmental agency, it cannot but be inexpedient, on a general view, that there should be added to it that of organic legislation, requiring different and higher gifts, and wider experience and study, thus threatening to unsettle the balance of the Constitution.[ [19] ] The case law of other states which have similar constitutional provisions that distinguish between amendments and revisions is in accord with the scholarly writing. The courts have held that constitutions which provide for both processes of amendment and revision express a distinction of substance. [20] The Supreme Court of Florida described one aspect of the distinction by stating that amendments originate in the legislature and the people have the choice only of acceptance or rejection of the ones the legislature submits, while in the case of revision [t]he people's delegates, elected for the purpose,... weigh proposed provisions, debate their merits, [and] decide what should become and what should not become the organic law. [21] The same court later held that the power to amend the constitution (as distinct from the power to revise it) includes only the power to amend any section in such a manner that such amendment if approved would be complete within itself, relate to one subject and not substantially affect any other section or article of the Constitution or require further amendments to the Constitution to accomplish its purpose. [22]