Si Se Puede?

As a citizen of a swing state, I must admit that Tuesday’s election was rather nerve-racking. I had already sent in my absentee ballot two weeks ago, but I was worried whether the rest of the state would follow my lead and select the intelligent choice. Missouri after all is arguably divided into two states when it comes to politics—two large enclaves of blue in St. Louis and Kansas City surrounded by a sea of rural red extending from the northern plains down into my dear Ozark Mountains. Sure there would be large turnout, but no one could be sure of the outcome with all the variables in play. But, luckily, before midnight, the voice of the people was heard, and Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 4 to change the provisions for financing stormwater control projects passed with 57.6 percent of the vote. Whew. It truly is morning in America. Oh yeah, there was something on the news about a historic candidate, but honestly I didn’t pay attention.

Inserting an amendment concerning stormwater control in a state constitution does seem rather bizarre. Outside of federal jurisdiction, a state’s constitution is the highest law in the land. When future generations look back upon me and my fellow Missourians, they will see within the constitution our dearest-held beliefs: habeas corpus, religious freedom, due process of law, independent courts, and now a clause “limiting availability of grants and loans to public water and sewer districts only.” Perhaps, in a century, Missouri’s constitution will be known as the Magna Carta of stormwater control financing.

Despite the apparent absurdity of the law, there is actually a good reason for putting stormwater control financing in the highest law of the state: It was already in the constitution to begin with. This effectively meant that any change in stormwater control financing policy required a constitutional amendment. Obviously, the lesson to take away from this is not to insert inane, arbitrary provisions into a state’s constitution. Inane, arbitrary provisions like Constitutional Amendment 1, making English Missouri’s official government language, which passed on Tuesday with 86.3 percent of the vote. Sigh.

Besides Missouri, a handful of other states considered constitutional amendments relevant to current political dialogue. Colorado voted on an amendment that would protect life from the moment of fertilization, as well as one that would ban affirmative action (both failed). California rejected an amendment proposing abortion limits but passed one banning gay marriage. Florida and Arizona, likewise, constitutionally banned gay marriage. Nebraska passed a constitutional ban on affirmative action, and Michigan approved an amendment allowing stem cell research. Arkansas, with a 57 percent majority, made it constitutionally illegal for a gay couple to adopt children. Regardless of your personal beliefs on these issues, Americans, as a people, need to have a conversation on whether it’s a good idea to change the highest law of the state to satisfy transient concerns such as these.

The flaw in these constitutional amendments is the perception that our present moral and cultural views will be absolutes well into the indefinite future. After all, American opinions on divorce and interracial marriage are far cries from the views held a century ago. And let’s not forget that the only amendment in the United States Constitution to legislate popular morality, Prohibition, is also the only one to be repealed. Drinking is now accepted by a majority of Americans, and judging by statutory initiatives passed in Massachusetts and Michigan on Tuesday, marijuana isn’t too far off. While abortion, stem cells, affirmative action, and gay marriage are currently some of the most controversial issues facing the republic, there is frankly no reason to assume that in 50 years they will be seen as any more important than stormwater control financing.

The amendment frenzy can be attributed to overzealousness and a lack of inability to compromise. Laws, historically, have been passed by legislatures, in which each representative answers to his constituents. Recently, however, both liberals and conservatives have forced issues such as gun control and gay marriage into courts in an attempt to bypass the legislative branch. Invariably, this leads the opposing side to counter by creating a constitutional amendment to overrule the judicial branch. Sound legislation based on compromise and accountability gives way to an arms race for legal enforcement. In this environment, positions may win, but the people ultimately lose.

Tuesday night, President-elect Barack Obama ended his acceptance speech with a repetitive call of “Yes, we can.” However, that same night numerous states considered or passed constitutional amendments that limited the legislative branch’s ability to do its job. Abortion, marriage, adoption, and government language are important issues, but fundamentally statutory issues. To place them into the state constitution only limits the dialogue needed in statehouses to reach a consensus. Perhaps “Yes, we can” should also be applied to bringing about a system in which laws aren’t only made by courts and constitutional amendments.

Steven T. Cupps ’09, a Crimson editorial writer, is a human evolutionary biology concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.