Ballot measures seek to enshrine already-protected rights; do they show mistrust of judges?
Image from Shutterstock.
Ballot measures that would add already protected rights to state constitutions appear to follow the maxim, “Better safe than sorry.”
The measures “are based in a deep distrust of the judiciary,” according to a Bloomberg View article by Francis Barry, a onetime chief speechwriter for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “To protect themselves from these gavel-wielding ghouls, states are increasingly trying to turn their constitutions into shields.”
The article highlights these proposed state constitutional amendments on the ballot in November:
• A right to bear arms, before Alabama voters, though the state and federal constitutions already guarantee that right. The measure makes gun restrictions subject to strict scrutiny.
• Equal rights for women, before Oregon voters, though the state supreme court has already ruled the state constitution protects such rights. The president of Oregon Women Lawyers backs the measure because “a particularly aggressive litigant could argue that the original framers didn’t intend for women to have equal rights.”
• The right to vote regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or income, before Illinois voters, even though federal law and the U.S. Constitution effectively provide such guarantees. Supporters hope the measure will make voter ID laws more difficult to pass and more difficult to survive a court challenge.
Other proposed state constitutional amendments would allow broader restrictions on abortion in Tennessee, and guarantee the right to hunt and fish in Mississippi.
Hat tip to How Appealing.
