[Eugene Volokh, August 28, 2006 at 1:46pm] Trackbacks
Maryland Constitution:

I just learned that article XI-C of the Maryland Constitution has to do with off-street parking. No joking.

Thanks to Prof. David Lublin (Maryland Politics Watch), who pointed this out as an aside on a discussion list that I'm on.

CJColucci:
Many state consitutions are full of what most of us would think of as trivia and petty legislative detail. There are probably reasons for this, which would make a fine article for someone else to write.
8.28.2006 3:05pm
KevinM:
If you reset the margins, you will find the right of bakery workers to abortion on demand.
8.28.2006 3:16pm
Michael Linder (mail):
Take a look at the Alabama Constitution. It is believed to be the longest constitution in the world, its bulk comprised of literally hundreds of amendments which are often easier to have pased than acts of the leigislature, and are almost universally trivial in scope.
8.28.2006 3:18pm
Tony (www):
My personal favorite is Article 1, section 25 of the California Constitution: "The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken."
8.28.2006 3:20pm
Still Learning:
Many if not most state constitutions have a right to bear arms that is stronger and broader than the Second Amendment.
8.28.2006 3:46pm
woetothedriver:
Given the number of tickets they have smacked me with, I would fully expect there would be a meter maid provision instructing relentless and ridiculous tickets for all drivers. I go to sleep each night with the comfort that my parking tickets have built an entire wing at University of Maryland. Damn those meter maids!!!!!!!
8.28.2006 3:50pm
SlimAndSlam:
CJColucci: my guess is that the U.S. Constitution is viewed almost as a sacrament, while state constitutions are thought of as just another bunch of laws.

The U.S. Constitution is vital to the nation's sense of itself; the nation wasn't really a success until the Constitution was adopted. Any change to the U.S. Constitution is viewed as potentially unbalancing the nation's institutions.

By contrast, most states got along reasonably well before they had constitutions, so they don't need to be treated so delicately. If a state constitution goes out of balance, we'll just muddle along until we can write a new one.

(Disclaimer: this post is the product of absolutely no research. It passes the sniff test, but other readers may wish to subject it to harsher scrutiny. If they have the time.)
8.28.2006 4:04pm
Richard Riley (mail):
CJColucci: Take a look at James A. Gardner, "The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism," 90 Mich. L. Rev. 761 (1992). Very good essay on the implications of what you accurately call the "trivial and petty legislative detail" of so many state constitutions. Here's a memorable passage (pp. 819-820):


For example, as Judge Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals is fond of pointing out, the New York Constitution contains a provision specifying the width of ski trails in the Adirondack Park. The California Constitution specifies the way in which taxes are to be assessed on golf courses. The Texas Constitution provides for banks' use of "unmanned teller machines."

If a state constitution reflects the character of the people of a state, what can one say about the character of a people who enshrine these types of provisions in their constitutions - who evidently hold the values expressed in these provisions so dear that they see a need to place them beyond the reach of temporary majorities and transient passions, and to permit their alteration only by future direct action of the people themselves? Can one say of New Yorkers, for example, that they are a people who cherish their liberty to ski? If so, how does such a provision fit in with the other liberties contained in the New York Constitution, such as freedom of speech? Are New Yorkers a people who like to talk and schuss? To ski down a mountain and discuss politics over hot chocolate? If we are to take seriously the notion that the state constitution reveals the character of the people, we may be forced to the unappetizing conclusion that the people of New York, or California, or Texas are simply a frivolous people who are unable to distinguish between things that are truly important and things that are not.


As they say, read the whole thing.
8.28.2006 4:57pm
Tom Caso (mail) (www):
Note to SlimAndSlam -- actually, state constitutions predated the federal constitutions (John Adams insists that Madison simply copied what Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution). The first state constitutions were adopted in 1776. One explanation might be that state constitutions are seen as a limit on state legislative power, and thus are more likely to contain legislative type commands on subjects that the people (or some interest group) decided to take away from the legislature.
8.28.2006 5:51pm
Just me:
I prefer short and sweet to prolix and picky -- but I prefer the latter if the "short" alternative means judges making stuff up. Width of ski trails? Silly, but less silly than worrying that some court will declare that equal protection requires width X.
8.28.2006 6:47pm
markm (mail):
I thought the most horrible examples of bloated state constitutions happened in states where laws could not be passed by initiative (bypassing the legislature), but constitutional amendments could. Every time the legislature rejected something that an activist group could get 50% + 1 of the voters to go for, there was another amendment, often delving into areas that more sanely would have been fine print in legislation, if not simply state agency regulations.

But if I understand this Maryland example correctly, the legislature started the amendment process this time. Or did the legislature put forth an amendment in order to overturn some earlier initiative amendment?
8.28.2006 7:08pm
Anthony A (mail):
Texas authorizes towns to pay for the relocation of sanitary sewer laterals on private property.

text here

A friend of mine once said that the process for purchasing paper in state offices was in the state Constitution, but he may have been exaggerating; I haven't been able to find that.
8.28.2006 8:37pm
arbitraryaardvark (mail) (www):
Any case containing a federal question also raises issues under the state constitution. You need to know that trivia. I consider it malpractice to fail to raise state constitutional claims in just about any kind of constitutional-rights-based case.
8.30.2006 6:59pm