CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

The Minnesota Constitution -- 
'Brewer's amendment' makes changes harder

If history is any indication, all 20 of the proposed
constitutional amendments now before the Legislature stand a
fighting chance of being approved by Minnesota voters.

Nine of the last 10 proposed amendments that have been submitted
to voters have received the OK. But given the obstacles in place
to prevent easy approval of constitutional amendments, you may
have thought the odds a lot less. 

Minnesota's requirements are more stringent than those in at
least 40 other states. A majority of those voting in an election
must vote 'yes' on the proposed amendment -- not just a majority
of those voting on the question. 

Called an "extraordinary majority," the provision means that all
voters who skip the amendment question but vote elsewhere on the
ballot are effectively counted as voting 'no' on the proposed
amendment.

Today, Minnesota and only two other states retain the
extraordinary majority requirement. That's the reason a proposed
amendment in 1914 calling for initiative and referendum failed --
even though those voting on the question approved it by a
80.2-19.8 percent margin.

But it wasn't always so difficult to amend the Constitution.

From the time the Constitution was drafted in 1857 until 1898,
Minnesota had, "of all the states, the simplest process for
amending its constitution," according to A History of the
Constitution of Minnesota. During that 41-year period, only a
"simple majority" -- or more 'yes' than 'no' votes on a proposed
amendment -- was required for ratification. 

This ease of adoption was intentional. Called the "Great
Compromise" of the 1857 constitutional conventions, the
Republicans signed off on nearly every article of the Democratic
document with the understanding that the Constitution would be
left easy to amend.

And it was. From 1858 to 1898, 48 constitutional amendments were
approved -- a 73 percent success rate.

But everything changed in 1898, when what is now known as the
"brewer's amendment" was put to the people. It required that
proposed amendments needed an extraordinary majority instead of a
simple majority to be ratified. 

The moniker stems from a widely held belief that "the liquor
interests promoted this change to prevent the adoption of a
prohibition amendment," wrote Anderson and Lobb in A History of
the Constitution of Minnesota.

The intent of the brewer's amendment, of course, was to make it
more difficult to amend the Constitution, which it did. And in
1918 -- one year before prohibition was adopted on the federal
level -- the change paid off for the liquor interests.

In that year, Minnesota voters were asked to ban "the sale and
manufacture of liquor." Although the proposed amendment received
16,000 more 'yes' than 'no' votes, it failed to satisfy the
extraordinary majority requirement, and was not adopted.

Since the 1898 change, the approval rate of proposed amendments
has dropped to just over 46 percent -- a decline of nearly 30
percent.

Because of this decline, there have been two significant
movements in the last 50 years to once again make it easier to
amend the Constitution.

Constitutional study commissions were formed in both 1948 and
1972. The first was called largely because the failure rate of
amendments between 1898 and 1946 was a lofty 67.5 percent. But
instead of asking voters to revert to the simple majority,
lawmakers sought, in part, to increase the powers of the
Legislature. 

In 1948, voters were asked whether the Legislature alone should
be given the power to call a constitutional convention without
asking voters to call one, as is currently required. A second
amendment that year proposed the grouping of amendments on the
ballot so that each measure wouldn't require a separate vote.
Both were soundly defeated.

And in March of 1971, then-Gov. Wendell Anderson encouraged a
second Constitutional Study Commission to be formed. The
Legislature agreed at a time when 23 other states had similar
commissions. 

That commission, among other things, recommended that the
Constitution be made easier to amend by allowing amendments to be
approved if they received 55 percent of the vote. This was
proposed as an alternative to the more stringent extraordinary
majority requirement. 

The question was put to voters in 1974, but it failed by a margin
of less than 1 percent -- despite being approved by a 57.4-42.6
majority.

So what are the odds of any of any proposed amendment now before
the Legislature being added to the Constitution this November --
provided lawmakers agree to put one or more on the ballot?

Mathematically, the odds since 1898 are just over 46 percent, but
a little better than 50-50 if you count all proposed amendments
since 1857. A total of 114 proposed amendments out of 205 have
been approved, or 55 percent.

But the odds are probably a lot greater given the increased media
hype and sophistication of voters, a trend that began in the
1960s when the "considerable efforts of reform-minded individuals
and interest groups [were able] to overcome entrenched political
opposition to any form of constitutional 'tinkering,' " wrote
George Mitau, former chair of the Macalester College Department
of Political Science, in Constitutional Reforms in
Minnesota--Change by Amendments 1947-1977.

That helps explain why nine of the last 10 proposed amendments
have been approved, while the mathematical odds of approval is
just 55 percent.
Historically, many amendments failed even though they garnered
the overwhelming approval of those voting on the question. In the
1920s, four failed amendments were approved by majorities of at
least two-to-one, but failed to meet the extraordinary majority
test because of the high number of "drop-off" voters -- those
that vote for the high profile offices but don't vote for
amendments. 

During the 1920s, there were 15 proposed constitutional
amendments. The average drop-off rate for each of those ballots
was nearly three of every 10 voters, or 27.7 percent.

At the end of the 1940s, the drop-off rate was still high at just
over 22 percent. But by the 1960s the drop-off rate had fallen to
15.5 percent -- a decline that can be directly attributed to
concerted lobbying efforts for amendments.

"Persons and groups . . . political parties and bipartisan
citizen committees devoted money, time, and public relations
skill in the battle to overcome the obstacle of Minnesota's
amending majority," wrote Betty Kane, a former lobbyist for the
Minnesota League of Women Voters, in Amending Our State
Constitution: Continuity Through Ordered Change. All the
techniques used for political office campaigns were employed,
"and with dramatic results," Kane added. Nine of twelve
amendments were accepted during the 1960s.

Since then, citizen and lobbyist participation has continued to
increase, with organizations such as the League of Women Voters
of Minnesota and the Citizens League taking active roles on
certain ballot issues. In the 1970s, the drop-offs fell to 11.8
percent, and again during the 1980s to 9.8 percent.

The 1988 vote to authorize the Minnesota State Lottery saw 96.8
percent of voters cast an opinion on the amendment, second
highest in state history to the 1868 vote which gave blacks the
right to vote.

So what are the odds that 16-year-olds could be given the right
to vote and term limits could be imposed on legislators -- two
proposed amendments now before the Legislature? 

Pretty good as far as voters are concerned -- despite the
formidable odds stacked against against approval of proposed
amendments. 

But perhaps the greater obstacle is getting such questions on the
ballot. There have been 205 proposed amendments placed on the
ballot since 1858, an average of 1.5 per year. 

And this year, lawmakers have to decide how many, or whether, any
of the 20 proposed amendments now before the Legislature should
be sent to voters for their approval.

--John Tschida, 1992

Amending the Minnesota Constitution

Here's the process by which the state Constitution is amended:
-- The Legislature passes a law -- by majority vote in both
bodies -- proposing a change in the Constitution, including the
actual question as it is to appear on the ballot in the next
general election.
-- Four months prior to the election, the state attorney general
prepares for the secretary of state a statement of each
amendment's purpose and effect.
-- In the October prior to the election, the secretary of state
publishes this statement in every qualified newspaper and
distributes copies of these to county auditors. At least two
notices will be at each polling place on election day.
-- The secretary of state, on advice from the attorney general,
prepares a short title to identify each amendment on the ballot.
The proposed amendment as passed by the Legislature will appear
beneath this title.
-- Sample ballots are available for public examination four weeks
prior to the election at the Secretary of State's Office, or at
each county auditor's office three weeks before the election. 
-- A notice explaining that failure to vote on an amendment is
the equivalent of a 'no' vote is placed on each ballot.
-- If the state canvassing board finds that a proposed amendment
received the approval of a majority of the voters at the
election, the governor will announce by proclamation that the
amendment is adopted.



Originally published in 1992 in the Session Weekly, a weekly
newsmagazine published by the Minnesota House Public Information
Office.

***Last Update 8/5/94 (jtt) Last Review 8/5/94 (jtt) ***