The last amendment sent to the states for ratification was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, a failed amendment that would have given D.C. full representation in Congress, in the Electoral College, and in the Constitutional amendment process. It was proposed by Congress in August 1978, and was ratified by only 16 states at the time of its expiration in August 1985. It would also have repealed the Twenty-Third Amendment, which grants citizens living in D.C. the right to vote in presidential elections by giving it Electoral College votes as if it were a state, provided it not exceed the electoral votes of the least populous state.
It stated:
Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.
Section 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.
Section 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Is it a good or bad thing that the US Constitution is so difficult to amend? On reflection, is it “so difficult”?
It seems any number of elements of the US Const don’t work so well anymore, whether it is the electoral college, congressional districting, or the appointment of federal judges. Maybe that I pick those reflects my political sympathies.
In other countries, like Austria, it has been easy, some say too easy (a 2/3 majority in the Nationalrat), at least in the times of grand coalitions, resulting in constitutional laws on the number of taxi concessions in Vienna (after the Austrian supreme court had declared the ordinary statute unconstituional, the Nationalrat re-enacted the law with 2/3s majority).
How about an amendment to amed the amendment procedure?
hi Christian — I think it remains difficult, and on balance I am not sure that is a bad thing…. without weighing in on the specific things you mention (although I do think that bipartisan/non-partisan commissions should be in charge of redistricting), an amendment to amend the amendment procedure is an intriguing (albeit somewhat confusing) idea.