North Carolina’s Constitution Under Strain as Amendments Increase
State lawmakers increasingly treat constitutional amendments as ordinary legislation rather than fundamental changes, echoing patterns that forced North Carolina’s last complete constitutional revision in 1971.
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA — North Carolina’s Constitution faces a challenge as state lawmakers increasingly use constitutional amendments as ordinary legislation rather than for fundamental governmental changes, according to a new analysis of the state’s constitutional history.
The state has operated under three constitutions throughout its history. The first was written when North Carolina joined the newly formed United States. The second emerged after the Civil War, when the state finally prohibited slavery and secession. The current Constitution was adopted in 1971, not because the entire document required replacement, but because decades of amendments had cluttered the 1868 Constitution.
Pattern of Amendment Overuse
The North Carolina General Assembly now routinely employs constitutional amendments to legislate beyond its own term limits, protect political legacies, and create systems that future legislatures cannot easily modify. Constitutional amendments are intended to be rare and meaningful, designed to alter foundational principles or governmental structure only when necessary.
“Constitutional amendments are supposed to be rare. They are supposed to matter,” according to the analysis. “They are meant to alter foundational principles or governmental structure when necessary. They are not to serve as campaign slogans frozen into law.”
Federal Comparison Highlights Restraint
The contrast with the federal approach demonstrates the importance of constitutional restraint. The United States Constitution has added only 27 amendments across 238 years of existence. Most amendments stand permanently alongside the original text, with only the 18th and 21st Amendments directly contradicting one another.
The federal Constitution remains notably concise, with its meaning evolving through interpretation, court decisions, and changing societal understanding rather than constant textual amendments. The 14th Amendment provides a prime example of this evolutionary approach.
In the 1898 case Plessy v. Ferguson, courts interpreted the 14th Amendment to permit segregation. However, in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, that same amendment became the foundation for ending segregation in public schools. The constitutional language remained unchanged while society’s understanding evolved.
Proper Constitutional Function
Legal experts emphasize that constitutions should operate through this interpretive process rather than frequent amendments. Laws are passed, courts review them, and legislatures revise them as needed. Constitutions, however, should remain reserved for truly fundamental protections or structural necessities.
The analysis suggests North Carolina has lost sight of this principle, with the General Assembly treating constitutional amendments as political tools rather than foundational documents. This approach mirrors the pattern that led to the adoption of the state’s current Constitution in 1971, when excessive amendments had made the previous version unwieldy.
As North Carolina continues to add constitutional amendments at an increasing pace, legal observers warn the state may be heading toward another period of constitutional revision to address the accumulation of amendments that serve more as legislative policy than fundamental law.
