ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law recently hosted what organizers say is the first national student-led model Constitutional convention. One hundred ten student delegates attended. A third were law students, while the rest were undergrads. Those delegates were picked from more than 300 applicants.
Stefanie Lindquist is the Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Design at the O’Connor College of Law, and was one of the organizers of the event.
The Show spoke with her and asked what was the idea behind putting it on.
Full conversation
STEFANIE LINDQUIST: It’s never been done before, first of all. So it was an idea that’s time, I think, had really come. And secondly, in thinking about the Constitution and our history of amendments, the U.S. Constitution hasn’t been amended since 1992.
And when it was amended — and that was the 27th amendment — when it was amended, it was amended due to the work of a college student, a gentleman named Greg Watson, who at the University of Texas wrote a paper in his political science undergraduate course noting that James Madison had advanced an amendment as part of the Bill of Rights in Congress, but that amendment had never been ratified.
And so he wrote a paper advocating for his ratification, in fact led a national movement to have it ratified, and it was ultimately ratified in 1992. So you see the power of a college student in advancing constitutional reform.
And so when thinking about what college students could bring to the table, and law students as well, we thought, “What a wonderful opportunity to create a model constitutional convention aimed at offering college and law students the opportunity to think through amendments that they might make for their generation to the U.S. Constitution.
MARK BRODIE: Yeah, I’m curious what kinds of ideas they had for ways they would like to amend the Constitution. What were some of the proposals?
LINDQUIST: We had 20 proposals altogether. We had 10 committees. And so these proposals that they brought to the convention were actually vetted through a committee process and then brought to the floor of the convention. And they ranged in topic from gerrymandering reform to an equal rights amendment to tribal sovereignty to eminent domain.
They just really ran the gamut. We had Supreme Court term limits. And so they debated all of these on the floor. And ultimately, the final day of the convention was Sunday, and on that day, they voted as to whether or not they would adopt any of these amendments, and ultimately they did for four.
They had to meet a threshold of three quarters of the delegates present. And so it was quite a high threshold requiring compromise among the delegates who were there. but ultimately they did, converge on four amendments.
BRODIE: Which are the ones that ultimately got that three-quarters vote?
LINDQUIST: Well, one that was very prominent at the convention was a tribal sovereignty amendment, reversing several Supreme Court cases that some of the students thought, disadvantaged tribes, American Indian tribes. In addition, there’s an equal rights amendment, which was very similar to the Equal Rights Amendment that failed in the past.
They ultimately ratified an amendment involving eminent domain, to limit the eminent domain power of the government. And finally, they ratified a proposal to reverse some of the Supreme Court decisions involving gerrymandering and to tamp down on partisan gerrymandering.
BRODIE: Did any of the proposals surprise you or seem to come out of the blue for you?
LINDQUIST: Well, I was surprised by eminent domain, to be honest. That’s not something that most students think about. I actually thought perhaps they might bring forward more likely to bring forward, perhaps reform to the Electoral College or Supreme Court term limits, that sort of thing. But the fact that they all could coalesce behind an eminent domain amendment surprised me.
BRODIE: What do you hope that the students took away from this?
LINDQUIST: Several things. First, they came with the intent to compromise. They had to write essays for us explaining why they wanted to be part of the constitutional convention. And those essays often focused upon the need for compromise and cooperation among Americans. And so I think what they took away was a real skill at that compromise and negotiation.
And many of the comments we received after the convention from the students have focused upon how wonderful it was for them to learn those skills and to see, indeed, that Americans can come together from all backgrounds, all ideologies, all political perspectives and reach compromise behind for these amendments.
And they cheered when the first amendment was ratified by the convention, they cheered. It was just a really heartwarming experience for those of us who organized the convention. And so they certainly learned those skills. They learned leadership skills because every one of the committees had a chair, and they led their own coalitions. So they learned how to form coalitions, and they learned extensive leadership skills.
And then, of course, they also learned what I think is so important to future lawyers — and many of them who are undergraduates will become lawyers — is the need to be careful about the selection of words and language in law, and certainly in the context of constitutional amendments. The careful crafting of the language was something that they really dove into with enthusiasm, and we really saw them on the floor amending their proposals to make the language more well crafted for the purpose of posterity.
So they learned drafting skills, legislative and constitutional drafting skills, which I think was pretty terrific.
BRODIE: Do you think they also maybe got an appreciation for how difficult it is to amend the U.S. Constitution?
LINDQUIST: Absolutely. And the reason we put the 75% threshold is, of course, because if an amendment is going to be finally ratified in the U.S., it requires three quarters of the states. There’s two different methods to amend the Constitution in the U.S., but both require ratification by 75% of the states, three quarters of the states.
And so I wanted to put in place that high supermajority threshold so that the students would be forced to compromise. A simple majority is a lot easier to reach, obviously. And we wanted them to have to work behind the scenes to build their coalitions, to advance their preferred amendments. And so we actually put in place rules that we hoped would promote compromise on their parts, and they rose to the occasion.
Stephanie Lindquist is the executive director of the center for Constitutional Design at ASU. Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. One of the delegates who attended the convention is Timmy Bassist, a rising third year law student at ASU. They say Professor Lindquist made constitutional law class more interesting than it otherwise can be, which led them to want to take part.
Students agree about protecting rights
One of the delegates who attended the convention is Timmy Basista, a rising 3rd year law student at ASU. They say Professor Lindquist made Constitutional Law class more interesting than it otherwise can be, which led them to want to take part.
“There’s so much wrong and stagnant with the way our Constitution is,” they said, “and I just really wanted to be in a room where a lot of people already had that base understanding and wanted to do something about it.”
Basista said they supported all four of the proposed amendments that the convention ultimately ratified. They said some of the disagreements centered on important policy details in the proposals, while others were more mundane — centered on words like “the” and “a.”
They said working with the other delegates was immensely exciting, and that there was a lot of passion and energy at the convention — as well as a willingness to move beyond disagreements.
“Going into it, I think I felt that there just wasn’t much of a chance for anything much to come of it,” Basista said. “And coming out of that last session when we were voting on everything, it made it really clear to me that the things we did pass, like the equal rights amendment — adjusted to include gender identity and sexual orientation — and tribal sovereignty, among others, kind of embedding in the Constitution what the Supreme Court has already ruled on, it’s made it abundantly clear that the things that we care about — this generation, a couple of generations spanning the delegates — has to do with providing people with the rights that many of us already feel like should exist and should be in the Constitution.
”And I wasn’t expecting for that to come out of this, especially with the ideological divides present. And that was really uplifting and warming and made me feel like having hope for change in the Constitution or a government system perhaps isn’t naive,“ they said.
