Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An integral part of any economy is the political constitution under which it operates. Constitutions codify procedures and place limits on government actions. Constitutions stabilize the “rules of the game” that are crucial for rational economic calculation.
Since constitutional law aims to provide certainty, the process for amending the constitution is designed to be cumbersome. Typically, constitutional amendment requires more than a simple legislative or electoral majority. For example, Indiana requires that both houses of the Legislature approve a proposed constitutional amendment in two successive sessions. The proposed amendment must then be approved by a majority of voters in a statewide election.
An analogy: Most want game rules in sports to be hard to change. The NFL’s constitution requires a three-fourths vote to change playing rules. Fans would understandably be upset if the other team could change the rules to their advantage in the middle of a game!
Of course, people have different opinions about how hard constitutional change ought to be. However, most appeals for constitutional changes are about the proponent’s immediate interest, although the rhetoric is couched in terms of lofty ideals. Two current calls for constitutional reform in Ohio and Israel support this view.
Next week, Ohio voters decide whether to raise the threshold for approving citizen-initiated constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. Both sides couch their arguments in terms of high ideals. However, everyone knows the issue is really about abortion. Abortion-rights advocates, mainly Democrats, are proposing abortion rights be constitutionally enshrined. Such an amendment would likely pass a popular vote at a 50% threshold but not at a 60% threshold. So pro-life advocates, mainly Republicans, are trying to raise the threshold.
Israel, like the United Kingdom, has no formal constitution. Its Supreme Court, however, can rule laws passed by the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, unconstitutional. The current government has sought to limit the court’s power. The other side strongly opposes these changes. Both sides base their arguments on high ideals. But everyone knows the issue is more about the exemption of religiously conservative Haredi Jews from military conscription than abstract principles of government. Attempts to make the exemption permanent have been thwarted by the high court.
In Ohio and Israel, both sides try to convince us they are on the side of the angels and that their opponents are in league with the devil. We should be skeptical about those claims but probably should take constitutional reform seriously.•
__________
Bohanon and Horowitz are professors of economics at Ball State University. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.