2024 Guide Center for Constitutional Design Model Constitutional Convention
Welcome to the Model Constitutional Convention. If you could amend the Constitution, what would you do? Undergraduates and law students from across the country will do just that at the first ever student-led Model Constitutional Convention. Please use this guide as a tool when participating in the Model Constitutional Convention.
Dear Convention Participants and Guests: This Memorial Day we are convening in Phoenix with a grand purpose. We seek to demonstrate the proposition that university students from across this nation can come together to propose and debate amendments to the United States Constitution—civilly and collaboratively. Although we have gathered students and mentors from more than 75 universities and from diverse backgrounds, all our participants share one common characteristic: an interest in the perpetuation of the Union and its Constitution for generations to come. This Convention will show the nation that constitutional change is possible through the commitment of a new generation of young people willing to engage in this civic enterprise. We are grateful to our donor, John Storr, for making this Convention possible, and for the dedication and hard work of numerous people at ASU and the larger community who have supported us in the myriad details associated with planning such a complex event and in thinking through the Convention’s structure and procedures. As I write, we do not yet know what the Convention will produce in terms of amendments. But we do know that bringing together law, masters and undergraduate students to consider and debate amendments will help produce a strong cohort of engaged citizens for the future. We hope that long lasting friendships are made here. We hope that students gain valuable skills that serve them well in other contexts. We hope that this experience motivates participants to remain civically involved for the rest of their lives. And we hope that the Convention helps sustain, in Lincoln’s immortal words, our government of the people, by the people, and for the people. With great enthusiasm and high hopes for the future and for the Convention, Stefanie A. Lindquist Stefanie A. Lindquist, JD, PhD Executive Director, Center for Constitutional Design Model Constitutional Convention Center for Constitutional Design
Table of Contents Schedule of Events.................................................................6-9 Rules of the Convention...................................................11 - 15 Guidance for the Convention......................................16 - 19 Meet the Mentors...............................................................20-22 Meet the Speakers...........................................................23-28 National and State Profiles.........................................36-87 Notes..............................................................................88-96 Model Constitutional Convention Center for Constitutional Design
Check-in - Thursday, May 23 3 - 6 p.m. Student and Mentor Check-In Location: Plaza Area, First Floor 6 - 8 p.m. Mentor welcome dinner, Law School Room 544 Day 1 - Friday, May 24 8 - 9 a.m. Check-in and breakfast Location: Plaza Area, First Floor 9 a.m. Welcome Ceremony Introductions by Stacy Leeds, Stefanie Lindquist Location: W.P. Carey Armstrong Foundation Great Hall 9:15 - 10 a.m. Keynote address, Jeffrey Rosen, CEO National Constitutional Center Location: W.P. Carey Armstrong Foundation Great Hall 10 - 10:45 a.m. Review and adoption of convention credentials and procedures, presentation by Parliamentarian, explanation of NCC proposals 10:45 a.m. Mid-morning coffee break Location: W.P. Carey Armstrong Foundation Great Hall 11:15 - 11:30 a.m. Discussion of procedures for the afternoon Committee meetings; review room assignments for Committees Location: Plaza Area, First Floor 11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m. Keynote speaker: Jill Lepore, Harvard University And working lunch hour in Room 544 Students organized into committees at tables of 10 students each, Introductions/rules established. 1 - 4 p.m. Committee Meetings Committees will move to rooms assigned for committee meetings throughout the law school, accompanied by faculty/graduate student mentors. events Schedule of
1 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. First Order of Business: Discuss and debate NCC Proposals assigned to committee, to include potential amendments to the original NCC Proposals Location: Committee rooms 2:30 - 3:45 p.m. Second Order of Business: Propose, debate, and agree on proposal(s) to forward to the floor of the Convention Location: Committee rooms Students will draw from their pre-convention preparation to inform their understanding of how the Convention might amend the Constitution for the good of the entire United States, and to represent the interests of the state of origin, which each has been assigned to represent. Each committee shall forward up to TWO proposals to the Convention which shall be the proposals receiving the highest majority vote. Ties will be resolved by drawing lots. 3:45 - 4:15 p.m. Break 4:15 – 5:30 p.m. Plenary Convention Location: W.P. Carey Armstrong Foundation Great Hall The Convention will meet to hear each chairman report the proposals (at the most two amendments) which have received at least a majority vote in committee. The committee session will begin with a presentation of each proposal on behalf of each committee. The chair of the committee will present the arguments for one of the proposals. Note that if the committees have agreed upon a second proposal, the committee chair must appoint a second committee member to present the second proposal to the convention. Each presentation will take no more than 5 minutes. A list of the proposals will be distributed to all of the delegates at the conclusion of the proceedings of Day 1. 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Buffet dinner Location: 5th Floor Patio and Room 544 Keynote Speaker: Richard Albert, University of Texas at Austin School of Law Day 2 - Saturday, May 25 8 - 8:30 a.m. Check in for Day 2: Paddles with names and numbers distributed for voting Location: 5th Floor Patio 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Plenary Convention All delegates gathered in Room 544 The morning session of Day 2 will begin with a statement from the President of the Convention, speaking for no more than 10 minutes, explaining the rules that will govern the debate concerning the proposals. The President will include in his or her explanation of the rules for debate the instruction that in the interest of ensuring time for a full and open debate with a broad participation, no delegate will speak for more than 2 minutes at one time.
The morning session will begin by addressing the NCC Proposals assigned randomly to the 10 committees and that have been voted out of committee. Alternative versions of each NCC proposals submitted to the assembly at the end of Day 1 committee meetings will appear on the screen before the entire Convention. Delegates may offer amendments to the proposals, with each amendment requiring a second before the delegates vote on it. The Secretaries will keep notes on the debates. The President will recognize the delegates by calling on them by the name of their state, designated on a paddle. Once the NCC proposals have been debated, the Convention will turn to consideration of all other proposals voted out of committee. 11:30 a.m. – 5 p.m. The afternoon session will begin with a working lunch (buffet). The afternoon session will resume for the purpose of considering additional proposals from each committee Location: Room 544. Lunch buffet 5 – 6:30 p.m. Break before dinner 6:30 p.m. – 8 p.m. Formal banquet at the Sheraton Keynote Speaker: Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School of Law Location: Downtown Sheraton, Paradise Valley Ballroom Day 3 - Sunday, May 26 8 - 9 a.m. Check-in and breakfast Location: 5th Floor Patio 9 a.m. – 12 p.m. The final day of the Constitutional Convention is to vote on the proposals considered throughout the day on Day 2 Location: Room 544 Debate will have a total time limit of 8 minutes per proposal with amendments allowed. The President and Secretaries of the convention will carefully monitor the voting for each proposal. A proposal may be considered adopted for further consideration and ratification by the states when it achieves a supermajority (76 of 100) approving vote from the convention. All final votes on the proposals shall be taken by rising serpentine count. A delegate who is unable to rise or raise their hand may indicate their vote in another fashion. For the purpose of approving proposals, the President will be permitted to vote. When all of the proposals have received an “up or down” vote, the secretaries will report the results to the President, who will read the results of the conference displayed on the screen, and the convention will adjourn. 12 - 1 p.m. Lunch Location: 5th Floor Patio 1 - 2 p.m. Additional time for voting if necessary Location: Room 544
2 - 4 p.m. The student committee recorders (who are still available in Phoenix) will work together under the direction of the Convention recorder to collate the results of the committee hearings (Day 1), the amendment debates (Day 2), and the voting (Day 3) to create a narrative of the convention, similar to the convention notes of James Madison (1787). Recorders will also gather quotes and reactions from delegates about their experience. 12:30 – 1:30 p.m. Optional admissions session with ASU Law Admissions Office Location: Room 650 thoughts A Space for your Model Constitutional Convention Center for Constitutional Design
help your success Here are a few resources to Event Leaders Stefanie Lindquist Faculty Director Email: sl@asu.edu Neta Borshansky Staff Director Email: nborshan@asu.edu Dottie Knox Program Administrator Cell: 602-526-2337 Email: Dottie.Knox@asu.edu Nathaniel Holland AV Technologies Manager Cell: 480-884-2513 Email: Nathaniel.Holland@asu.edu Wi-Fi information Internet Log-in info: SSID name = MCC 2024 Password = Washington Other Questions? Please text Dottie Knox, Program Administrator, at (602) 526-2337 IT Support Please contact Nathaniel Holland at nathaniel.holland@asu.edu or 480-884-2513
Rules of the Convention (normally bicameral) and do not readily lend themselves to convention procedure. Considering this fact, the sponsors have chosen to operate under the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Ed.) (RONR) with the exception that electronic voting in advance of the convention will be allowed. This decision is based on the applicability of RONR to conventions and the educational value of exposure to the more common parliamentary authority. Rules Rule 1. Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Ed.) shall govern the convention in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these rules. Rule 2. Administration The administrator of this event shall be the Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. The administrator shall perform the function of the committee on rules and the program committee. Preface The Model Constitutional Convention is modeled after a form of Convention described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It is necessary to abbreviate some of the processes that would be involved in forming a convention to accommodate the time constraints of holding this model convention in three days. In an actual Convention, it may take days or weeks to elect a presiding officer, adopt rules of the convention and even begin the committee work of actual drafting or debating a proposal for a constitutional amendment. In order to facilitate our time constraints, we will be electing a President, Vice President, and a Secretary, adopting the convention standing rules and program, and requiring proposed constitutional amendments in advance of the convention rather than from the floor as well as limiting the number of proposals that a state may submit. While it requires two-thirds of the state legislatures to agree to hold a convention, there is no guarantee that the delegates sent to the convention would in fact be legislators. The rules contained in Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure are designed for legislatures
Rule 3. Credentials Each state shall be entitled to two delegates, and D.C. and the U.S. Territories will also be represented. Attendance at all sessions is a requirement for funding. The administrators shall appoint a credentials committee of 4 to report the credentials to the convention. No other business is in order until approval of the credentials report. Rule 4. Officers 1. The delegates to the convention shall elect a President, Vice President, and Secretary of the Convention by a plurality vote in advance of the convention using Poll Everywhere Software. The voting will be open for a minimum of 6 hours. Each Candidate shall be allowed to submit a 5-minute video introduction for distribution to the delegates. The President and Vice-President should be chosen solely on their ability to preside. 2. The administrator shall appoint one student to preside over the election of the permanent President, Vice President, and Secretary which will simply be an announcement of the election results from the pre-convention election. Once the President has been declared elected, they will assume their duties immediately. 3. The parliamentarian shall be engaged by the administrator. Rule 5. Quorum A majority of the registered delegates must be present on the floor for the convention to conduct any business, with the exception of the motions to Raise a Question of Privilege, Recess, and Adjourn Sine Die. Rule 6. Order of Business The order of business shall be as follows: 1. Adoption of the Credentials Report (in advance of the convention) 2. Adoption of the Rules and Program (in advance of the convention) 3. Election of President, Vice President and Secretary (in advance of the convention) 4. Call to order 5. Invocation 6. Pledge of Allegiance 7. Roll Call of States 8. Review of Committee Assignments and Procedures 9. Committee Meetings 10. Plenary Hearing of Initial Reports 11. Plenary Explanation of the Rules of Debate 12. Consideration and Adoption of NCC Proposals 13. Consideration and Adoption of other Proposals 14. Adjournment Rule 7. Limitations of Proposals Any amendment to an existing Article or by adding a new Article will be deemed a proposal, including the NCC proposals. Each state shall be limited to one proposal for a Constitutional Amendment, either to amend an existing Article or to add a new Article. Proposals to amend an existing Article must be germane to that Article. All proposals must be submitted to committee chairs by Monday 20, 2024, to be considered by the convention.
Each state delegation must agree which member will present its additional proposal to their respective committee. If the two representatives do not agree on which proposals to submit, that state will not be permitted to submit a proposal. Territorial delegates may also submit a proposal to any committee, but must agree in advance as to the proposal and as to which committee(s) it will submit the proposal. Proposals that contain provisions that are not germane to one another will be ruled out of order by the committee chair and/or the convention chair. Proposals that amend more than one Article of the Constitution will also be ruled out of order unless they are necessary conforming amendments. If the wording of one proposal conflicts with the wording of a proposal already adopted, it shall not make the proposal out of order. The wording of the proposal adopted at the latest temporal point shall prevail if there exists a conflict between two or more proposals. Rule 8. Limitations of Motions The only permissible motions are original proposals, postpone indefinitely, primary, and secondary amendments to proposals, limit or extend debate, previous question, point of order, appeal, suspend the rules, division of the question, division of the assembly, parliamentary inquiry, motions concerning voting, request for information, reconsider, adopt in lieu of as described in Rule 11 question of privilege, recess and adjourn sine die. These rules including this rule may not be suspended without a three-quarters vote. Rule 9. Limitations of Debate Debate in Plenary Session shall be limited to two debates of no more than two minutes per speaker per debatable motion. Debate on any proposal shall not extend beyond 1 hour in total duration. Rule 10. Committee Procedure A. Committee Officers. Each Committee will elect a chairman and a scribe. The chairman will preside at the committee meeting and the scribe will produce a memo of the action of the meeting. B. Committee Proposals. Each committee will be assigned one NCC proposal to perfect. Each Committee will first consider the NCC proposal and then consider any proposals from the states represented within the committee. Each committee may advance up to two proposals to the floor: The proposals receiving the highest majority from the committee shall be forwarded by the committee. Ties will be resolved by drawing lots. If none of the proposals receive a majority vote or higher, that committee will not report any proposals. Any proposal in a committee that does not receive a majority vote or is not the highest majority will be considered defeated by the convention. C. Limitation of Debate in Committee The limitation of debate within the committee shall be limited to two debates of no more than two minutes per speaker per debatable motion.
The total time for debate on the NCC proposal shall be limited to 30 minutes. At the end of 30 minutes any pending motions shall be put to a vote without further debate in succession until the question is decided. The time remaining shall be divided equally among the remaining proposals or a maximum of 15 minutes, whichever is less, after which any pending motions shall be put to a vote. D. Previous Question in Committee A member of the committee may call for the previous question provided at least one pro and one con debate have been heard on the motion. E. Report of the Committee At the beginning of the first Plenary Session of the Convention, the Chairman of the committee will report one of the potential two proposals to the Convention. If the committee is to forward a second proposal, this must be presented by another member of the committee. Each presentation shall not exceed 5 minutes in length. At the conclusion of the presentation, the member moves to adopt their proposal or adopt their proposal in lieu of the other committee’s proposal if it has already been presented. The proposals shall automatically be postponed until the Saturday session. Rule 11. Adopt in Lieu Of. It shall be allowable to adopt one proposal or amendment in lieu of one or more other proposals or amendments by a majority vote. If a motion to adopt one proposal or amendment in lieu of another proposal or amendment is lost, the original proposal or amendment is defeated but the remaining motions may still be offered. Rule 12. Suspension of the Rules Contrary to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, these rules (including this rule) may not be suspended except by a three-quarters vote. Rule 13. Points of Order and Appeal All points of order will be decided by the President subject to an appeal except all appeals shall be non-debatable beyond the President and the appellant. Rule 14. Plenary Session The plenary session shall first take up the NCC proposals in an order determined by the President. It shall not be in order to move to alter the order of consideration. If a proposal is taken up to adopt one proposal in lieu of another, it shall be in order to amend the proposal but not the in lieu of proposals. If a motion to adopt one proposal in lieu of another is defeated, the other proposal shall be immediately stated as pending by the presiding officer. This proposal is then open to amendment but not substitution back to the first proposal. After completion of the NCC proposals, the chair will announce the next proposal as pending and all the above actions shall be in order at that time.
Rule 15. Amendments No more than one primary and one secondary amendment to a proposal may be pending at one time. There is no limit to the number of times a proposal may be amended. Amendments must be germane to the pending proposal to be in order. The President may waive the settled rule for amendment (the rule the prohibits wording from being amended once it has been amended) if, in the opinion of the president, the replacement wording is likely to pass or improves the proposal. Rule 16. Minutes Minutes of all motions and necessary procedural actions will be kept. The minutes will not reflect the names of the makers of motions or seconding of motions other than that they were seconded. The minutes will not attempt to capture any substance, direction, accounting of debate. Rule 17. Display of Motions All proposals or motions and amendments of motions or proposals will be displayed, and the displayed version will be the official version of all motions adopted. Rule 18. Decorum Decorum and Diplomacy must be maintained at all times in debate and on the delegate floor. As a reminder the rules of decorum are: 1. Confine all remarks to the merits of the pending question. A delegate may not debate a proposal while an amendment is pending. 2. Avoid the use of member’s names. A delegate should be referred to as “the delegate from Virginia”. 3. Refrain from disturbing the assembly. Side talk, clapping and cheering, and other forms of outward expression are prohibited.. 4. Refrain from attacking a delegate’s motives. Debate is confined to the merits of the question not the personality of the proponent. 5. Refrain from reading from papers quotations without permission. 6. A delegate may not speak against their own motion 7. Address all remarks to the President. 8. Refrain from speaking adversely on a prior action not pending. 9. Be seated during an interruption by the President. 10. The President may not debate a proposal without yielding the gavel to the Vice President or another member who has not spoken. Rule 19. Voting All votes will be taken by voice vote and verified according to methods in the parliamentary authority except for the final vote on any proposal which shall be taken by rising serpentine count. A delegate who is unable to rise or raise their hand may indicate their vote in another fashion. It shall require 76 votes to adopt any final proposal for amendment to the Constitution. The President may vote on any vote in which their vote will alter the outcome of the vote.
Guidance for Delegates and Mentors The document is intended to provide students and mentors with additional guidance about their roles at the Model Constitutional Convention. It should be read along with other materials provided on the Resources section of the Convention webpage, as well as the various FAQs that have been provided to students on the web and via email. Prior to the Convention: Students will work with their mentors in committees to identify proposed amendments for debate once the Convention begins. Note that the committees have been formed to serve a “winnowing function” to ensure that the delegates in plenary session debate only those amendments that have support in committee. The preConvention process will proceed as follows: 1. Each state delegation (of two delegates) will have the authority to propose ONE amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, each delegation will need to work collaboratively to draft an amendment that would be consistent with the assigned state’s political and economic profile. For this purpose, students should review the Resources page for the Convention, which offers statistical data on the American states. 2. Territorial delegates may propose ONE amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus the Territorial delegates will need to work collaboratively to draft an amendment in their territories’ interests. This amendment may be submitted to any committee for consideration. 3. State and territorial delegates will sit on separate committees (i.e. the two students from each state delegation will not be serving on the same committee). Each state delegation must decide which of their two committees to advance their amendment through, and must think strategically about which of their committees will be most receptive to their particular amendment. Negotiation, log-rolling and other strategic maneuvers are perfectly valid (and realistic) exercises at the Convention. 4. Each committee will be assigned (“seeded with”) one of the five proposed amendments from the National Constitution Center’s drafting project. 5. Each committee may vote out no more than TWO amendments for consideration by the Convention sitting in plenary session. One of the two amendments MAY be the National Constitution Center’s amendment, but need not be. 6. Once the state delegations and territorial delegates have agreed upon the amendment they wish to advance, that proposed amendment must be forwarded to the Chair of the committee that will consider the amendment. The Chair will post all proposed
amendments to the committee’s unique Google drive. Note that this process may result in each committee considering up to TWELVE proposals, of which only TWO may be advanced for consideration by the Convention sitting in plenary session. 7. Committees will debate the proposals on the first day of the Convention (Friday) and the top two vote getters will advance to the plenary session (please see the Convention Rules for more information on the voting procedures in committee sessions). At the Convention: An amendment may be adopted by the Convention in plenary session by a supermajority of 76 votes. Preparing and Participating in the Convention: As each delegation collaborates to propose an amendment, delegates may wish to consider the following questions (with thanks to Professor Ross Astoria of the University of Wisconsin Parkside for these guiding queries): 1. What is the problem to be remedied by an amendment to the Constitution? 2. Does this problem require an amendment to the Constitution, or could it be remedied by legislation? 3. Why has that problem developed? Has the problem developed because of changes in technology, demographics, the environment? Is the amendment designed to overturn a Supreme Court case? What future problems might the Constitution face? Does your amendment anticipate those problems? 4. Who would benefit from the amendment and who would perceive the amendment as harmful to their interests? Who is benefited by the status quo? 5. What are the political, economic, and social forces that motivate your amendment? In presenting your amendment to the public, will you be able to articulate those factors persuasively? 6. What additional language to the Constitution will remedy the problem identified? In developing this language, you might consider which institutions will interpret or implement that language. Will those institutions interpret your language in the way that you would find favorable, or might they interpret it differently, or even contrary to how you want it to be interpreted? For instance, will the amending language enable or require Congressional implementation? What sort of lawsuits will bring the amendment before the Supreme Court? How will the Supreme Court interpret that language when and if it takes jurisdiction? How will it impact state governments? Amending language might even alter the way the United States interacts with other nations; how will the leadership of other countries interpret the amendment?
7. Can you develop a coalition of delegates which will form a supermajority (76 votes) in favor of the proposed amendment? 8. Has an amendment such as yours ever been proposed? Examining the history of the success or failure of previous attempts at amending the Constitution will give you a sense of what has worked in the past and what might or might not work now (see The Amendments Project as a guide). Links to items mentioned in the text: • The Resources Section of the Convention webpage: constitutionaldesign.asu.edu/resources-for-the-modelconstitutional-convention/ • The Drafting Project: constitutioncenter.org/media/files/The_Proposed_ Amendments_AMENDMENTS.pdf • The Amendments Project: amendmentsproject.org/search?view=None&search_ any_field=&summary=&amendment_text=&type=&date_ after=&date_before=&sort=relevance&size=25&page=1
thoughts A Space for your Model Constitutional Convention Center for Constitutional Design
Meet the Mentors Dmitry Bam, Vice Dean/Provost, at the University of Maine School of Law. Lawrence R. Jones, Adjunct Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of New Mexico and former New Jersey Superior Court Judge. David Bridge, Associate Professor of Political Science, at Baylor University. Dennis Lambries, Chair Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Political Science Program Coordinator, Pre-law Advisor, at Newberry College. Joshua A. Douglas, Ashland-Spears, Inc. Distinguished Research Professor of Law, at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law. Rick LaRue, researcher and freelance writer at Structure Matters, focusing on constitutional electoral structure and amendments. Laura Hatcher, Chair of Political Science, Philosophy & Religion, at Southeast Missouri State University. Jeronimo Lau Alberdi, Professor at Universidad Austral (Argentina) and Doctoral Candidate in Public Law at the University of Virginia.
Michael Lyons, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, at Utah State University. Stephen C. Phillips, Lecturer in Political Science, at Clemson University. Matthew Martin, Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin, and Senior Research Analyst at Comparative Constitutions Project. Carrie Archie Russell, Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Education, College of Arts & Sciences, Principal Senior Lecturer, Director of Pre-Law Advising, at Vanderbilt University. Shirley Mays, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Law Professor at University of South Dakota Knudsen School of Law. Howard Schweber, Professor of Political Science at the University Of Wisconsin–Madison. Carol McNamara, Director of the Great Hearts Institute for Classical Education. Previously, Senior Director for the Center for Constitutional Design at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Steve Sharp, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer and Instructor in Politics and Law, at Utah State University. Robert W. Oldendick, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of South Carolina. Kyle Shen, Visiting Associate Professor, teaching comparative and international law and politics, at Occidental College.
Alex P. Smith, Lecturer in the Political Science Department, at the University of Iowa. James Strickland, Assistant Professor in the School of Politics and Global Studies, at Arizona State University. Loretta Tillery, Doctoral Candidate in Public Policy, at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, and member of the National Association of Parliamentarians and American Institute of Parliamentarians. Justin Zyla, Graduate Teaching Associate at the School of Politics and Global Studies, at Arizona State University Mentors Continued... thoughts A Space for your Model Constitutional Convention Center for Constitutional Design
Richard Albert,William Stamps Farish Professor in Law, Professor of Government, and Director of Constitutional Studies at the University of Texas at Austin Professor Albert is the William Stamps Farish Professor in Law, professor of government and director of constitutional studies at the University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on constitutionalism and constitutional amendment from comparative, doctrinal, historical, and theoretical perspectives. Born and raised in Canada, Professor Albert has published more than 20 books, including Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions (Oxford University Press, 2019). He is the founding director of the International Forum on the Future of Constitutionalism, and has advised governments and international organizations on constitutional amendment and reform in democratic and democratizing countries. Professor Albert is the co-author of Canadian Constitutional Law, a leading textbook on Canadian public law now in its fifth edition, and his publications have been translated into Bahasa, Chinese, French, Hungarian, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Professor Albert holds law and political science degrees from Yale University, the University of Oxford, and Harvard University and served as a law clerk to the Chief Justice of Canada. Speakers Meet the
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky became the 13th Dean of Berkeley Law on July 1, 2017, when he joined the faculty as the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law. Prior to assuming this position, from 2008-2017, he was the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at University of California, Irvine School of Law. Before that he was the Alston and Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University from 2004-2008, and from 1983-2004 was a professor at the University of Southern California Law School, including as the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science. From 1980-1983, he was an assistant professor at DePaul College of Law. He is the author of nineteen books, including leading casebooks and treatises about constitutional law, criminal procedure, and federal jurisdiction. His most recent major books are Worse than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism (2022) and Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights (2021). In 2024, National Jurist magazine again named Dean Chemerinsky as the most influential person in legal education in the United States. In 2022, he was the President of the Association of American Law Schools. He received his B.S. at Northwestern University and his J.D. at Harvard Law School. continued... Meet the speakers
Al Gage, CPP-T, PRP, PAP, Convention Parliamentarian Al Gage is a professional practicing parliamentarian with a wide variety of clients that include many non-profits, corporations, boards, and political parties at all levels. He has worked extensively with state political conventions. He is also a high school parliamentary procedure coach and has coached National Championship CTSO teams in both the FFA (Future Farmers of America) and HOSA (Health Occupation Students of America) Contests as well as ten state champion teams since 2008 in the various organizations. He currently serves as Superintendent of the National FFA Conduct of Chapter Meetings Leadership Development Event. His passion is in educating future board members, educators, and parliamentarians in parliamentary law from the very beginning level. Al is currently President of the American Institute of Parliamentarians after serving more than 6 years on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee. Jill Lepore, David Woods Kemper ‘41 Professor of American History and Affiliate Professor of Law, Harvard University Professor Jill Lepore is the David Woods Kemper ’41 Professor of American History at Harvard University. She is also a staff writer at The New Yorker. Her many books include, These Truths: A History of the United States (2018), an international bestseller, named one of Time magazine’s top ten non-fiction books of the decade. Her latest book is The Deadline (2023). She is currently working on a long-term research project called Amend, an NEH-funded data collection of attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution. A prize-winning professor, she teaches classes in evidence, historical methods, the humanities, and American political history. Professor Lepore received a B.A. in English from Tufts University in 1987, an M.A. in American Culture from the University of Michigan in 1990, and a Ph.D. in American Studies from Yale University in 1995.
Stacy Leeds, Willard H. Pedrick Dean, Regents and Foundation Professor of Law, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Dean Stacy Leeds is a scholar of Indigenous law and policy and an experienced leader in law, higher education, economic development and conflict resolution. Leeds was the first Indigenous woman to serve as a law school dean. She served as dean of University of Arkansas School of Law (2011-2018) and as the inaugural Vice Chancellor for Economic Development, University of Arkansas (2017-2020). Dean Leeds has been a professor and administrator at University of Kansas and University of North Dakota, and a William H. Hastie Fellow at University of Wisconsin. Dean Leeds is an elected member of the American Law Institute and a recipient of the American Bar Association’s Spirit of Excellence Award. Leeds prioritizes public service at the national and local level. She is a former Cherokee Nation Supreme Court Justice and former Chair of the Cherokee Nation Gaming Commission. She currently serves as a founding board member and treasurer of the Foundation for America’s Public Lands, a congressionally-chartered non-profit. Dean Leeds is a corporate board member for Kituwah LLC (wholly owned business diversification company of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) and board vice-president of Native Forward Scholars Fund (formerly American Indian Graduate Center). She received her B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis, her M.B.A. from the University of Tennessee, her J.D. from the University of Tulsa, College of Law, and her LL.M from the University of Wisconsin, School of Law. continued... Meet the speakers
Stefanie Lindquist, ASU Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science; Executive Director, Center for Constitutional Design at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU Stefanie Lindquist is a professor of law and political sciences in the School of Global Politics and the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU and will assume her role as dean of the School of Law of Washington University on July 1. She is a nationally recognized constitutional law and U.S. Supreme Court expert. She serves as executive director of ASU Law’s Center for Constitutional Design, where she has helped to facilitate national dialogue about constitutional norms and to create associated programs with a variety of partners across the country. Prior to her current role, Lindquist served as senior vice president for global academic initiatives, leading ASU’s international academic portfolio to create alliances in countries around the world to advance global educational access, collaborations and impact. Lindquist is the co-author of three books and has authored dozens of published articles examining judicial behavior, judicial activism and Supreme Court decision-making. Her book, “Measuring Judicial Activism,” is the first publication to define the oft-used term quantitatively. She earned her Temple JD in 1988 and in 1995 earned her PhD in political science at the University of South Carolina. We don’t accomplish anything in this world alone.” – Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic. He was previously the legal affairs editor of The New Republic and a staff writer for The New Yorker. Rosen’s new book is The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024). His other books include the New York Times bestseller Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law, as well as biographies of Louis Brandeis and William Howard Taft. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, and Yale Law School. continued... Meet the speakers
Meet the delegates Erika Leane Acosta University of Pennsylvania Stars and Stripes Brent Allen Glendale Community College Liberty Alicia Ambra University of Tampa Independence Kyle Baek Harvard University Saratoga Anna Bailey Brigham Young University Independence Savannah Baptiste University of Arkansas Potomac Callie Barnett Appalachian State Allegiance Timothy Basista ASU Law Allegiance HannahBenavidez BYU Law Yorktown Sophia Berg Duke University Potomac Mackenzie Blackwell University of Maine School of Law We the People Jazmine Blazquez University of Maine School of Law Potomac Michael Brand University of California, Berkeley Potomac Nicholas Byrd University of Georgia Stars and Stripes Davin Caratao Carleton University Saratoga Zayda Cervantes University of California, Merced Yorktown Louis Cohn University of Louisiana - Lafayette Stars and Stripes Alexie Coleman Bryn Mawr College Liberty Emily Daniel University of Richmond Potomac Joshua Darrish University of California, Santa Barbara Potomac Luke Davis Pomona College Yorktown Madeline Diehl Lewis & Clark Law School We the People Lexi Duffy Pomona College Freedom Rebecca Eastham California Lutheran University Yorktown Preston Ellis University of Texas at Austin Stars and Stripes Jorge Espinoza-Gonzalez Trinity College Allegiance Name School Committee
Meet the delegates continued... Mason Gabrish Tulane University Yorktown Elizabeth Garcia University of Tampa Saratoga Stephanie Gerhart ASU Law We the People Jonathan Gutierrez University of California, Berkeley Yorktown Majdoleen Hamed Central Connecticut State University Independence Riley Herbert California Lutheran University Saratoga Vanessa Herrera California Baptist University Yorktown Cydney Hillard University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law Lexington and Concord Holly Hoogstra ASU Yorktown Sean Ignatuk University of California, Santa Barbara Saratoga Zachary Jacobson Cornell Law School Allegiance Parth Joshi University of Southern California Lexington and Concord Camdyn Kilzer University of Tennessee, Knoxville Freedom Brendan King College of the Holy Cross Yorktown Samuel Kligman Princeton University Stars and Stripes Sydney Klupar Lewis & Clark Law School Independence Selma Krantz ASU Independence Nectaria Kurth University of New Mexico Liberty Kaylee Law Johns Hopkins Allegiance Rebekah Lazar Lafayette College Stars and Stripes JP Leskovich University of Pittsburgh School of Law Freedom Karlie Lobell George Washington University Liberty Melody Luo University of Pennsylvania Independence Jacob Maldonado Rutgers University Potomac Daniel Martin University of Montana Lexington and Concord Natalie Marx University of New Orleans We the People Name School Committee
Lola McGuire Emory University Liberty Alexander McMillan Baylor University Lexington and Concord Katherine Minch ASU We the People Aleksia Minetos University of New Mexico Yorktown Imaan Mirza Harvard University Lexington and Concord Rafael Montero Haverford College Freedom Hannah Murphy Bridgewater State University Saratoga Amarela Muskic Texas Southern University Lexington and Concord Nicholas Norman Southern Methodist University We the People Ava Pallotta Harvard University Allegiance Jordan Pittman ASU Law Saratoga Felix Raimondo ASU Law Liberty Jofran Rea University of Nevada, Reno Stars and Stripes Jeannie Regidor Florida International University College of Law We the People Alexander Reynolds University of Louisville Liberty Gareth Ripol University of New Mexico Lexington and Concord Vianna Rodgers University of Texas at Austin Allegiance Brittney Rojas University of California, Merced Saratoga Alejandra Roldan-Vasco University of Florida Allegiance David Ruiz Pomona College Saratoga Griffith Ryan-Roberts University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Freedom Nicholas Salerno Temple University We the People Alex Santiago University of California, Santa Cruz Lexington and Concord Georgia Schmidt Occidental College Independence Jonathan Schneiderman Harvard University Freedom Jeffrey Schremmer Benedictine College - Atchison, KS Independence Kyle Schubick University of Iowa Independence Rachel Sharma Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Liberty Kostiantyn Sheiko Chicago-Kent College of Law Saratoga Sebastian Shibuya University of Arizona Saratoga Name School Committee
Meet the delegates continued... Sonnie Simons Oklahoma State University Freedom Simon Slot University of Texas at Austin Potomac Daniel Song Swarthmore College Liberty Crispin South ASU Law Lexington and Concord Edward Spalione University of New Mexico We the People Taichi Sugai University of Nevada, Reno Potomac Alexa Sullivan Vanderbilt University Allegiance Connor Summers University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Lexington and Concord Yuyao(Rosalie) Sun ASU Independence Philip Suppes Denison University Allegiance Caterina Tian-Svobodny Vanderbilt University Stars and Stripes Stephanie Tillotson University of Maine School of Law Freedom Joshua Tubbs College of the Holy Cross We the People Julia Twiford Loyola Marymount University Freedom Anish Verma ASU Stars and Stripes Kaylee Vitato University of Louisville Stars and Stripes Kaydee Votaw Northwest Missouri State University Liberty Warren Ward ASU Allegiance Baipei Wei University of Virginia Lexington and Concord Dominic Weiss Penn State Dickinson Law Freedom LeDajah Williams University of Georgia Potomac Name School Committee
Abigail Wilson Southeast Missouri State Stars and Stripes Natalie Wilson Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Liberty Alvin Xu University of Texas at Austin Yorktown Ethan Yeung UC Santa Cruz We the People Amy Zhao Vanderbilt University Freedom Name School Committee
Notes on measures of citizen and state ideology* Citizen Ideology State Government Ideology (Tausanovitch and Warshaw) Uses data from 275,000 survey respondents to estimate the policy preferences of every state. Values on this measure range from 35.1 (most conservative, Wyoming) to -28.9 (most liberal, Massachusetts). States are ranked, with lower values representing more conservative states. (Berry, Ringquist, Fording, and Hanson) This measure relies on Shor and McCarty’s National Political Awareness Test common space estimates of the ideal points of U.S. state legislators to compute a state-legislative-based government ideology NOMINATE score based on more direct estimates of the ideal points of state legislators. Values on this measure range from 17.8 (most conservative, South Carolina) to 70.4 (most liberal, California). States are ranked, with lower values representing more conservative states. Citizen Ideology (Berry, Ringquist, Fording, and Hanson) To measure citizen ideology, the ideological position of each member of Congress is identified using interest group ratings. Next, the citizen ideology in each district of a state is estimated using the ideology score for the district’s incumbent, the estimated ideology score for a challenger (or hypothetical challenger) to the incumbent, and election results that presumably reflect ideological divisions in the electorate. Finally, citizen ideology scores for each district are used to compute an unweighted average for the state as a whole. Values on this measure range from 23.9 (most conservative, Oklahoma) to 97.0 (most liberal, Connecticut). States are ranked, with lower values representing more conservative states. * Many thanks to Robert W. Oldendick, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of South Carolina and Convention Mentor, for assembling the national and state profiles that follow.
National profile Total population of 334,914,895 13.6% African-American 19.1% Hispanic 50.4% Female Center for Constitutional Design 11.5% Below Poverty Level 20.8% on Social Security and/or Supplemental Security Income Voted for Donald Trump 46.2% in 2016 46.9% in 2020 State governors 27 Republicans 23 Democrats Education 25 and older population 10.3% Less than high school 26.1% High school graduate 27.9% Some college 35.7% Bachelor’s degree or higher
State Senates (Nebraska (unicameral), Republican Majority) (Alaska is an even split) 29 Republican Majority 19 Democrat Majority 1,115 Republicans 845 Democrats 4 Independent or Other 9 Vacancies Total state senators State Houses of Representatives 28 Republican Majority 19 Democrat Majority One evenly divided; Nebraska (unicameral), Republican Majority (Alaska is an even split) 2,945 Republicans 2,433 Democrats 19 Independent or Other 16 Vacancies Total state representatives 217 Republicans 213 Democrats 49 Republicans 48 Democrats 3 Independents (Caucus with Democrats) U.S. Senate U.S. House (five vacancies)
Alabama State Profile Composition of State Senate: 27 Republicans; 8 Democrats Composition of State House of Representatives: 74 Republicans; 28 Democrats (2 vacancies) Kay Ivey Republican Governor Citizen Ideology: (Tausanovitch and Warshaw): 19.8; State Rank: 7 (Lower = More Conservative) (Berry, et al.): 38.3; State Rank: 9 (Lower = More Conservative) State Government Ideology: (Berry, et al.): 24.5; State Rank: 13 (Lower = More Conservative) 2 Republicans (Tuberville; Britt) U.S. Senate 6 Republicans; 1 Democrat U.S. House Delegation Population demographics: Total population 5,108,468 African-American 25.7% Hispanic 4.9% Female 51.6% Below poverty level 16.2% 24.8% Education (25 and older population): Less than high school 11.2% High school graduate 30.4% Some college 29.6% Bachelor’s Degree or higher 28.8% Voted for Donald Trump: In 2016 62.1% In 2020 62% On social security and/or supplemental security income
Alaska State Profile Composition of State Senate: 11 Republicans; 9 Democrats Composition of State House of Representatives: 22 Republicans; 13 Democrats 4 Not Affiliated; 1 Independent Mike Dunleavy Republican Governor Citizen Ideology: (Tausanovitch and Warshaw): 17.6; State Rank: 10 (Lower = More Conservative) (Berry, et al.): 50.6; State Rank: 24 (Lower = More Conservative) State Government Ideology: (Berry, et al.): 41.0; State Rank: 26 (Lower = More Conservative) 2 Republicans (Murkowski; Sullivan) U.S. Senate 1 Democrat U.S. House Delegation Population demographics: Total population 733,406 African-American 3% Hispanic 7.7% Female 47.9% Below poverty level 11% 16.3% Education (25 and older population): Less than high school 6.6% High school graduate 29.1% Some college 33.7% Bachelor’s Degree or higher 30.6% Voted for Donald Trump: In 2016 51.3% In 2020 52.8% On social security and/or supplemental security income
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzMzMzQ=