Document labeled 'First Amendment.'

Tennessee Constitutional Amendments and the Case for Brevity

by

Tennessee voters expanded the state constitution by 442 words this month through three successful amendments.

The changes, which passed with significant margins, cover a range of issues from pretrial bail to property taxes. According to a report from Tennessee Lookout, the expansion includes Amendment One, which increases the number of crimes for which an accused person can be held without bail, and Amendment Two, which bans a statewide property tax. Both measures passed with more than a two-to-one majority.

The legislative shifts represent a growing trend of embedding specific policy decisions directly into the state’s foundational document. While the U.S. Constitution remains a model of brevity at roughly 7,591 words including amendments, state constitutions often serve as much more detailed rulebooks. Tennessee’s document has now grown to over 14,000 words following these recent votes.

The expanding scope of state law

The recent amendments demonstrate how voters are increasingly using the constitutional process to settle debates that might otherwise be handled through standard statutes. Amendment Three, a measure focused on victims’ rights, passed with a margin exceeding three-to-one and added 517 words while deleting 190.

This pattern of adding specificities can lead to what some legal scholars describe as “zombie” provisions—rules that remain on the books but are eventually rendered unenforceable by federal courts.

Historical examples include restrictions on certain offices being held by atheists or literacy tests for voting. Tennessee has already begun a process of cleaning up such language; in 2022, voters removed a provision that allowed slavery or involuntary servitude as a criminal punishment, Tennessee Lookout reported.

Tennessee Constitutional Amendments and the Case for Brevity

The tension lies in whether a constitution should define the basic functions of government or act as a granular list of social policies. A constitution typically delineates the rights held by the people to protect against government overreach, but the line between a fundamental right and a statutory law is often blurred in practice.

These changes have high economic and judicial stakes. By banning a statewide property tax through Amendment Two, voters have placed a hard limit on future legislative revenue options. By amending the rules for pretrial bail, the state has altered how defendants are treated before a conviction is secured.

Constitutional brevity versus policy detail

There is a growing divide between the “less is more” approach favored by the founders and the modern impulse to codify every societal preference. The original U.S. Constitution was a short, coherent structure designed to be interpreted by courts as technology and society evolved.

For instance, the document includes provisions for promoting the “Progress of Science and the Useful Arts,” which has allowed courts to apply 18th-century text to modern copyright and patent law.

Critics of long-form state constitutions argue that over-specifying laws in a constitution makes the legal framework rigid and difficult to update. When a policy is placed in a constitution rather than a statute, changing it requires a much more difficult and expensive amendment process rather than a simple vote in the General Assembly.

Tennessee constitutional amendments explained: What Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would do — NewsChannel 5

Conversely, proponents of these amendments argue that constitutionalizing certain protections—such as property tax bans or victims’ rights—is the only way to ensure those rights are not easily overturned by shifting political winds. They view the constitution as a shield that prevents the government from moving the goalposts on essential public interests.

In Florida, for example, the state constitution includes specific language prohibiting the cruel and inhumane confinement of pregnant pigs on farms. This highlights how deeply specific social and animal welfare policies can become embedded in a state’s highest law.

As Tennessee's document continues to grow, the question is whether the state is building a stronger protector of rights or simply creating a more cumbersome and outdated legal manual. Does the addition of these 442 words provide lasting security, or does it merely add to the complexity of a document that was meant to be a simple framework?

Related reading

Read next