The Preterritorial Period
Arizona’s written history goes back to the 1500s, long after the cultural decline of the pre-historic groups (including Sinagua, Anasazi and Hohokam), who had settled in the region as early as 300 BC (McClory, 2012).
The Spanish Period
The Spanish arrived in the region when a Franciscan priest, Cabeza de Vaca’s expedition was shipwrecked of the Coast of present day Texas in 1528, after which they set off to explore the territory including the city of Cibola in 1539. De Vaca claimed the modern-day Southwest territory for Spain between1540-1542. Franciscan Europeans arrived in 1629 to settle the territory, while also establishing of missions to the north by the close of 1711. In 1736, the large silver deposits were discovered in the region, at a time Pima Indians launched revolts in 1752, coupled by the expulsion of Jesuits from the Spanish territory. In 1756, a seven-year Indian and French war broke out following land disputes, which was worn by Britain in 1763.
After the War, France ceded all the French territory, to the East of Mississippi (safe New Orleans) to England, while the Spanish took Cuba from England in exchange for West and East Florida. In 1776, Juan de Anza and other Franciscan explorer a through route to California, which ran through the present day Arizona, effectively laying a foundation for the 1776, establishment of the Tucson fort by the Spanish. This was during the heady years of the American Revolution, which led to the independence of the United States. In 1778, France and American Revolutionaries declare a fresh war against the English, leading up to the signing of the 1783 signing of the Treaty of Paris.
The period following 1785 ranching, missions and ranching prospered up until the 1810 War between Britain and the United States, which ended in a stalemate, but reinforced the country’s independence. The Mexican Revolution occurred between 1810 and 1821, leading to Mexico gaining its independence off the Spanish, with its territory comprising among others, the present-day Arizona.
The Mexican Period
In 1835, a War between Mexico and Texas broke out, resulting in a the weakening of the Mexican Revolutionaries and in 1946, the US Army marched 2,000 miles to California, crossing Arizona. The Mexican War saw the US gain control of California and New Mexico, after which the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the War, while at once bringing Texas, California and New Mexico (including Arizona).
U.S. Controlled Period
In 1850, the territories acquired off Mexico, including Arizona were admitted to the union, during which time, gold was discovered in California. Arizona’s territory was expanded through the Gadsden Purchase agreement in 1853, before copper was discovered in the region (Patterson, 2012). In 1856, petitions to create the state of Arizona were lodged with Congress, amidst efforts to map the territory, prior to the Civil War. Arizona became a Confederate territory in 1862, before the territory wad established by Lincoln in 1863. The territory’s capital was moved from Camp Whipple, to Prescott and then Tucson (1867), before settling on Phoenix in 1889 (McClory, 2012).
The Territorial Period
The early territorial years saw the development of gold, silver and copper mines along lower Colorado etc, attracted huge populations. Additional military posts were set up, with the prosperity seeing the emergence of a powerful agricultural industry among others. Republican governors, appointed by Washington, mainly ruled territorial Arizona through to 1906, when a referendum on the joint New Mexico-Arizona statehood failed. In 1910, Congress adopted the Arizona Enabling Act, paving way for the Arizona Constitutional Convention and the creation of Arizona as a state in 1912 (McClory, 2012).
This occurred at the peak of the Progressive Movement, with the majority of the drafters of its constitution being committed Progressives, leading to the initial constitution including clauses for referenda and recalls. However, the president (Taft) was firmly opposed to direct democracy, hence he vetoed the constitution, on account of its provision for the recall of judges. This provision was removed, but after 1912, it was reinstated after all. Direct democracy has been practiced in Arizona ever since, including during the 1912 election, when the electorate voted to extend suffrage to women. In 1916, the voters eliminated, then again reinstated capital punishment in 1918, while between 1914 through and 1932, the electorate approved and repealed the Prohibition respectively.
Similar initiatives with considerable implications on government have been evidenced in the state, including the 1992 adoption of term limits; the selection of judges on merit (1974) as well as the adoption of the citizen driven redistricting in the year 2000. Others include animal rights initiatives (1994 to 1998), approval of medical marijuana as well as other measures to decriminalize the growing and use of the same; restriction of bilingual education (200); restriction of same-sex marriages (2008) and denial of state benefits to immigrants who are undocumented. In addition, citizen referendums to block laws created by the legislator have been used tens of times including the 1998 referendum that prevented the state from undermining the citizen marijuana initiative (McClory, 2012). On the other hand, while the recall power is rarely recalled, in 1988, the then governor Mecham was recalled on the account of the citizens collecting upwards of a million signatures to petition the governor’s removal.
Part II: Arizona’s Constitution
- Balance of Powers
- Branches of Government
The Executive
The executive, which is charged with the implementation of the laws, comprises the governor, the secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, the superintendent of public instruction and other officers under them. It is led by are elected officials on a four-year term for a possible two consecutive terms. The executive (led by the governor) is responsible for initiating legislations (McClory, 2012).
- The executive has fiscal powers including the preparation of the state budget
- Appointment of judges and other senior officials at the state level
- Commander-in-chief of the National Guard in Arizona
- Veto legislations by the state legislature (McClory, 2012)
The Judiciary
It comprises the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court and Courts Not of Record. Under Article III, the judiciary is responsible for the interpretation of laws as well as the adjudication of disputes. Other powers include
- Vetoing legislations by the legislature and other policies by the executive
- Interpretation of the law
- Quasi-legislation through court precedents
The Legislature
It is tasked with It comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate. The senate comprises 30 members representing the 30 districts in the states, while the state parliament comprises 60 members (two from every district). The powers include:
- Framing laws on matters in the concurrent and state lists
- Passing the budget (McClory, 2012)
- Confirm the governor’s appointees
- Impeachment of the executive and judicial officers (judges etc)
- Procedures for Amending Arizona Constitution
The constitution amendment process, provided for under Article 21, offers three separate ways through which the state constitution may be amended. Firstly, the state constitution may be a amended on recommendation by the people through petitions of signed by 15% of qualified voters for gubernatorial elections. The proposed amendment is subsequently put to a ballot. Secondly, the constitution may be changed by the state legislature. The simple majority of members both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate must approve of the amendment. Subsequently, the state secretary publishes the proposed amendment in a mass circulating newspaper in all the state’s counties (McClory, 2012). At least 90 days later, the proposed amendment is put to a popular ballot. Thirdly, the Arizona constitution may be changed through a constitutional convention, which is called after a statewide popular vote. Once the convention proposes amendments, it must be subsequently put on a popular vote, before it becomes part of the constitution.
Commentary
It is clear that it is easier to amend the state constitution compared to the US Constitution for understandable reasons. It is critical that amendments to the constitution address long term and critical issues as against being reactive to immediate issues (Patterson, 2012). Effectively, the ease with which the state constitution may be changed makes ensures that people have an acceptable document, but this opens the possibility for the law to be reactive. Some amendments such as Proposition 101 and multiple other changes ranging from bilingual education programs to same-sex marriages, effectively try to replace policy decisions with constitutional amendments, which not only points to possible abuse of the instrument, but also the necessity of frequent amendments (McClory, 2012).
However, this easy process and the frequency with which it has been used in the past would be very agreeable to the Progressive framers of the constitution. Progressives need the constitution and the government/social policies to reflect the best interests of the people as against upholding traditions, practices, history etc. An easy process of amending the constitution can only facilitate this (Wightman, 2010). In addition, the fact that there are three separate processes of amending the constitution, including the ability for the population to initiate the changes, makes it easy to amend the constitution. In addition, all amendments come down to a simple majority approval in the popular vote, which ensures that the needs of the “simple majority” of the adult population in Arizona are reflected in the state’s constitution (Patterson, 2012). This is contrary to the US constitution for instance, which takes multiple years of arduous processes and ratification, which result in conservative constitutional values being preserved.
References
McClory, T. (2012). Understanding the Arizona Constitution. Phoenix: The University of Arizona Press.
Patterson, T. (2012). The American Democracy 10th (tenth) edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wightman, J. (2010). Ell Education In Arizona: Unconstitutional Segregation Or Just In Appropriate? Texas Hispanic Journal of Law & Policy Vol. 16 Issue 1 , 121-152.
