The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
State Constitution Tool
A great free resource for lawyers, judges, academics, and students doing cross-state constitutional law research.
Check it out, at https://stateconstitutiontool.org (from American Juris Link); the site lets you easily find state constitutional provisions related to a particular topic, and then compare them.
Thus, for instance, say you're writing about a state constitutional right to bear arms, free speech, open government, privacy, etc. You can select that option, and then either select "all states" or some set of states in which you're interested. That will then show you those provisions in all state constitutions, and let you compare them further, or search their text for particular keywords.
Each state, of course, has its own constitution, and many provide more rights than the federal Constitution does (or provide the same rights but with different, and potentially more capacious, language). They also have very different sorts of non-rights provisions, for instance statutory single-subject rules, prohibitions on certain kinds of special laws, and more.
The Tool is focused on text; users will still need to do their own caselaw research about how various textual provisions have been interpreted. But the text is the first place to start (among other things because it can help show which other state provisions are similarly written, and can thus help guide the user's followup research). And though it was just released very recently, it has already been cited in an Alabama Supreme Court concurrence:
The problems associated with lockstepping [i.e., interpreting a state constitutional provision in lockstep with its federal analog -EV] are magnified in instances in which the text of the State constitutional provision differs substantially from that of the federal constitutional provision. Here, Alabama's Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause have little in common except for the phrase "due process of law." Compare Ala. Const. 2022, art. I, § 13 ("[E]very person, for any injury done him, in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have a remedy by due process of law; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay.") with U.S. Const. amend. 14, § 1 ("No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.").14 It would be unusual for two provisions that are worded so differently to have an identical meaning and application in all cases.
14For a useful tool to compare state and federal constitutional provisions, see Am. Juris Link State Const. Tool, which, at the time of this decision, could be located at: https://stateconstitutiontool.org.
Much worth checking out.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hy, Thanks for sharing great information.
Fascinating!
Of course, depending on state case law/precedent, I assume even identically worded clauses could have varying interpretations/applications, unless the case law consistently also references federal text/case law/precedents.
I think we’re seeing this now play out with any “rights to privacy” language (although it does not appear in the US Constitution text, only some obsolete case law.)
"They also have very different sorts of non-rights provisions, for instance statutory single-subject rules, prohibitions on certain kinds of special laws, and more."
I wouldn't categorically refer to these as "non-rights provisions." Plenty of stuff in various parts of these constitutions serves at least indirectly to protect popular rights. For instance: a single-subject rule provides at least some restraint against arbitrary logrolling legislation.
I checked speech for Massachusetts. Originally Article 16 applied to speech, but it has been annulled. For completeness, I like to see both provisions of the state constitution. Note the significant difference between the two provisions.
Article 16 (1780)
The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.
Article of Amendment, Article 77 (1948)
Article 16 of the First Part is hereby annulled and the following is adopted in place thereof:
Article XVI. The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth. The right of free speech shall not be abridged.
Totally pulling this from my (redacted) but think Alabama still has the longest State Constitution by far, seems like if Auburn wants to change the grass at Jordan-Hare it takes a Constitutional amendment, Amurica hasn’t had 30, Alabamas got hundreds, but ironically, with no lottery and low property taxes, way more minorities own their own homes than in a lot of blue states
What a cool website, Professor Volokh.
I really like how you can 'fine tune' the match. How do they do that on the back-end? Is it a straight character to character match %?