Louisiana amendment struck down like the "B" it was.

[Bricker]

@Otto

Which would put the nail in the coffin of your “marriage is just different” shtick…

Are you talking about the point I defended but ultimately conceded was wrong in this thread?

@iampunha

1. Is this limitation (one topic per amendment) held for all states’ constitutions (and if so by what?), is it a federal government mandate, or is there some other binding agent? I understand the rationale behind it, certainly, as it seems for one to be designed against having non sequitur riders on amendments.

There’s a short discussion in GD here. The provision at issue here is a specific Louisiana constitutional amendment. I don’t know how many other states have similar rules, but it’s not universal.

2. How many times has the requirement of one topic per amendment been the cause for striking down an amendment? I do not exactly run in a circle with a bunch of ConLaw lawyers, but given the level of activity on this board I would think there’d be some mention of it if there had been any such challenge.

Off the top of my head? I can’t recall another case of an amendment passing and then being struck down for this reason.

[Frank]

@Bricker

Off the top of my head? I can’t recall another case of an amendment passing and then being struck down for this reason.

WAG on my part, but I would suspect that is due to the vetting process weeding them out before they make it to the ballot.

[iampunha]

@Bricker

Off the top of my head? I can’t recall another case of an amendment passing and then being struck down for this reason.

Any idea where one that didn’t pass muster - as opposed to being passed but later repealed - might be? Just my own curiousity here:)