The Constitution: Ev’s Amendment

For the past five years, Everett Dirksen has worked with evangelical zeal to press for a second constitutional convention. He aims to reverse by amendment the 1964 Supreme Court decision that state legislature districts must be drawn equitably on the sole basis of population: one man, one vote.

Dirksen’s vehicle is a section of Article V of the Constitution, never before invoked. It specifies that “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states,” Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Before becoming part of the Constitution, provisions advanced by the convention must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

Court Challenges. With little publicity—and a minimum of public hearings—33 state legislatures have voted convention applications and submitted them to Congress. One more petition is all that is technically needed to call a convention. Before they recessed recently, both the Delaware and Wisconsin legislatures were considering resolutions.

If it is ever actually assembled, a convention would ostensibly concern itself only with the so-called Dirksen amendment, which has been defeated twice in the Senate. The measure would reverse the court decision and permit election of one house of a bicameral state legislature on a basis other than population. Trouble is, there is nothing in the Constitution to limit such a convention to a single issue. As Ev Dirksen himself acknowledges, delegates might begin to rewrite the national charter.

Before the Senate minority leader can cast himself in the role of a latter-day James Madison, however, there is a maze of constitutional questions to be negotiated. All but seven of the 33 petitions, for instance, were passed by state legislatures that had not yet been reapportioned to reflect the one-man, one-vote ruling which Dirksen wants to overturn. This has already resulted in a court challenge to the validity of Utah’s resolution. Suits elsewhere are likely.

Personal Calls. Another basis for challenge is the inconsistent wording of the various petitions. Some call for the removal of state legislatures from the jurisdiction of federal courts. Others ask for a specific amendment ruling out constitutional restrictions on legislative apportionment. Democratic Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, who favors the Dirksen amendment, has proposed a bill to limit a constitutional convention to predetermined issues. The measure has received minimal attention.

In fact, with the notable exception of the League of Women Voters, few individuals or groups seem overly alarmed by Dirksen’s designs on the Constitution. Backed by lobby groups, particularly the American Farm Bureau Federation,

Ev continues to ride quiet herd on legislatures that are yet to enact petitions. One of his aides has been visiting state capitals. State representatives have even received personal phone calls from the gravel-voiced Senator. During a recent debate over the petition in the Delaware legislature, Senate Majority Leader Frank Grier suddenly found himself called to the telephone. It was Dirksen, a total stranger. He told the startled legislator to “bear down” and get the votes necessary for passage.