The Indiana Constitution is up for amendment this fall. (Photo from IN.gov)
Remember the 1990 movie, King Ralph, where the entire royal family is wiped out in a freak accident, leaving only a distant relative to become King of England?
Or the 2016 television series, Designated Survivor, where an attack on the Capitol during the State of the Union eliminates everyone in the statutory line of succession except Kiefer Sutherland, an obscure cabinet official who had been pre-selected as the official who would not attend in case of just such a catastrophe?
After 9/11 many states, including Indiana, moved to formally establish a list of officials who would succeed the Governor and Lieutenant Governor in the event of a mass tragedy. Article 5, Section 10 of the Indiana Constitution was ratified in 2004 to designate a list of state officers who would temporarily “discharge the powers and duties of the governor if the office of governor and the office of lieutenant governor are both vacant, in the order listed.” The sixth and last office on the list, following the House speaker, Senate president pro tempore, state treasurer, state auditor, and secretary of state, was the state superintendent of public instruction.
There has been no need to resort to this list in the two decades since its adoption. However, in 2021 the office of state superintendent was abolished by the General Assembly, replaced by a secretary of education appointed by the governor.
Line of succession
In 2022, the General Assembly initiated a process to remove the state superintendent position from the list of potential successors. The resolution to amend the Constitution passed the second time in 2023 and now will be Public Question #1 on the ballot in this November’s general election:
“Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to remove the state superintendent of public instruction from the list of officeholders who shall discharge the powers and duties of the governor if the office of the governor and lieutenant governor are both vacant?”.
Currently no formal process exists to inform voters of constitutional questions before they arrive in the election booth. As I wrote in the introduction to Volume VIII of Constitution Making in Indiana (2001-2020), there have been several efforts over the past 60 years to provide educational material to the voters in advance of an election, but efforts at instituting a formal system by statute have failed.
The Constitutional Revision Commission, a two-year endeavor, issued lengthy reports detailing its recommended changes, such as annual sessions, prior to the 1970 general election, as detailed in Volume V (1961-1970).
Explaining the amendments
During the period covered by Volume VI (1971-1980), a series of reports set a high standard in voter education. Prior to the 1972 general election, the Indiana Legislative Council published a 17-page paper titled “Five Questions for Hoosier Voters.” Each of the five proposals up for ratification was discussed in turn, comparing the existing and proposed changes, and setting out the arguments pro and con. This seems to represent the high point in legislative efforts to educate the voter.
Beginning in the 1980s, such educational efforts became spare, so much so that in 1987 a House bill, which died in committee, proposed the temporary establishment of a constitutional amendment commission six months before any future constitutional amendment were to be presented to the voters for ratification, and specifying that the commission’s duty would be to explain to the voters the reasons for voting for and against the ratification of the amendment.
Finally, from 2006 through 2011, legislation was introduced in the Senate to require, prior to any general election where a constitutional question was to be submitted to the voters, the preparation of a neutral summary of the proposed constitutional amendment. It also would have required a posting on a designated state web site at least 60 days prior to the election, and in each polling place. The proposal passed the Senate four of the six times it was introduced, but never moved out of committee in the House.
Maybe it’s time to give the matter another look?
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.