---

Opinion
April 23, 2003

   IF HALF a constitutional reform loaf is better than none, it's not better by much.

   The state Senate now seems ready to try just two-fifths of a loaf -- which arguably is more akin to just loafing off. Still, reformers will take what they can get.

   For years, it has been obvious that Alabama's Constitution is so antiquated, bloated, unfair and nonsensical that it ought to be scrapped entirely, preferably by a citizens' convention, in favor of a brand new state charter.

   New Gov. Bob Riley never endorsed that approach, but at least he appointed a broad-based commission that succeeded in identifying five key goals for constitutional reform through the normal amendment process. Four of those commission proposals were good ones: providing limited home rule (albeit more limited than reformers would like), recompiling the document to remove racist and otherwise outmoded language, giving the governor line-item veto power, and unearmarking at least some tax revenue.

   (A fifth idea, requiring a super-majority vote in the Legislature to pass tax increases, is a bad idea, anti-democratic in theory and particularly counterproductive in Alabama's case.)

   Of those five ideas, Senate leaders have only two on the priority list:
recompilation, which is really a mere organizational and linguistic task, and limited home rule. Under the current proposal, home rule -- local lawmaking power without specific approval on each item from the
Legislature -- would not be automatic, but instead would require each county to vote to accept its own right to more autonomy.

   Even after that original vote, home rule would extend only to three subjects: land use and zoning authority; control over health, safety and economic development; and the ability to add new taxes, but only if approved
by popular vote in a local referendum.

   Compared to the grand hopes of reformers, that's pretty thin gruel. The question remains as to whether two bites of reform will make lawmakers hungry for more, or instead quench whatever reformist appetites they might possess, thus making more substantial reform even more difficult.