When Thomas Jefferson sat down to write the Declaration of Independence, he relied in no small part on the May 1776 draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Declaration of Virginia, drafted by George Mason and adopted in its final form in June 1776 as part of the state’s first constitution, asserts that “all men are created equal, free and independent,” have “certain inherent rights,” and cannot be denied the “enjoyment of life and liberty” and “the pursuit and acquisition of happiness and security.”

With Jefferson’s changes, language advanced by leaps and bounds. But Virginia’s declaration is one of many examples of how state constitutions helped shape America’s story.

Revolutionary state constitutions like Virginia’s were part of what the late historian Gordon Wood described as “the most creative period of constitutionalism in American history, and one of the most creative periods in modern Western history.” These state charters are essential to understanding America’s founding. But perhaps more importantly, state constitutions also provide an explanation for American progress, backlash, and controversy that continues to this day.

New Hampshire adopted the first American Constitution on January 5, 1776. Many early state constitutions, including those of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, played an influential role in shaping the U.S. Constitution. Prominent figures of the Revolutionary era such as Mason, James Madison, John Jay, and John Adams played important roles in drafting the state constitution. And when the Anti-Federalists demanded the adoption of a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratifying the U.S. Constitution, they pointed to the States’ Declaration of Rights.

State constitutions also help tell the story of slavery and the continued fight for civil rights. North Carolina’s original Declaration of Rights contained several provisions that applied only to “freemen” and omitted the Inalienable Rights Clause due to concerns that it could undermine slavery. Today, the North Carolina Constitution still imposes a (non-mandatory) literacy test for voting. Marcus Gadson, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law, argues that the state’s current constitution, ratified in 1970, reflects the influence of two “incompatible” constitutional visions: the antislavery 1776 Constitution and the equality-era Reconstruction-era Charter. “In this way, the North Carolina Constitution bears witness to America’s racial history in a way that other documents surprisingly do not,” he explains.

As new states entered the Union, their constitutions reflected their unique histories, as well as the movements and concerns prevalent at the time of their adoption. Arizona’s 1912 Constitution shows the influence of the then-dominant Progressive movement, including strong protections for workers’ rights and a citizen initiative and referendum process. The Right to Work Amendment of 1946 reflected growing skepticism about workers’ rights in the state.

Over time, most states went back to square one and accepted new charters. For example, Montana adopted a new constitution in 1972 that provides strong protections for the environment as well as property and privacy rights.

One of the most notable differences between state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution is that state constitutions are relatively easy to amend and even rewrite. As such, they often become battlegrounds for establishing and contesting rights. For example, while we are still waiting for the federal Equal Rights Amendment, the majority of state constitutions now provide equal protection for men and women. One of the biggest topics regarding state constitutions in recent years is each state’s response to the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Overturning the federal right to abortion. Since then dobbsTen states have passed amendments protecting abortion rights.

However, state reforms have also contributed to the reduction of rights. After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized same-sex couples’ right to marry under the state constitution, and before the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the federal right. Obergefell vs. Hodges —More than half of all states passed amendments banning marriage equality. A small number of states have repealed these amendments in recent years, reflecting concerns that courts might revisit marriage equality precedent.

The history of state constitutions is a powerful reminder that America’s stories are diverse, contested, and continuing to be written.

Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief state court report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, louisiana vs curry, The bill, which would gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, has states across the South rushing to redraw their congressional maps just months before the 2026 midterm elections. For advocates looking to challenge Alabama’s new maps, a recent state constitutional amendment that prohibits changing election rules right before an election could provide an avenue to do so.

The roots of this amendment are related to the coronavirus disease (Covid-19). Like many other states, the Alabama Secretary of State temporarily relaxed absentee voting requirements in 2020, allowing registered voters to vote by absentee ballot based on the physical incapacity category, using the pandemic as an excuse. This, at least in part, led to record turnout in the 2020 general election, with more people voting in Alabama than in any previous election.

In response to this expansion of voter access and other reforms passed across the country, the Alabama Legislature will consider a number of bills in 2021 aimed at limiting the state government’s ability to expand services, change laws, and declare states of emergency during health emergencies. One of those bills, colloquially known as Amendment 4, could create new obstacles to the same Congress’ ability to redraw the 2026 map.

Amendment 4 (pre-passed HB388) creates a ballot initiative to be placed on the 2022 general election ballot and states in part, “The effective date of any law enacted by Congress during the calendar year in which a general election is held and relating to the conduct of a general election shall be at least six months before the general election.”

In other words, the amendment would ban any election-related legislation for six months before a general election. The bill was introduced and sponsored by Republicans and passed in both Republican-controlled chambers along party lines. As a result, the ballot initiative passed in November 2022 with 80 percent of the vote.

This means that this year’s amendments will prohibit election-related changes after May 3, six months before the November 3 general election.

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued the following opinion: chalice Celebrate racism and encourage partisan gerrymandering. Just two days later, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) called a special session and authorized the Legislature to revert to a Congressional map that eliminated the 2nd District for Black voters and a state Senate map that packed Black voters into a single district, both of which had previously been policed ​​as racist. The special session began on May 4, one day later than the six-month anniversary of the general election. That same day, Congress approved a plan to reinstate these maps, over the protests of supporters, voters, and Black lawmakers.

Ivy and Congress faced obstacles.chalice The injunction prohibits Alabama from redrawing its maps by 2030. After the special session ended, the state attorney general immediately filed a lawsuit seeking to have the injunction revoked. The U.S. Supreme Court mandated that the case be sent back to the original three-judge panel to consider the injunction “in light of:” chalice.

On May 26, that federal commission blocked Alabama from using its desired congressional map, saying it was intentionally racist because its purpose was “to dilute the vote by distributing black voters throughout the district because they are at least partially black.” But the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that decision just a week later, saying the district court’s analysis had “deviated” in a ruling that racial justice advocates said had stripped black voters of political power “with a speed that rivaled Jim Crow jurists.” chalice and argued that Congress is entitled to a presumption of good faith in redistricting decisions. A similar chain of events occurred regarding the state Senate map, culminating in a May 29 vote to uphold the state’s position.

By this point, the May 19 primary election had been held using the map installed before the special session. Congressional priority maps redraw four of the seven House districts and two Senate districts. If they run, as it appears they will, the primary results in those districts would be thrown out and Alabamians living there would be required to vote a second time in the Aug. 11 primary.

Although the path to racial justice relief in Alabama appears largely closed, one question remains unanswered. The question is whether the 2022 amendment would allow states to redraw their congressional and state Senate maps within six months before a general election.

During the special session, Republican lawmakers argued that the Fourth Amendment was irrelevant. The meeting focused on replacing the map for the primary, not the general election, they said. Opponents pointed out that the new map is not limited to primary elections, but also determines who will run in each district during the general election. They said the map changes were therefore related to the conduct of a general election, took place less than six months before the general election, and were in clear violation of both the letter and intent of the amendment.

So far, there have been no court challenges to this claim. If that happens, the eventual flow to the Alabama Supreme Court, which is comprised of nine Republican justices who consistently vote conservatively, is likely to yield results similar to those seen in previous U.S. Supreme Courts. Still, Alabama raises interesting political and legal questions. Could a law passed by a reactionary supermajority during the national crisis of COVID-19 reverse an attempt by that same supermajority to disenfranchise Black Alabamians in today’s democratic crisis? Time will tell.

Katie Glenn is a senior advocacy policy strategist for the state Legislature and a Bernard and Ann Spitzer Fellow at the Brennan Center.