Dumbest State Constitutional Requirements?

[walleye26]

There are some weird quirks in some state constitutions. Which of them do you think are the dumbest? For me, I personally hate Virginia’s ban getting elected consecutively for Governor.
Like, what gives? Why is this a rule? Other states like Mississippi and Alabama used to have it, but no longer.

[Damocles]

Mississippi’s dumb rule for gubernatorial elections which used to require a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of state legislative districts. If the candidates got one, but not the other, the Mississippi House would decide who got the governorship. Except when it’s gerrymandered to f#%k and sh#%t, all it amounts to is “popular votes don’t exist here”.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kansas kind of wins for lack of requirements. As in there are literally no qualifications whatsoever to be Governor of Kansas. One need not be a valid Kansas voter, or at least 18, or even a Kansas resident, or for that matter even a US citizen. Literally every single person on Earth is eligible to be Governor of Kansas.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Kansas kind of wins for lack of requirements. As in there are literally no qualifications whatsoever to be Governor of Kansas. One need not be a valid Kansas voter, or at least 18, or even a Kansas resident, or for that matter even a US citizen. Literally every single person on Earth is eligible to be Governor of Kansas.

[Bootes Void]

Mississippi’s dumb rule for gubernatorial elections which used to require a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of state legislative districts. If the candidates got one, but not the other, the Mississippi House would decide who got the governorship. Except when it’s gerrymandered to f#%k and sh#%t, all it amounts to is “popular votes don’t exist here”.

I believed this was repealed in 2020, anyways Virginia only one term limit is pretty bad.

As for holding offices, there are states that bar atheists from holding offices in their state laws or constitution. Though it's not really enforced, it's silly have them there.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Mississippi’s dumb rule for gubernatorial elections which used to require a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of state legislative districts. If the candidates got one, but not the other, the Mississippi House would decide who got the governorship. Except when it’s gerrymandered to f#%k and sh#%t, all it amounts to is “popular votes don’t exist here”.

I believed this was repealed in 2020, anyways Virginia only one term limit is pretty bad.

As for holding offices, there are states that bar atheists from holding offices in their state laws or constitution. Though it's not really enforced, it's silly have them there.

Not just "not really enforced," such provisions have been ruled by the courts as constitutionally unenforceable.

[The Houstonian]

Most of these requirements are not "dumb," but actually quite smart. For example:

There are some weird quirks in some state constitutions. Which of them do you think are the dumbest? For me, I personally hate Virginia’s ban getting elected consecutively for Governor.
Like, what gives? Why is this a rule? Other states like Mississippi and Alabama used to have it, but no longer.

Presumably the powers-that-were (at the time of the framing of the constitution) preferred a weak governor and a strong legislature.

Mississippi’s dumb rule for gubernatorial elections which used to require a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of state legislative districts. If the candidates got one, but not the other, the Mississippi House would decide who got the governorship. Except when it’s gerrymandered to f#%k and sh#%t, all it amounts to is “popular votes don’t exist here”.

This was intended as a contingency plan to prevent black people from electing a governor in the event that the federal government should strike down Mississippi's voting laws.

[7,052,770]

Mississippi’s dumb rule for gubernatorial elections which used to require a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of state legislative districts. If the candidates got one, but not the other, the Mississippi House would decide who got the governorship. Except when it’s gerrymandered to f#%k and sh#%t, all it amounts to is “popular votes don’t exist here”.

That used to be the answer, but thankfully it was repealed by the voters overwhelmingly in 2020.

[leonardothered]

Kansas kind of wins for lack of requirements. As in there are literally no qualifications whatsoever to be Governor of Kansas. One need not be a valid Kansas voter, or at least 18, or even a Kansas resident, or for that matter even a US citizen. Literally every single person on Earth is eligible to be Governor of Kansas.

What you guys talking about, this one clearly wins

[NewYorkExpress]

Kansas kind of wins for lack of requirements. As in there are literally no qualifications whatsoever to be Governor of Kansas. One need not be a valid Kansas voter, or at least 18, or even a Kansas resident, or for that matter even a US citizen. Literally every single person on Earth is eligible to be Governor of Kansas.

So, let me get this straight. I could run for Governor of Kansas, select, say...Virginia as my running mate, and this would be perfectly legal under Kansas law?

[AtorBoltox]

Kansas kind of wins for lack of requirements. As in there are literally no qualifications whatsoever to be Governor of Kansas. One need not be a valid Kansas voter, or at least 18, or even a Kansas resident, or for that matter even a US citizen. Literally every single person on Earth is eligible to be Governor of Kansas.

It's not just Kansas r.e. age requirements. Remember when a 13 year old ran for Governor of Vermont in 2018?

[NewYorkExpress]

Kansas kind of wins for lack of requirements. As in there are literally no qualifications whatsoever to be Governor of Kansas. One need not be a valid Kansas voter, or at least 18, or even a Kansas resident, or for that matter even a US citizen. Literally every single person on Earth is eligible to be Governor of Kansas.

It's not just Kansas r.e. age requirements. Remember when a 13 year old ran for Governor of Vermont in 2018?

I remember posting in that thread.

Maybe he'll run again, and beat Phil Scott in 2022...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vermont has the state legislature pick the governor if there's no majority.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

New Jersey had an interesting compromise legislation that banned dual mandates, but allowed those current with dual mandates to keep their position. There are still 4 of them today.

[LabourJersey]

New Jersey had an interesting compromise legislation that banned dual mandates, but allowed those current with dual mandates to keep their position. There are still 4 of them today.

Yeah they grandfathered all the guys who were violating the law, which is hilarious but also probably the only way that this bill could pass.

Nothing better to some old-time New Jersey pols than getting both a State Senate salary & a mayoral salary (and pensions, too)

[Calthrina950]

Vermont has the state legislature pick the governor if there's no majority.

This provision was last invoked in 2014 when Peter Shumlin (Phil Scott's Democratic predecessor), failed to obtain a majority. The legislature obviously selected Shumlin to serve another term.

[brucejoel99]

Simple-majority veto overrides in states like KY & WV. At that point, why even bother with having a Governor?

[Skill and Chance]

Vermont has the state legislature pick the governor if there's no majority.

This provision was last invoked in 2014 when Peter Shumlin (Phil Scott's Democratic predecessor), failed to obtain a majority. The legislature obviously selected Shumlin to serve another term.

The Vermont rule was invoked in 2014, 2010, and 2002, but every time they seated the PV winner.  Notably, the Republican PV winner was seated in 2003 when legislative Democrats, acting in coalition with Progressives would have theoretically been able to seat the Democrat on a party line vote.

As others have alluded to, the Mississippi rule had disgusting origins.  It only came into play once in the modern era, in the 1999 gubernatorial election, which was a plurality PV win for the Democrat with an 81/81 tie in who won the state house districts.  Democrats held a majority in the state house, so the Dem PV winner became governor anyway.

[LabourJersey]

Simple-majority veto overrides in states like KY & WV. At that point, why even bother with having a Governor?

Sounds like a parliament with more steps.

[Skill and Chance]

Simple-majority veto overrides in states like KY & WV. At that point, why even bother with having a Governor?

Sounds like a parliament with more steps.

I agree this is truly dumb.  I could see it working as in a governor-as-a-figurehead/salesperson for the state system while all of the formal power lies with the legislature, but these governor's strangely still have substantial emergency powers, make tons of important appointments without explicit legislative consent, etc.  Also, in all of the simple majority veto states, the governor is term-limited.  If the governorship is so weak it's intended to be a marketing/entertaining role (think of the British monarchy today), having someone sit in that position for 20 years would be no threat and probably a net plus for the state as they build relationships and bring in tourism/investment.   

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

West Virginia has a very weak Governor that is close to basically just a ceremonial position, but the Kentucky Governor does have significant powers despite only the majority requirement for a veto override. For one the Kentucky Governor is actually more powerful in regards to setting the budget than even states where the Governor's veto requires 2/3 to override, since the budget originates from the Governor's office and is voted on by the Legislature rather than the Legislature passing it and the Governor signing. This is why once Beshear won Kentucky expanding Medicaid became basically a sure thing.