The first provision that should be elaborated is found in Article 2 Section 11.  It states that, “Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.”  What does our state government consider as “unnecessary delay?”  Our court system often times takes months for a case to be heard.  Our state needs to define what they consider as an “unnecessary delay” by establishing guidelines.  I believe that after this term is defined clearly, <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State> citizens could be guaranteed a speedy trial.  This might cause a greater need for more judges, but residents of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State> would not have to wait as long for a court date.  This is one area that needs to be examined. 

The second provision that could be strengthened is in Article 11 Section 6.  It says “The university and all other state educational institutions...shall be as nearly free as possible.”  The state government needs to define what they feel is “nearly free as possible.”  Our state universities have raised their tuition an average of 5% annually from 1994 to 2002.  In 1994, tuition was around $1,884, where as in 2002 it was only near $2,583, a small $699 increase (Flannery).  More recently, in the 2004-2005 school year, ASU’s tuition is currently $4,066 a year.  This is an increase of $1,483 in a mere two years (ASU website).  If the tuition keeps increasing so rapidly, financial commitment from the state should too.  However, less than 1% of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State>’s aid comes from the state (Flannery).  This article in the constitution needs to be revised.  Unless a clearer definition is given for what “nearly free as possible” means, we cannot allow our state tuitions for higher education to increase any further.  This is going to cause fewer kids to attend college because of the expense, causing a great affect on the future of our younger residents.  By defining what “nearly free as possible” is our state can hopefully stop tuition from increasing.     

Another part of the Arizona Constitution that needs to be changed is found in Article 2 Section 23.  It tells us that “Juries in criminal cases in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized...shall consist of twelve persons...In all other cases, the number of jurors, not less than six...shall be specified by law.”  I believe that there should always be twelve jurors, not just in matters of long imprisonment and the death sentence.  <st1:State w:st="on">Arizona</st1:State> usually only requires eight jurors, but wouldn’t you want to know that the verdict you received was deliberated by twelve of your peers, not a mere eight?  The more jurors there are the more ideas and opinions that will be created to hopefully consider your innocence.  Why should thirty years in jail be more important than fifteen years?  I think everyone deserves the same amount of jurors for their case.  This article needs to be revised.

A fourth provision that can be improved within the constitution is in Article 7 Section 7.  It states, “In all elections held by the people in this state, the person, or persons, receiving the highest number of legal votes shall be declared elected.”  The part in there that I believe should be considered for revision is “persons.”  Not very often do two people tie in the number of votes they receive.  However, if they do, this article makes it seem that they will both be elected.  Can we really have two people in the same office?  Can our state afford two governors?  This might not ever happen, but if it does, what are we going to do?  Another section should be added on, that says what should happen in the case of a tie.  This would prevent any type of problems we could have in our future <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State> elections.

The last provision I feel could be strengthened is found in Article 28 Section 2.  It states, “This state and all political subdivisions of this state shall take all reasonable steps to preserve, protect and enhance the role of the English language as the official language of the state of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State>.”  There are a few exceptions to this rule listed in Article 28 Section 3.  However, there is still one area where <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State> makes exceptions when our constitution does not say to: jobs.  Often times when someone applies for a job in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State>, they are asked if they can speak Spanish.  In some parts of the job market, you will only be hired if you are bilingual.  I believe that <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State> should, as the constitution says, “enhance the role of the English language.”  If people decide to live here, they need to be responsible for learning our language.  They can still use their native tongue, but in the business world of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State>, only English should be enforced.  I think that this part of the constitution needs to be enforced, or another exception should be placed into the constitution.  This affects nearly everyone in the job market, and needs to be investigated more in depth.

Works Cited

Arizona State University. (2004).  Schedule of Per Semester Tuition and Fees.  Retrieved June 14, 2004, from http://www.asu.edu/sbs/Table1.html

Flannery, P.  (2002, 4 November).  <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:State> to Lose Cheap Tuition.  Arizona Republic.  Retrieved June 14, 2004, from http://www.nusd.k12.az.us/news/tutuition.increase.htm

*Graphics from Big Box of Art CD