I found this podcast fascinating, especially during the current times with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and other issues including gun control. I was familiar with how difficult it was to amend the federal Constitution, but I did not realize how easy it was in many states to alter state constitutions. Judge Sutton mentioned that roughly half of states only require a simple majority for a constitutional amendment, which makes it far easier to get an amendment passed.

Judge Sutton spent most of his time discussing how state governments are far more democratic than the federal government, so it can be hard to figure out when to let each group decide on an issue for the people. He mentioned the issue of gun control varying from state to state, but even went down to the local level, mentioning the differences between Warren, PA and Pittsburgh. For many issues, guns included, conditions can be so different from state to state and county to county that a national law or amendment simply doesn’t make much sense. His specific comments discussed how Warren can be a hunting town, whereas there is far more risk of gun incidents in a city like Pittsburgh; therefore, their gun control legislation may need to be different.

Another issue Judge Sutton brought up that I found interesting was the amount of bureaucracy on the federal level compared to the state level. As he says, originally citizens had limited power to vote for officials in their state governments. As time went on, however, more and more states allowed their people to vote directly for attorneys general, secretaries, state senators, etc etc. The people were given far more control over the people in power in each state than they are even today in the federal government. Citizens vote on the President, but not much else at the federal level. I know in my local area, judges are elected and often run similar campaigns to that of local politicians. We do not get to vote on federal judges; they are chosen and confirmed by other federal politicians that were voted in. One could make the argument that the people vote for the politicians who would best represent their choice of XYZ federal candidate, but that wouldn’t always hold true. A moderate citizen who votes for the candidate their party put up may be disappointed when that candidate votes to confirm a judge that is too extreme for the citizen’s views.

Sutton mentions that the federal government is far more of a republic than a democracy, and it can be argued whether that is a good thing. Institutions like the electoral college are unlikely to ever go away purely due to the difficulty in getting the chambers of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree on anything at all. With that said, the podcast hosts mentioned after the interview that local offices likely matter more anyway, as they are more likely to actually affect the day-to-day life of a person. I find that argument compelling, although I still would like to see the people hold more power over the federal government.

https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com/jeffrey-sutton/