J.H. Snider Introductory Note: If I have made any errors in the statistics below, please bring them to my attention. To my knowledge, no one else has previously attempted to compile the data that I have done. A major problem in collecting this information was the general unhelpfulness of the Elections System of the Virgin Islands (ESVI). It hadn’t compiled even rudimentary information about the past constitutional convention related elections in USVI and observed that what records they did have from the earlier conventions were all destroyed by a hurricane. As for the Board of Elections, it ignored both an informal and then a formal public records request from me. Fortunately, I was able to gather much of the raw information from newspaper articles (see the News & Opinions page on this website) and histories of USVI. Based on my experience in other jurisdictions with constitutional conventions, I expect other sources to copy the compiled data below (usually without attribution). I hope that when they do they will double check to ensure that I have made no errors.
–J.H. Snider, Editor
The USVI State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse
Summary Statistics Across the
Five Constitutional Conventions
Five attempts have been made to draft a USVI constitution. All ended without succcess in creating a constitutioin.
At What Stage In the Constitution Making Process They Ended
The first two attempts ended when the proposed constitutions were not authorized by Congress.
The third and fourth ended when USVI voters rejected them in a referendum.
The fifth effort was never presented to the public for approval after Congress rejected the Constitutional Convention’s first proposal as unconstitutional and after the convention reconvened to address Congress’s objections but disbanded after it couldn’t agree on a way to do so.
Summary Statistics
All five of the constitutional conventions had at least some elected delegates.
All five would require Congressional approval to pass into law.
Only the last three conventions were authorized by Congress (Congress didn’t pass a constitutional convention authorization act for USVI until 1976).
Only two of the five (the third and fourth) reached the stage in the process where they were brought to the people for ratification.
Each Constitution Proposed by the
Five Constitutional Conventions
Best & Worst Future Amendment Articles
In terms of empowering the constituent power (the people acting in their role as constitution maker), the 2nd and 3rd proposed constitutions were best and the 4th and 5th proposed constitutions worst. The 1st proposed constitution didn’t really have a future amendments article because it was essentially a petition to Congress to approve changes to the Organic Act–not a duly approved territorial constitution.
Best & Worst Enabling Acts for Delegate Elections
The mechanisms by which incumbent legislators and the governor have secured undue power over the constitutional convention process have significantly varied over the constitutional convention process. The result is that all the conventions have been awful but in different ways. The same is true with the convention’s good processes, which may be noteworthy but have always been drawfed by the bad processes.
A vivid example is the first convention. There were thirty-three delegates, fifteen senate incumbents and eighteen elected delegates. Due to the two-thirds rule to approve a constitutional proposal, the senators retained veto power over the result despite their numerical minority. But the delegate election itself had the best election rules of the five conventions, although still far from optimal.
With the first two conventions, incumbent senators were either exclusively appointed (the 2nd convention) or appointed in such a way that they retained veto power over everything the convention proposed (the 1st convention), thus subverting the democratic function of convening a constitutional convention. With the next three conventions, the mechanism of control shifted to the design of a delegate election and convention administrative process that would favor insiders, albeit in some ways that merely seem foolish in retrospect. With the legislature’s draft enabling act for the 6th convention, the strategy of control seems to have shifted from the front to the back end of the process. It still has the frontend techniques of control employed as part of the last three conventions. But to these it has added substantial backend ones. The overall strategy seems to be to take all discretion from the convention delegates so that they will rubber stamp the existing Organic Act with minor modifications necessary to satisfy Congress. Then they will dump the convention process for a process, such as a constituitonal commission (this need not be part of the enabling act), where they have exclusive proposal power over constitutional amendment. The result, at best, will be a process that looks like the delegate appointment and proposal process for the first two pseudo conventions while maneuvering around the awkward fact that Congress won’t allow USVI to get a constitution drafted by a body so tightly controlled by the legislature.
Data on Each of the Six Constitutional Conventions:
1954 to Present
Outline
- Enabling Act for Calling the Convention
- Calling the Convention
- Enabling Act for Selecting Convention Delegates
- Electing Convention Delegates
- The Convention
- Submission of the Proposed Constitution to Congress
- Ratification of the Convention’s Proposed Constitution
Enabling Act for Calling the Convention
Event | 1964- 1965 | 1971- 1972 | 1977- 1978 | 1980- 1981 | 2007- 2009 | 2012 | 2020- N.A. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date Passed | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A | 5/7/2020 |
Bill Number(s) | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A | 33-0292, 33-0339 |
Act Number(s) | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A | 8308 |
Called by legislative fiat? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partially* |
Called by popular referendum? | No | No | No | No | No | No | Partially* |
Call at Special vs. General Election | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | Special |
* Nominally called by popular referendum. But since it was only an advisory call, the legislature retained the right not to call it regardless of the popularity of the call.
Calling the Convention
Event | 1964- 1965 | 1971- 1972 | 1977- 1978 | 1980- 1981 | 2007- 2009 | 2012** | 2020- N.A. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Referendum Date | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | 6/12/2007 | N.A. | 11/3/2020 |
Yes Votes # | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | 8,320 |
No Votes # | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | 3,225 |
Yes % | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | 72.1% |
No % | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | 27.9% |
Convention Called? | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | Pending* |
Registered Voters # | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | Pending* |
Turnout % | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | 20% |
* The voters approved the convention call based on the criteria specified in the legislature’s convention call enabling act. However, the legislature gave itself no deadline to convene the convention, so its convening may be indefiinitely delayed at the legislature’s convenience.
** The 5th convention was called back into session by the legislature, not the voters. The legislature asked the convention to meet again for the purposes of revising the proposed constitution to meet the objections of Congress.
Enabling Act for Selecting Convention Delegates
Event | 1964- 1965 | 1971- 1972 | 1977- 1978 | 1980- 1981 | 2007- 2009 | 2012 | 2020- N.A. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combined enabling call & delegate election* | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | no |
Date Passed | 4/2/1964 | 3/22/1971 11/15/1972 3/21/1972 | 5/6/1977, 7/7/1977, 8/10/1977, 2/17/1978 | 12/31/1979 | 10/18/2007** | 29-1248 | Pending |
Bill Number(s) | 2082 | 5357, 5245, 4838 | 7287, 7598, 7567, 7822 | 13-0372 | 25-0016, 26-0196, 27-0171, 27-0077, 27-0646, 29-858, 13-0217, 27-0136, 27-0171, 27-0254, 27-0268, 28-0030 | 29-0236 | 34-0153 |
Act Number(s) | 1174, 1246 | 3193, 3148, 2973 | 3974, 4002, 4040, 4095 | 4395 | 6688, 6820, 6839, 6934, 6969, 6970, 7055, 7057, 7061 | 7386 | Pending |
Total Delegates # | 33 | 33 | 60 | 30 | 30 | 30 | Pending |
Elected # | 18 | 0 | 60 | 30 | 30 | 30 | Pending |
Incumbent Appointed Legislators # | 15*** | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Pending |
Other Appointed # | 0 | 18* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Pending |
Elected At Large # | 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Pending |
Elected By District # | 6 | 0 | 60 | 26 | 26 | 26 | Pending |
Districts # | 2 | N.A. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Pending |
Election Date | 11/4/1964 | N.A. | 9/17/1977 | 3/11/1980 | 6/12/2007 | N.A. | Pending |
Special vs. Regular Election ***** | General | N.A. | Special | Special | Special | Special | Pending |
Government pays its workers to be elected delegates | N.A. | N.A. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Pending |
Initial budgeted cost of convention, which excludes pay above****** | $20,000 | $35,000 | $250,000 **** | $200,000 | $100,000 ****** | $0 | Pending |
* Appointed by the Democratic, Progressive Republican, and Independent Citizens Movement (ICM) political parties. The Democratic Party appointed 6 members, ICM Party 5 members, and Progressive Republican Party 7 members.
** An earlier version of the act was passed on Oct. 29. 2004, Bill No. 94-584, Act No. 6688.
*** Although incumbent legislators, with 15 of 33 seats, were a numerical minority, the 2/3 vote they required for the convention to approve a proposed constitution gave them effective veto power over any proposed constitution.
**** Despite the much larger initial budget for the 3rd constitutional convention vs. the 2nd, the daily pay for delegates was reduced by 33%, excluding inflation (from $30/day to $20/day). With inflation, it was about a 50% drop. However, for government workers, there was no cap for salary and benefits, as the government continued to pay them at their regular rate.
***** General elections work well for incumbent legislators when they want to serve as appointed delegates. But when they need to run as elected delegates they are awkward, as the public won’t vote twice for a legislator at the same election. This type of electoral self-interest appears to have been a major factor in the design of the 5th constitutional convention’s enabling, which switched its delegate election from a general to special election. The author of the Act (as well as the sitting governor) reportedly wanted to run as convention delegates.
****** Later conventions had a much greater discrepancy between initial budget plans and final expenditures, especially the 5th convention. In addition, there was appended a separate budget to educate candidates interested in or already running for delegate and educating the public about both the delegates and their proposed constitution.
******* J.H. Snider was unable to find a complete accounting of the 5th convention’s cost. Indeed, partly because delegate pay was farmed out to miscellaneous government agencies, such an accounting may be practically impossible. See After nearly 10 years, Constitutional Convention still owes the V.I. public a report of all its spending, Virgin Islands Daily News, Aug. 12, 2017.
Selecting Convention Delegates
Event | 1964- 1965 | 1971- 1972* | 1977- 1978 | 1980- 1981 | 2007- 2009 | 2012** | 2020- N.A. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate Petitions Due Date | 8/15/1964 | N.A. | 8/19/1977 | 2/15/1980 | 5/16/2007 | N.A. | Pending |
Election Date | 11/4/1964 | N.A. | 9/17/1977 | 3/11/1980 | 6/12/2007 | N.A. | Pending |
Days Between Petition & Election Dates | 81 | N.A. | 29 | 26 | 28 | N.A. | Pending |
Candidates # | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 123 | N.A. | Pending |
Ratio of Candidates to Delegates | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 4.1 | N.A. | Pending |
St. Croix Registered Voters | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 25,487 | N.A. | Pending |
St. Thomas/St John Registered Voters | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 27,530 | N.A. | Pending |
USVI Registered Voters | ? | ? | ? | 53,017 | N.A. | Pending | |
St. Croix District: Highest District Vote for a Candidate # | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 2,856 | N.A. | Pending |
St. Croix District: St. Croix District: Lowest District Vote for a Candidate # | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 1k457 | N.A. | Pending |
St. Croix District: Highest Vote / Registered Voters % | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 11.2% | N.A. | Pending |
St. Croix District: Lowest Vote / Registered Voters % | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 5.7% | N.A. | Pending |
St. Thomas/St. John District: Highest District Vote for a Candidate # | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 2,546 | N.A. | Pending |
St. Thomas/St. John District: Lowest District Vote for a Candidate # | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 1,378 | N.A. | Pending |
St. Thomas/St. John District: Highest Vote / Registered Voters i% | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 9.2% | N.A. | Pending |
St. Thomas/St. John District: Lowest Vote / Registered Voters % | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 5.0% | N.A. | Pending |
At-Large District: Highest District Vote for a Candidate # | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 4,841 | N.A. | Pending |
At-Large District: Lowest District Vote for a Candidate # | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 2,732 | N.A. | Pending |
At-Large District: Highest Vote / Registered Voters i% | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 9.1% | N.A. | Pending |
At-Large District: Lowest Vote / Registered Voters % | ? | N.A. | ? | ? | 5.2% | N.A. | Pending |
* The 1971-1972 convention delegates were all appointed, so there was no delegate election.
** The 2012 convention was a continuation of the 2007-9 convention so there was no delegae election.
*** Registered voters as of Oct. 23, 2006.
The Convention
Event | 1964- 1965 | 1971- 1972 | 1977- 1978 | 1980- 1981 | 2007- 2009 | 2012 | 2020- N.A. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Planned Start Date | 12/7/1964 | 9/7/1971 | 10/3/1977 | 3/4/1980 | 7/23/2007 | 10/1/2012 | Pending |
Actual Start Date | 12/7/1964 | 9/7/1971 | 10/3/1977 | 3/4/1980 | 10/29/2007 | 10/1/2012 | Pending |
Proposed Finish Date | 2/1/1965 | 9/17/1971* | 2/17/1978 | 4/24/1980 | 7/27/2008 | 10/31/2012 | Pending |
Actual Finish Date | 2/26/1965 | 9/12/1972 | 4/20/1978 | 7/31/1980 | 5/26/2009 | 10/31/2012 | Pending |
Days Between Proposed & Actual Finish Dates | 25 | 10 | 62 | 98 | 303 | 0 | Pending |
Actual Days Betweeen Start & Finish Dates | 81 | 371 | 199 | 149 | 575 | 31 | Pending |
Convention President | Aubrey Anduze | Earle B. Ottley | Alexander Farrelly | Rupert Ross | Gerard Luz James | Gerard Luz James | Pending |
Delegate Vote for Constitution # | Unanimous | Unanimous | ? | ? | ? | N.A. | Pending |
Delegate Vote for / Total Delegates % | Unanimous | Unanimous | ? | ? | ? | N.A. | Pending |
Reconvening date after reviewed by Congress | N.A. | N.A. | 12/15/1978 | 4/24/1981 | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
Final date of convention | N.A. | N.A. | 3/6/1979 | 4/24/1981 | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
* The original plan was for the delegates to meet for no more then ten days.
Ratification of the Convention’s Proposed Constitution
Event | 1964- 1965 | 1971- 1972 | 1977- 1978 | 1980- 1981 | 2007- 2009 | 2012 | 2020- N.A. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Referendum Date | N.A.* | 11/7/1972** | 3/6/1979 | 11/3/1980 | None | None | Pending |
Days After Date Convention Adjourned # | N.A. | 56 | 320 | 95 | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
Yes Votes # | N.A. | 7,279 | 4,627 | 4,821 | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
No Votes # | N.A. | 5,518 | 5,972 | 7,157 | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
Yes % | N.A. | 56.9% | 43.7% | 40.2% | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
No % | N.A. | 43.1% | 56.3% | 59.8% | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
Constitution Ratified? | N.A. | Yes*** | No | No | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
Registered Voters # | N.A. | ? | ? | ? | 53,017* | N.A. | Pending |
Yes Votes / Registered Voters % | N.A. | ? | ? | ? | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
Turnout % | N.A. | ? | 38% | 47% | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
Ratification at Special vs. General Election | N.A. | General | ? | General | N.A. | N.A. | Pending |
* No ratification vote was necessary because the proposed constitution was first submitted to Congress and popular ratification became a moot issue after Congress rejected it. However, a proposed ratification date was originally scheduled for 11/7/1972 but not held because there was no point in holding the ratification vote after Congress rejected the proposed constitution.
** Unlike the ratification votes for the 3rd and 4th convention proposals, the ratification vote for the 2nd convention proposal came before the proposal was sent to Congress. This is consistent with its function: a petition proposed by a process overwhelmingly dominated by incumbent legislators that sought to gain legitimacy for the petition with Congress by having the petition approved by a majority of voters voting upon it.
*** The constitution was never submitted to Congress for approval. The USVI powers with control over the submission gave various excuses for not doing so, including an arguably laughable one (as this claim has been so inconsistent with their other actions as well as historic congressional requirements for constitutional conventions) that, although a large majority of voters voted in support, the turnout was too low to demonstrate substantial support for the proposed constitution. The unstated and most plausible explanation for the non-submission is that Congress doesn’t approve constitutions approved by pseudo constitutional conventions proposed by appointed delegates; that is, the type of constitutional convention that Congress expects a territory to use when submitting a proposed constitution must have been constituted by elected delegates.
**** Registered voters as of Oct. 23, 2006.
Days Calculator: Days Between Two Dates
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=2&d1=17&y1=1978&m2=4&d2=20&y2=1978
Resources
News from Government House, The Official Site of USVI’ Governor Bryan.