The documents describing the supreme laws of the United States and Arizona are greatly dissimilar in terms of their length. After being amended more than one hundred times, the Arizona Constitution is about six times as long as the entire country’s supreme law. Regarding the first finding contributing to length differences, there are dissimilarities regarding the principles to guide the recall of elected representatives. The U.S. Constitution does not include provisions that would allow applying the recall election procedure to remove the federal-level officials. Differently from that, the eighth article of the Arizona Constitution contains substantial details on both the procedures of impeachment and recall elections. The article covers different aspects of the recall process, including those subject to it, requirements for recall petitions, and so on.
As for the second finding that is related to the difference in length, the Arizona Constitution provides a detailed discussion of information helping to distinguish between the territories of Arizona and the neighboring states. In particular, in the first subsection of the first article, one can find the lengthy text to specify the state’s territorial boundaries in a way that excludes any misreadings. In contrast to that, the U. S. Constitution briefly mentions the issue of territories in amendments to regulate the importation of intoxicating beverages. The presence of the article that is focused solely on the question of territorial limits contributes to the lengthiness of the Arizona Constitution.
Finally, despite explicit similarities between the two constitutions in terms of the general guiding principles and the rights of common citizens, the Arizona Constitution pays focused attention to specific measures to defend those becoming the victims of crime. In particular, the second section of the Declaration of Rights discusses victims’ rights in a very detailed manner, including being informed about one’s rights in a timely manner, being protected from abuse and harassment during investigative and judicial processes, and similar rights. Interestingly, in 2012, people in Arizona continued their efforts to amend the state’s constitution to place more emphasis on the outcomes of cases in which victims inflicted bodily injuries on offenders as a result of self-defense. In contrast to the supreme laws of Arizona and many other states, the U.S. Constitution currently does not have a specific section that would establish and define protections for those becoming victims of crime.