Which method was used to revise the 1983 Georgia Constitution?

Which method was used to revise the 1983 Georgia Constitution?

• A. Convention
• B. Office of Legislative Counsel
• C. Select Committee
• D. Commission

Answer: (C)

The method being tested is the use of a temporary, focused legislative group to study and draft revisions. A select committee is created by the legislature to investigate a specific issue—here, the constitution—and to produce proposed changes for consideration and passage. This approach keeps the process within the legislative branch, allows for expert input, and produces concrete amendments that can be put to a vote, rather than requiring a statewide convention or a permanent governing body. In the 1983 Georgia Constitution revision, a select committee was formed to examine the existing constitution, draft the proposed revisions, and guide them through the legislative process to a referenda. That makes it the best description of how the revision was carried out. A constitutional convention would imply assembling delegates to draft a brand-new constitution, which did not happen in this case. The Office of Legislative Counsel assists with drafting language but isn’t the method of revision itself, and a commission would suggest a formal, possibly permanent body with broad authority, which isn’t what aligned with the 1983 revision approach.

The method being tested is the use of a temporary, focused legislative group to study and draft revisions. A select committee is created by the legislature to investigate a specific issue—here, the constitution—and to produce proposed changes for consideration and passage. This approach keeps the process within the legislative branch, allows for expert input, and produces concrete amendments that can be put to a vote, rather than requiring a statewide convention or a permanent governing body.

In the 1983 Georgia Constitution revision, a select committee was formed to examine the existing constitution, draft the proposed revisions, and guide them through the legislative process to a referenda. That makes it the best description of how the revision was carried out. A constitutional convention would imply assembling delegates to draft a brand-new constitution, which did not happen in this case. The Office of Legislative Counsel assists with drafting language but isn’t the method of revision itself, and a commission would suggest a formal, possibly permanent body with broad authority, which isn’t what aligned with the 1983 revision approach.