{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01808785529715762, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.315217391304348, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
State Constitutions in Historical Perspective

Scholars have tended to neglect the history of state constitutions, though these are interesting in themselves and also shed light on federal developments. State constitutions have tended, on the whole, to be less durable and to contain more superlegislation than the U.S. Constitution. Early state constitutions provided for a weak executive. In the nineteenth century, states began to restrict legislatures as well. Recent state constitution making has tended to be technocratic, less overtly political than in the nineteenth century, although the use of initiative and referendum processes is a somewhat contradictory trend. Judicial review in state courts developed along lines generally parallel to those in federal courts. Judicial review flowered after the Civil War; in this period, many innovative doctrines first arose in state courts. The center of innovation shifted to the federal courts in the twentieth century. Judicial review continued and grew in state courts, however, and the recent expansion of the doctrine of independent state grounds may increase the power and significance of state courts.