Quick -- can you list the five rights named in the First Amendment? 

If not, you have company. A 2006 survey found that only twenty-five percent of Americans can name more than one. Twenty percent of those polled actually thought the right to own a pet was protected. Yet more than half of these adults could name at least two characters from The Simpsons, a popular television cartoon. (By the way, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances.) 

Now think about this. If familiarity with the U.S. Constitution is lacking, awareness of the provisions of the state constitution is deplorable. This is unfortunate because when citizens are educated in the sources of their freedoms, and familiar with attempts in history to limit these freedoms, they are better equipped to recognize new encroachments. Our fundamental rights cannot be exercised or preserved, however, if we lose sight of them.

As we celebrate the Fourth of July, the day also marks an important occasion in Washington history: the opening of the state constitutional convention in 1889. After forty days of debate, the delegates approved the constitution. Understanding the context of these debates is critical for citizens to properly safeguard their rights.

The first principle articulated in our state constitution is idea of fundamental liberties. The delegates believed that men and women are created with inherent rights, which are granted to them by the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence. And thus the Washington Constitution declares: "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights" (Art. I, Sec. 1). It is important to note the constitution does not grant these rights to citizens, but recognizes the rights with the goal of protecting them.

In our system of federalism, state constitutions were intended to be the "first line of defense" for the protection of individual liberties, with the federal constitution acting as a secondary protection. As a result, state constitutions often extend broader protection of individual rights than the federal constitution.

This is certainly true in Washington. For many years our state courts generally interpreted the state and federal constitutions as being equivalent. Then in 1986 the Washington Supreme Court issued the landmark decision State v. Gunwall, in which the court recognized that the Washington Constitution often extends broader rights to its citizens than the U.S. Constitution. Since then, many decisions have interpreted the state constitution independent of the federal constitution.

For example, in the area of free speech, the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...."  The Washington Constitution, by comparison, explicitly protects specific activities of speech: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." Under the state constitution, Washington courts generally require higher level of justification for laws that impede speech.

Excessive government exercise of eminent domain continues to frustrate property owners, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Kelo decision in 2005, which authorized the condemnation of private property for the purpose of economic development. The federal constitution simply provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Washington Constitution explicitly prohibits the taking of private property for private use, and requires compensation if property is merely damaged. Unfortunately, increasingly indulgent court decisions have eaten away at this constitutional protection.

The right to keep and bear arms also finds greater protection from the state constitution. The U.S. Constitution says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." These are familiar words to most of us, but for decades an academic debate has raged over whether the right to bear arms is a right held by individual citizens, or whether it is collective right, predicated on service in a volunteer militia. (The U.S. Supreme Court provided a definitive answer on June 26 in the Heller decision. The right is held by individuals.) But the state constitution precludes this question altogether by stating: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired...."

These are but a few examples of the differences in our state and federal constitutions. Unfortunately, while minutes of the Washington Constitutional Convention of 1889 were recorded, a complete record of the proceedings does not exist. The delegates had secured the services of court reporters who kept a verbatim transcript of convention debates and speeches, but when the legislature failed to appropriate payment for their services, the stenographers destroyed their notes. Today we only have minutes of motions and votes from the proceedings.

The minimal historical record increases the need for careful analysis of the state founders' intent. To this end, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has released a new book, To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights: A Citizen's Guide to the Washington Constitution, Article I. (Full disclosure: I am one of the authors.) The book, with a foreword by Washington Supreme Court Justice Charles Johnson, is a section-by-section review of convention debates, contemporary newspaper accounts of the convention, the delegates' subsequent writings, and significant cases that have interpreted provisions within the constitution's Declaration of Rights.

The Washington Constitution counsels us that a "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government" (Art. I, Sec. 32). This admonishment is appropriate not only for lawmakers and judges, but for all those who love liberty and seek to preserve it. Let's remember it this Fourth of July.

Michael Reitz is an attorney in Olympia.