In the July newsletter of the American Legislative Exchange Council — a nationwide network of conservative state legislators — the president of the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, Darcy Olsen, writes eloquently about the need for a conservative renaissance based in the states. I highly recommend reading the whole piece (you’ll find it towards the end of this pdf, but one passage in particular is worth noting.

The Goldwater Institute has an active litigation arm that seeks to challenge illegal and unconstitutional government actions. Darcy argues that state constitutions are underutilized tools for advancing liberty:
Designed by the framers to be the primary guardians of individual rights, state constitutions are ripe with restrictions on government power. Indeed, early language from Virginia’s constitution served as a model for the Bill of Rights itself. These principles should give conservatives the home field advantage, but until now, few have been vindicated in the courts.
One right sorely lacking in the U.S. Constitution is taxpayer standing, which gives citizens the ability to challenge almost any exercise of government power, particularly involving public funds. Without this right in federal courts, taxpayers had no legal recourse this fall when Congress lavished preferential subsidies on private companies like GM and Chrysler.
Even as those billions flooded into private pockets, Arizona’s Court of Appeals was putting the brakes on a similar deal concerning a $100 million subsidy for a mall developer. The court declared the scheme unconstitutional owing to the gift clause, a taxpayer protection that prohibits the state and cities from awarding “any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual,
association or corporation.”
New York, Maryland and 34 additional states enjoy similar clauses designed to stop special-interest giveaways. While state courts are not bound to follow precedent from neighboring states, they look intensely to other jurisdictions for guidance in interpreting similar language. As a result, the potential for one state’s legal victory to shape outcomes nationwide is enormous.
Doctrines like the gift clause can reanimate an originalist view of government as one with strictly limited powers. Activists also will find promising articles that protect private property, secure crime victim rights and prohibit special laws benefiting a narrow portion of the public, as well as explicit statements guaranteeing liberties not specifically enumerated.

I think Darcy is exactly right. We have a similar litigation unit in my state, the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, pursuing a number of cases involving taxes, corporate welfare, and other matters. Let’s make it a national trend.