Guest MINDSETTER™ Steve Brown: A Constitutional Convention: A General Assembly By Any Other Name
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Supporters of a constitutional convention consistently claim that it is necessary to counter the political wheeling and dealing of the General Assembly. But, despite all wishful thinking to the contrary, a convention is only more of the same. In a key respect, it’s worse: at least the General Assembly can only screw up statutes, but a convention can screw up our Constitution. Anybody fed with up the legislature should also reject Question 3.
Convention supporters accuse Question 3 opponents of “fear-mongering,” but they do so only by completely ignoring what happened at Rhode Island’s (and the country’s) last constitutional convention, in 1986. If you know what happened in 1986, you’d be fearful too.
So how representative of the people was the 1986 convention? Consider just a few facts:
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST* In the 1985 delegate election, fewer than 18% of eligible voters went to the polls, and a number of delegates were elected in their district by fewer than 25% of that already small number of voters.
* According to news reports, the voters elected “about 40 delegates with distinct Democratic backgrounds and about 20 who have been active in Republican affairs,” including people then serving on city and town party committees.
* In 1986, while the convention was still in session, 17 of the delegates filed to run for the General Assembly.
And how non-political was the convention process itself?
* Literally from beginning to end, the convention was mired in politics. Before it even started, the Democratic General Assembly and the Republican Governor fought over the timing of the convention – for political reasons, the Governor wanted it held in 1985, and for political reasons, the General Assembly wanted it held in 1986. No points for guessing who won.
* The person chosen as Convention Chair in a contested election by the delegates was supported by the Speaker of the House, and most people candidly acknowledge that the Speaker (whose sister and son, it should be patriotically noted, were democratically elected as delegates) was in virtual control of the proceedings. Indeed, upon threat of cutting off funds to the convention, the Speaker even had the convention’s general counsel dismissed.
* Fans of the General Assembly process will be pleased to learn that at least a couple of the convention’s sessions lasted late into the early morning hours.
Like now, the 1986 convention was supposed to be all about government reform. How did that work out?
* Today, convention supporters talk about important structural issues that the General Assembly refuses to address, like line-item veto, separation of powers and political redistricting. Well, they were also considered at the 1986 convention – and rejected. In fact, the convention seriously considered expanding legislative appointment powers over state agencies.
* A number of “reform” amendments that the convention did approve – dealing with four-year terms for state officers, legislative pay, and judicial selection – were so watered down that the voters rejected them.
* The most significant and controversial proposal to come out of the 1986 had nothing to do with government reform. It was a constitutional amendment declaring that “life begins at conception,” designed to ban abortions in the state.
* Five months into the 1986 convention, the then-executive director of Common Cause bemoaned: “It is now clear that this is a politicians' convention and not a people's convention."
Convention proponents conveniently fail to explain how 2016 would somehow be so much purer than 1986. If anything, things have only gotten worse since then. Divisive social issues now routinely appear on other states’ ballots, demonstrating that Rhode Island’s 1986 anti-abortion proposal was no fluke. In the last election cycle, close to one billion dollars was spent on referenda campaigns across the country. A Rhode Island convention will be a magnet for that sort of money. As if to prove the point, just last week convention proponents brought in Grover Norquist, the exemplar of a wealthy out-of-state interest, to tell Rhode Islanders to vote for a convention.
Getting reform through the legislature can be extremely difficult, but it doesn’t matter what amendments are made to the Constitution if more than half of all General Assembly seats are uncontested. As much as supporters of a convention might want to, they cannot turn it into a quick fix that will rise above politics and solve the state’s problems. To the contrary – it will only add to the cynicism so many people harbor about politics, invite outside meddling, and dissuade people from engaging in the real work necessary to reform our legislative process.
Critic H.L. Mencken once remarked, “For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” The constitutional convention is just that type of “solution.” Reject Question 3.
Steven Brown is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.
Related Articles
- Guest MINDSETTER™ J.H. Snider 1787: Vote No Against Convening a National Constitutional Convention
- Gary Sasse: Is a Constitutional Convention Really Needed?
- Pam Gencarella: Why You Should Care About a Constitutional Convention
- New Poll Shows Support for RI Constitutional Convention
- Russell Moore: Constitutional Convention: Just Say Yes!
- RenewRI Kicks Off Pro-Constitutional Convention Effort
- NEW: Campaign Launched Against RI Constitutional Convention
