A Constitutional Convention Could Make Rhode Island Better - Gary Sasse
Gary Sasse, Guest MINDSETTER™
A Constitutional Convention Could Make Rhode Island Better - Gary Sasse
.jpg)
Proponents of a Convention contend that it is needed to enhance basic right and provide for more accountable and transparent government. They suggest that a Convention might review such topics as making access to equal educational opportunities an enforceable constitutional right, reforming the electoral process to encourage participation and reduce voter suppression, and numerous reforms to enhance governmental accountability.
Opposition to a Constitutional Convention emanates from a well-funded coalition of progressive groups lead by the AFL-CIO, the ACLU, and others. They believe that a Convention imposes a threat to civil liberties, and is subject to the influence of out-of-state money, and that a more efficient and economical way exists to address constitutional matters.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTThe claim that a Constitutional Convention could roll back civil rights may be overstated. Adding to or modifying constitutional rights requires a vote of the people. It cannot be done solely by the delegates to a convention. For example, while the last Constitutional Convention proposed a “right to life “amendment to limited abortions, it was rejected by 66 percent of voters. Senator Sam Zurier opined that the 1986 Convention’s “approval of ethics reform and shoreline access rights are probably viewed as a victory for civil rights and government reform.”
The civil rights issue of our time is access to equal educational opportunities. In Rhode Island, this will require making education an enforceable constitutional right. The General Assembly has refused to put this matter before the people.
Rhode Island has two pathways to amend and revise the State Constitution. One is for the Legislature to propose amendments and submit them to the electorate. The second is for a convention, called by voters, to place amendments on the ballot.
Experience suggests, as opponents to the convention contend that having the General Assembly submit proposed amendments directly to the people is theoretically the most direct route for revising the State’s Constitution. For example, during the 1990s, legislatively initiated amendments resulted in voter approval of landmark constitutional reforms. The terms of the governor and general officers were lengthened from two to four years, and term limits were imposed. The membership of the General Assembly was reduced, legislative compensation was modernized and pensions eliminated. The method of selecting judges was reformed. State spending was restricted to 97 percent of revenues and a budget reserve account was mandated. Finally, a separation of powers amendment was approved.
Unfortunately, over the last two decades, the General Assembly has not addressed urgent constitutional concerns. If elected representatives will not deal with compelling constitutional issues, the only alternative is for the people to exercise their prerogative of voting to call a Constitutional Convention. However, to be successful a Convention must be organized to operate in an accountable and transparent fashion, limiting the political State House influence that impacted the 1986 Convention.
Holding a Constitution Convention may be the only practical option the people have to make education an enforceable right for all kids and enhance governmental accountability so political cronyism, incompetence, and failed leadership do not lead to another Washington Bridge-type fiasco.
Convening a Constitutional Convention may be indispensable to restoring confidence in our democratic institutions, protecting basic rights, and achieving better government.
Gary Sasse served as the Director of RIPEC, and the Director of the Rhode Island Departments of Revenue and Administration.
.