A Cry for Help

Remember, tomorrow, on the back of your ballot, there are 14 questions that ask for your approval or rejection. Twelve of 14 are borrowing proposals, but the first two are about the state constitution. Question 1asks whether you'd like to rewrite the constitution to add restrictions to the General Assembly, which has wielded unbalanced powers since RI was a colony. Question 2 asks whether or not a Constitutional Convention will be held, in which 75 elected delegates from around the state can debate and put forward amendments for voters to approve or deny. This question is asked once every 10 years.

I watched a local political roundtable on channel 10 this Sunday, and they touched on both questions. Unfortunately, they seem to have gone out of their way to emulate Crossfire, and advocates for both sides just said the other side was wrong. Well yay for democracy! I have no idea who was right.

Question 1, which is more commonly known as the Separation of Powers amendment, enjoys wide support, and for good reason. We take our individuality seriously here in the Biggest Little, but it really is time to join the rest of the nation in having a balanced government.

Question 2 is a little more contentious. Arguments for holding the convention include opening the way for reforms without legislative and lobbyist input, exercising small-d democratic practices, and raising the level of civic discourse in the state. The downside could be opening the Constitution for divisive changes that will roll back civil rights, the potential for special-interest tampering and the unnecessary $2 million price tag.

Pro-Q2: Operation Clean Government, Governor Carcieri, Cool Moose Bob Healey, and the Providence Journal.

Anti-Q2: Common Cause RI, RI ACLU, and a whole list of single-issue advocacy groups (.pdf).

I'm really not sure which way I'm going to vote. The potential positives are a host of needed and excellent reforms. The negative of amending the constitution with a 50%+1 (as opposed to going through the long hard slog of legislative amending) majority can introduce some nasty stuff. I'd rather not see our fundamental legal document tweaked in that manner.

I guess it's a matter of cynicism. If you think an honest group of engaged citizens can get together and debate good reforms for our government, vote yes. If you're worried that a slate of unaccountable insiders will stack the delegate deck or simple majorities will want to roll back things like gay rights or reproductive rights, vote no. I'm honestly not sure how I feel.

It's late, but if anyone wants to weigh in on how they feel about this question, I'd love to have you comment.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 1st, 2004 at 8:38 pm and is filed under Local Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.