Referendum for a PA Constitution Convention

Another compelling editorial: Reviving Reform, Bucks County Courier Times, Jan. 19.

In truth…what to say when they say this:

Opponents of a referendum on a Constitution convention raise a few common concerns. Here they are with some replies.

We don’t need and shouldn’t have a convention.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to mine. We both should get to vote on it, not just you. Put the question on the ballot so both of us can vote.

Slow down. A Constitution convention is too drastic.
Having just celebrated Martin Luther King Day, it seems right to quote him: “This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.” King was speaking of civil rights regardless of race in his “I have a dream” speech, but it applies as well to the right of all citizens to have a government that eagerly repairs corruption, not one that hopes people will forget about it or settle for half measures. …

The “runaway” convention.
Some fear that a convention will not stop at repairing the government but will subvert the Declaration of Rights with respect to guns, sexual minorities, abortion, the environment, voting and other rights.

It can’t happen unless the legislature authorizes it and the people approve it in the referendum that would take place this November.

Legally, the PA Supreme Court has ruled when voters approve a referendum, they also approve any limits placed on the convention by the legislature. So if the legislature excludes those issues from a convention, and people approve the referendum, the convention cannot legally consider those issues. If the convention were to make recommendations about them, those recommendations would never be placed before voters for ratification after the convention.

Politically, neither lawmakers nor integrity advocates want a convention to debate hot-button issues. In March 2007, the Senate State Government Committee held a public hearing on whether to have a Constitution convention. All of the lawmakers and all of the integrity advocates who testified agreed with exempting the Declaration of Rights in order to focus the convention on the way the government works.

Elections are the equivalent of Constitution conventions.
Conventions are places to debate what our government does and how, and after a convention citizens get to vote on whether to alter their government. Elections only allow citizens to choose between candidates. They don’t give citizens a chance to make decisions about how their government works.

But in 2008, nearly half of the House districts had no competition; 94 out of 203 House seats were uncontested. That means 5.9 million citizens (44%) didn’t even get a choice of candidates much less the chance to affect the structure and functions of government.

A convention could cost $20 million, and that’s a lot of money.
That’s a lot of money, but it’s also:

less than a tenth of one percent of the state budget.
less than what has been spent so far to prosecute those who have been accused of, or convicted for, essentially rigging elections at taxpayer expense.
about 10% of the $200 million surplus lawmakers are hoarding in leadership accounts while so many legitimate needs go unmet.
half paid for if Gov. Ed Rendell kills the $10 million WAM for a minor league hockey rink in Allentown. Click here for that story.

A Constitution convention easily could save far more than it would cost.

“A convention would be a political freak show…[of]…the very people you’d want to be protected from…tea partiers, Moveon.org types, pajama-clad bloggers…crazies from the left and right.”
This completely misses the point that the government belongs to all of us. So the goal should be clear and agreeable to all: a delegation that accurately represents the citizenry. If we achieve that goal, and there are proven ways to do it, we won’t have to worry about a convention dominated by anyone but the vast majority of our people who are, on the whole, sober and sensible, not irrational.

The 1967 convention missed the goal. Out of 163 delegates, only 11 were women, 5 were African-American, and 1 was Latino. Nearly half, 44%, were lawyers, and 10% were in the insurance and real estate professions. There is no reason to believe that using the same 1967 system for choosing delegates will achieve the goal.

We need to be 100% certain that a convention will be worth it and won’t go astray.
If that attitude had prevailed in 1776, we wouldn’t have a Constitution to argue about.

The founders had faith in the people, and there’s something wrong with a government that doesn’t.

Good News to Finish

We learned of another state senator who refuses per diems. She is Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Luzerne. Anyone else?

Why wait ’til May or November?
Vote for Integrity now and help DR get off to a great start in 2010.

Thanks!

Democracy Rising Pennsylvania P.O. Box 618, Carlisle, PA 17013