Dawn Clark-Netsch
In 1970, Illinois held a constitutional convention. We needed it badly. Our 1870 constitution was not only horse-and-buggy, but it was actually holding down the development of a modern and efficient state and local government. Despite the tumultuous times – 1969-70 – we were successful in writing and gaining voter approval of a constitution which was relatively short and straightforward, dealt with the basics of government and has served us well for almost 40 years.
As delegates to the 1970 Illinois State Constitutional Convention, we know that if we could do it then, California can do it now.
Starting broadly, the right of a people to change that government which no longer serves them is the philosophical underpinning of the Declaration of Independence and, by extension, the United States itself. Therefore, we strongly endorse both the right and capacity of the people to faithfully execute positive constitutional reform through the constitutional convention process.
Next, the question becomes whether or not that government has indeed ceased to serve to the ends for which it is supposed to serve. The verdict is ultimately up to the people of California, who will have the chance to weigh the question in the upcoming campaign.
However, Californians can expect the arguments against a constitutional convention to mirror those made in Illinois a generation ago. Defenders of the status quo will say that a convention “will open Pandora’s box,” or “it will cost too much money,” or “it will become a spectacle.”
These arguments, it seems to us, simply don’t hold for California in its present situation – as they didn’t for Illinois in 1970.
On the concern of opening a Pandora’s box: First, constitutional conventions can be, and have been in the past, successfully limited in scope. If anything, California’s could be the most intensely focused convention ever, since the “limiting” would be done by the voters themselves and not by an outgoing and unpopular legislature. Second, the slightly condescending Pandora’s box scenario never materializes for the simple reason that Americans actually like their freedoms and they are not interested in curbing them.
On cost, the question is comparative. How does the cost of indefinite committal to the status quo compare to the cost of having a one-time convention?
On the “spectacle” argument, nothing could be further from the truth. Since constitutional convention delegates don’t run for re-election, they are motivated not by the fund-raising and politicking that drives regular politicians into partisan circuses, but by finding common ground and common good. That was an important component of our success in Illinois in 1970.
For a similar reason, delegates have no electoral incentive to cower from important decisions. Take Illinois as an example. At the 1970 convention, we were able to allow for greater regional autonomy within the state, which helped keep taxpayer resources closer to where they are actually consumed as services. This “home-rule” principle makes it easier for voters to keep a watchful eye on their dollars and enjoys continued popularity in Illinois.
But constitutional conventions are important for another reason. They are the purest opportunity for a people to deliberate the principles that unite them. At 4,500 words, the meaning of the U.S. Constitution is easily within the grasp of the average citizen, and it enshrines the values which unite an entire nation. It is no wonder then, that at 80,000 words and 512 amendments, California’s constitution unites few, is understood by fewer and has created a government the citizens yearn to reform.
As delegates to the Illinois convention, we tried our best to follow in the footsteps of the nation’s founders. We debated proposals on the merit of the moment and by the facts on the ground.
California’s drive for a constitutional convention faces some hurdles. Repair California, a group seeking a ballot initiative for such a convention, confirmed Friday it was temporarily suspending its campaign, citing a lack of funding.
But we have no doubt that the Golden State, still beaming with talent and potential, has what it takes to become a national leader once again. California can do better. A new 21st century constitution would serve you well.
James Gierach
