Dear Neighbors:
I hope you are enjoying Summer. In this week’s letter, I discuss a letter I received on the subject of a Constitutional convention.
This November’s ballot will include a question asking voter approval to hold a Constitutional convention. Last week, I (and many of us) received a Letter from three valuable Rhode Island organizations that promote our fundamental liberties (the Rhode Island branches of the American Federation of Labor, the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood) asking us to deny that approval. While I am grateful for the important contributions these organizations have made to protect our liberties over the years, I believe the Letter’s argument is seriously flawed, both in substance and in the way it speaks to us as voters. For the reasons I will now explain, I believe that the most recent (1986) Rhode Island Constitutional Convention demonstrates how this process can expand our fundamental rights and bring needed reforms to our government.
A. The Potential Risks of a Constitutional Convention
The Letter’s first theme is that a Constitutional convention is “a significant threat to our civil rights,” a phrase the letter essentially repeats at its beginning and end. To prove that a convention “is likely to lead to disastrous results,” the Letter cites a single example from the 1986 convention, namely a proposal to amend the Rhode Island Constitution to establish that life begins at conception. As a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose, I agree that such an amendment, if approved, would have been disastrous. The Letter neglects to say, however, that any proposal from a Constitutional convention does not become official unless and until it is approved by a majority of the voters. The proposed anti-abortion amendment never became law because it was rejected by a popular vote of 102,633 (for) to 197,520 (against) as recorded in the Official Record. In short, the Letter’s principal identified threat to civil rights utterly failed when presented to the voters, a crucial fact that undercuts the Letter’s argument, but regrettably is not presented for the reader’s consideration. I respectfully submit that this unfortunate form of argument is, at best, incomplete.
B. The Potential Benefits of a Constitutional Convention
More generally, the 1986 convention presented fourteen proposed amendments to the voters, who approved eight and rejected six (including the anti-abortion proposal). Among the eight that voters approved was the creation of our Ethics Commission and the codification of shoreline access rights in Rhode Island. I assume the Letter’s authors would agree that these amendments improved our State government and were well worth a one-time investment of $2 million as part of a multi-billion dollar budget. More generally, I find it significant that the Letter does not cite a single voter-approved 1986 amendment as a step backward for Rhode Island. The Letter’s failure to discuss the ultimate outcome of the 1986 Constitutional Convention, particularly as it relates to the overwhelming rejection of the anti-abortion proposal, reflects a dim view of our ability and responsibility as voters, both in substance and in style. I believe it is more accurate to say that the voters’ rejection of the anti-abortion proposal and approval of ethics reform and shoreline access rights are properly viewed as a victory for civil rights and government reform, rather than a threat to either.
C. The Limits of Alternative Ways to Amend the Constitution
The Letter also argues, in its third bullet point, that “We Already Have Effective Means of Changing Governance,” noting that the General Assembly has the authority to approve specific proposed Constitutional amendments for voter consideration. While this represents a theoretical safety valve that occasionally works, it is at best an exaggeration to call it “Effective.” As I noted in my April 7 letter, Rhode Island’s children could benefit greatly from a Constitutional right to education, which I believe would receive overwhelming voter approval were it placed on the ballot. Unfortunately, the right-to-education proposal has passed year after year after year in the Rhode Island Senate, only to fail in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, depriving voters of this opportunity. For that matter, our current Constitution limits the fundamental right to vote by prohibiting same-day registration. In response, two of the Letter’s sponsors (the ACLU and Planned Parenthood) joined the Let Rhode Island Vote coalition to place a Constitutional amendment on the ballot to remove this barrier. Despite the 28-member coalition’s massive effort, the resolution failed to gain General Assembly approval. As a result, the Letter’s authors know from direct and recent experience that this argument lacks a strong factual basis.
D. Conclusion
As I said when beginning this letter, I am grateful to the organizations who wrote this Letter for their magnificent work supporting the advancement of civil rights in Rhode Island. I must, however, object respectfully to their Letter, which fails to give us voters sufficient credit for our ability to protect our rights and to reform our government. Even worse, the Letter’s argument deprives readers of critical historical information with which to assess the accuracy of its conclusions. With that said, I appreciate the Letter’s authors’ efforts to promote a healthy discussion about the issue of a Constitutional convention in coming months, as a preparatory commission prepares voter information and we consider the ballot question in November. I encourage you to follow this issue and make your own informed decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
|
|