ri concon – RI Future

Delegates from the 1986 Constitutional Convention recalled their experiences and urged against convening another convention in 2016 from the steps of Garrahy Judicial Complex where several ConCon meetings were held in the 1980s. The three speakers were united in their opinion that the ConCon is not the tool for tackling issues of governmental reform, and in fact does pose a threat to civil liberties. Further, a new ConCon will almost certainly be captured by special interests, in much the same way the last one was.

Lila Sapinsley, former delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Convention and former Senate Republican Minority Leader, said:

“In 1986 when a Constitutional Convention was approved I eagerly ran for delegate. I naively thought that if delegates ran without party labels the convention would be free of politics. However, my hopes were dashed when I saw that since candidates ran from House districts, the convention was a mirror image of the House of Representatives. Delegates, if not directly connected to party leaders, were family or friends. The Speaker of the House controlled the convention. If delegates to the 2015 convention are elected by existing electoral districts we will again have a duplicate of the legislature. Let’s concentrate on electing better representatives and forget about an expensive duplicate of the General Assembly.”

East Providence resident Roberto Gonzalez, also a former delegate, stated:

“The 1986 convention was hijacked from the citizens of Rhode Island. While some delegates deliberated in good faith, the outcome of the convention had been predetermined by the then-powerful House Speaker, who was in turn controlled by the same special interests that have controlled House leaders in recent history. Many, if not most of the delegates, were family or friends of those in power. It was never a convention of the people to improve government, but rather a convention of special interests. I am sure that if the good citizens of this state choose to have another convention, the exact thing will happen. Instead of debating good government amendments, the convention will become bogged down with a plethora of polarizing social issues such as gun control, abortion, voter ID, and immigration. There is nothing to stop the delegates from putting measures on the ballot that will reverse or dilute the civil rights gains that have been so difficult to obtain.”

Tom Izzo, another former delegate, said:

“The process of electing delegates alone impacts the potential for a ‘purer, freer and more open deliberation’ – a process where, while non-partisan, does not allow for a real vetting of the candidates’ qualifications. In most instances–though not running–sitting representatives hold inordinate sway, and special interests can leverage their greatest influence. These special elections, as in most primaries, have a very low voter turnout, and candidates must depend on these special interests to get elected. While there were a few positive outcomes from the last convention, I do not believe the time, the financial cost, the potential negative impact on civil rights, and most importantly the virtually unlimited impact of special interests, especially in light of recent rulings regarding campaign spending, warrants or justifies the calling of another convention.”

There is no reason to think that a Constitutional Convention held today will be any different from the 1986 experience, and a number of reasons to think that the results of a new convention will be worse. Since 1986, the influence of money on politics has exploded. The present Speaker of the House is no less powerful than his 1986 predecessor, and is potentially more powerful. No changes have been made to the selection process of delegates that might prevent a convention from being hijacked again.

Promises from proponents that this Constitutional Convention will be different are meaningless. They have no more control over the proceedings and outcomes of a ConCon than I do. Across the country, no state has held a ConCon since the one held in Rhode Island in 1986, for all the reasons the former delegates outlined above.

Why should Rhode Island be the only state not to learn from its mistake?

On the November ballot, referendum Question 3 will ask voters; “Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?” While most people following Ocean State politics are focused on who will be the next governor of our state, or the next mayor of our capital city, question three bears watching too. The process for putting the referendum on the ballot every ten years was the result of a 1973 constitutional convention ballot initiative.

The first time the voters were presented with the new question (in 1984) they authorized a convention. The result was a two-year process that placed 14 questions on the 1986 ballot, eight of which were ratified by the voters. In 1994 and 2004 the voters rejected the referendum and no conventions were held as a result. Our organization, Common Cause Rhode Island, opposed the last two referenda but in 2014 we are not taking a position. Quite frankly, there are too many compelling arguments for and against a convention this time. Just a cursory review shows both sides to have compelling arguments.

Supporters of a convention point to important constitutional changes that they assert are needed in our state as the impetus for their efforts. They also rightfully point out that many of these reforms that limit legislative power could be much more difficult to achieve through the typical process whereby the General Assembly puts proposed constitutional amendments it would like on the statewide ballot.

Opponents of a convention point to the many important changes that have been put on the ballot by the legislature; including Separation of Powers, downsizing the legislature, elimination of the much abused legislative pensions, merit selection of judges, etc. They argue that a convention will be a creature of the legislature given that the election of delegates is based on state legislative districts, and that in 1986 many of them had deep ties to members of the General Assembly.

Opponents of a convention express legitimate concerns about the possibility that such a gathering might put restrictions on important civil rights and liberties up to a popular referendum. They point to amendments from 1986 that would have put restrictions on abortion rights (which didn’t pass) and imposed restrictions on bail for certain drug offenses (which did pass).

Supporters point to the fact that the people must approve any changes to the Rhode Island constitution that are placed on the ballot by a convention, and that the voters overwhelmingly rejected new restrictions on abortions in 1986. They argue that the U.S. Constitution contains sufficient protections for civil rights and liberties, and that those cannot be abrogated by the a state constitution.

We encourage the voters of Rhode Island to look closely at the arguments made against a convention by Citizens for Responsible Government, and for having a convention by Renew RI. Both coalitions have already been spending considerable resources to make their respective point of view heard. No doubt the coming weeks will see even more arguments by both sides of this question.

Common Cause is engaging a different type of education, one that is not focused on persuading anyone about the merits or dangers of a convention. Rather we are trying to explore what a convention might look like by digging into the archives from the 1980s and other sources. Here are a few quick facts:

There were an extraordinary 558 candidates for the November 5, 1985 election of 100 delegates to the constitutional convention. That election resulted in only 96,538 eligible voters casting a ballot. The convention held 11 statewide public forums and received over 1000 comments. After that they held 111 substantive committee meetings and took testimony at 34 public committee hearings. The result was 322 resolutions introduced by the delegates and vetted through six substantive committees. Fifty-six of the resolutions were debated in 10 plenary sessions. The result was 26 resolutions that passed and were consolidated into the 14 ballot questions proposed in 1986.

There is much more to learn about the 1986 convention. The Common Cause website contains five hours of video from a March conference we hosted with Roger Williams University School of Law, the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant University, and the League of Women Voters or Rhode Island. Included are talks by Professors Alan Tarr and Robert Williams from the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, perhaps the two leading authorities on state constitutions. Other materials we have added include information about the campaign finance from the election of delegates.

While the candidates you vote for on November 4th may be in office for four or eight years, changes to our state’s constitution may last for generations. In the coming weeks we hope you take the time to become educated about Question 3 and make sure on Election Day to go down the ballot and make your voice heard on this issue, no matter where you stand.

Tag: ri concon

Former ConCon delegates agree: It doesn’t work

Where does Common Cause stand on ConCon question?