We Know What a Constitutional Convention Is Like – It’s Why We Oppose Question 1
Since 1986, the writers of this commentary have the common bond of serving as delegates to the last Constitutional Convention in Rhode Island – and the last such convention held anywhere in the country. Nearly 40 years later, we come together again to share something else: our commitment to opposing another Constitutional Convention and urging you to vote no on Question 1. The outsized role that money and politics will play in it simply cannot be ignored.
We each approached our role as delegates in the 1986 Convention with good intentions and with the hope that we could garner strong and lasting structural reforms. We quickly learned that the rallying cry for reform came second to sweeping attacks on hard-fought liberties like abortion rights and the right to bail. Based on our experience, we have no doubt that instead of debating good government amendments, a future convention will become bogged down with discussion of today’s polarizing, hot-button social issues, such as gun control or the culture wars.
Today’s proponents of a convention echo the 1986 calls for government reform and argue that a convention is necessary to finally tackle important structural issues that the General Assembly has failed to address, such as line-item veto. However, voters might not know that these issues were considered at the 1986 convention and most were either not approved by the delegates or, in a few instances, rejected by voters because they were so watered down. In fact, the convention came close to approving a constitutional amendment to expand legislative appointment powers over state agencies; ultimately, it was the General Assembly, not a convention, that approved a “separation of powers” amendment.
Learn more about Ballot Question 1
Furthermore, from our experience, the convention process is not a truly democratic “people’s convention” as its proponents like to imagine. Delegates to a constitutional convention are selected through a special election, which, like most primaries, has a very low voter turnout. In 1985, only 18% of eligible voters went to the polls to select the delegates, and many of those elected had political connections.
Additionally, in 1986, the convention considered 322 resolutions for amendment. The convention approved 25 of those amendments to pose to voters. To ensure all those resolutions could fit on the ballot, the amendments were then bundled into 14 ballot questions. As a result, if you wanted to vote to support adding a “free speech” clause to the Rhode Island Constitution, you also had to vote for a bundled provision restricting constitutional protection for abortion rights.
A report from this year’s Bipartisan Preparatory Commission estimated that a constitutional convention could cost anywhere between $2.6 million and $4.8 million. In 1986, the convention budget was approximately $695,000, and ended up being closer to $891,000, almost $200,000 more than budgeted. With no limit on how long a convention can last, we can easily foresee the costs of a convention in 2026 swell far beyond its initial budget.
Since 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court has added another troubling layer to any future constitutional convention by issuing rulings that allow wealthy, outside groups and corporations to now spend unlimited amounts of money on ballot referenda campaigns. To see the impact of this decision, voters need only look to ballot question campaigns in neighboring Massachusetts, which as of October 1, generated over $26 million in contributions from groups as far away as California. The same influence is virtually guaranteed to happen in Rhode Island if there is a constitutional convention. Today, a convention would not reflect the will of the people but rather the will of the people (or corporations) willing to pay the most.
We collectively believe that the financial cost, the potential negative impact on our rights and, most importantly, the inevitable and virtually unlimited role that special interest money will play all call for the rejection of another convention.
This November 5, as former delegates, we ask you to reject Question 1.
Signed:
Anthony DeSisto
Roberto Gonzalez
Thomas Izzo
Kenneth F. McGunagle, Jr.
