Thoughts After Watching the ConCon Debate

Over the weekend, I finally got around to watching Wednesday night’s ConCon forum (archived at CT-N’s website).  While it definitely wasn’t as polished as some folks might be used to from watching the Presidential campaign over the past couple of years…what do you expect for a local issue in a state the size of Connecticut?

I have absolutely no regrets for having cast a yes vote on principle, and not in support of the goals of the initiative crowd.

I did, however, come away with two major impressions.

First, one of the main arguments of the “no ConCon” presenters seems to be that it’s scary – anything can happen, there are no rules about who will be selected, what might come of the Convention, how long it would run…and why should we support  a call for a convention when there are so many unknowns?

It’s almost as if they say that the bidecadal constitutional convention question in the state constitution is too flawed to be usable, due to all the unknowns.

If that’s the case…aren’t constitutional conventions intended to fix those sorts of flaws in the fundamental law of the land?  A ConCon would be a perfect venue to fix the ConCon Question clause!

Second, although the subject at hand is whether to convene a constitutional convention, the folks campaigning for “yes” votes are seeking to get ballot initiatives introduced into Connecticut, and accordingly there was a little digression into what a Nutmeg-flavored initiative law might look like.

That aspect of the debate ought to be played up a bit more, as it would ease the concerns of folks like me, who would prefer not to see full-blown California or Massachusetts-style initiatives introduced to the state.

In a nutshell, the idea presented Wednesday evening seems to distill down to these points:

• High signature requirement (e.g. 10% of registered voters) for petitioners
• After successful petition, measure would flow through state legislature.
• Legislature could opt to approve as-is, vote “no” (and send it to the voters), or propose an alternative and let voters choose among the options.

If they’d add two other points:

• Allow a legislature to kill an initiative with a supermajority vote in both houses
• Initiatives only go before voters during statewide elections (i.e., Novembers in even-numbered years)

…it might not be such a bad idea.  With a high signature requirement, legislative filtering, and the preclusion of scheduling shenanigans, you would have the means to combat legislative stagnation, without the full-blown wingnuttery in California or Massachusetts-style initiatives.

But I digress.

While I understand the “fear of the unknown” argument raised by ConCon opponents (and I agree with their “fear of ulterior motives” point)…that is a lousy reason to vote “no”.  Wackiness should be kept in check by ConCon delegates, and ultimately the voters…and really, the idea of bringing in the constitution once every 20 years to check under the hood and confirm that everything works as well as can reasonably be expected just makes too much sense.

Given the checks and balances imposed by the legislature appointing delegates and voters getting the final say on any changes, there should be no reason to be afraid here.  There is no reason not to vote “yes”.