Letters to the Editor: 10.02.97

2Constitutional Reform

Bridgehampton

September 29, 1997

To The Editor,

In November, voters will decide whether or not to hold a constitutional convention in 1999. The League of Women Voters of New York State believes there are three compelling reasons to vote no. One, the delegate selection process is flawed and will not lead to real citizen participation at the convention. Two, while the Constitution needs some revision, there is no public demand or societal upheaval at this time that justifies opening the whole Constitution to change. Three, the projected $45 million cost is excessive when there are alternative means to bring about constitutional reform.

Unless the delegate selection process is changed by the Legislature, it is probable that political professionals, indeed, many of the same Assemblymen and Senators or local party leaders, will control the convention. Independent campaigns against regular party candidates will be very difficult. Nonparty-endorsed candidates have to brave ballot access laws, and, even if they pass that test, campaigns could cost as much as $150,000. If, as we fear, party delegates dominate the convention, then the same party leadership that controls the Legislature will control the convention. As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison said, the likely candidates would "be parties to the very questions to be decided by them" - questions of state finance, or needed legislative and judicial reform.

History has shown that when there was a real hue and cry from the people for change, constitutional conventions met that challenge, but when there was no public outcry, they have failed.

In 1821, because of attacks on individual liberties, a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. In 1846, responding to the spread of Jacksonian democracy, the franchise was extended and most public offices became elective. In 1894, because of widespread corruption, severe restrictions were placed on the Legislature.

Consider the most recent case where there was no hue and cry. In 1967 the state spent $10 million on a convention that ended in failure. The exact same selection method led to a convention where Republicans and Democrats made up all but three of the delegates (who were Liberal Party representatives) and literally sat on opposite sides of the aisle. The "revised" constitution was soundly voted down by a 3-to-1 margin.

In the current atmosphere of partisan, special-interest, and single-issue politics, a unified commitment to true constitution reform seems remote. Why risk opening sections of the Constitution like the preservation of individual rights, the obligation to care for the needy, and environmental protections, such as the "forever wild" clause to elimination from the Constitution?

Finally, the cost this time around is estimated at $45 million, not counting in the cost of presenting and electioneering for and against passage.

The League of Women Voters has always worked for reform through democratic means. The New York State legislative process can certainly use reform. But there are alternatives to a convention, other means for bringing about constitutional change.

The Legislature itself can propose amendments, which after approval by two successive, separately elected Legislatures, are placed before the people. Another is the proposal of the 1993 Goldmark Commission for action panels, appointed by the Governor and the Legislature, that would present to the Legislature integrated reform packages with a mandated vote up or down by a specified date.

The League of Women Voters strongly urges voters to vote no on the constitutional convention proposition.

Sincerely,

GAIL DAVENPORT

Government Co-Chair

League of Women Voters of the Hamptons

Oppose Convention

Hampton Bays

September 28, 1997

To The Editor:

The New York State Chapter of the National Organization for Women voters urges a no vote on the ballot question of whether to convene a New York State constitutional convention.

Our present Constitution is essentially a progressive document. A convention that could rewrite the whole thing could eliminate reproductive and other rights. It's a risk we don't want to take.

The delegate selection process, which would be based on New York Senate district lines, is stacked for conservatives, incumbent lawmakers, and political leaders. The Senate district lines are the most conservative lines in the state; just look at the Senate and its dismal record. We don't want conservatives rewriting the Constitution.

The present Constitution does not restrict abortion. Given the anti-choice legislation from Congress and the states, and diminishing protections by the Federal courts, we must hold tight to what we have.

Many anti-abortion bills have passed the New York State Senate but failed in the Democratic-controlled Assembly, so none have been enacted into law. Delegates could write anti-choice proposals, including denial of Medicaid funding for abortions, mandatory parental consent or notification, waiting periods, mandatory state-written counseling for women seeking abortions, a ban on abortion methods, and eliminating the "aid, care, and support of the needy" provision, further threatening the health and welfare of low-income women and children.

Besides abortion-rights advocates, there's a long list of organizations that oppose the constitutional convention, including the League of Women Voters, Family Planning Advocates of New York State, Citizen Action, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Bar Association of the City of New York, People for the American Way, welfare groups, unions, and environmental and teachers groups. It is also opposed by some conservatives and anti-tax groups that don't want to spend upwards of $50 million on it, including the Conservative Party, CHANGE-New York, and the Christian Coalition.

Additional information on this issue is available from the NOW-NYS office at 4 Avis Drive, Latham, N.Y. 12110.

JENNIFER LINDAHL

Corresponding Secretary

East End NOW

Vast And Beautiful

Calexico, Calif.

September 1997

Dear Star -

Last week I wrote, but didn't send, "How could I possibly have encouraged someone to come with me to this cauldron, this inferno, this impossibility? Did I spend six days driving through Toad Suck, Ark., or Bucksnort, Tenn., to drown in my own sweat?"

Well, it's a week later and the blood has thinned somewhat, and it's cooled down to 96 degrees at 8 a.m., rather than 107 degrees at 8 a.m. My solar panel is up so I have light and water and I feel more like a human than a puddle of grease. I have the campo to myself and San Felipe as well, as no sane person would come down until at least the middle of October.

The shrimp boats are out, which means the sea is cooling to below normal shower temperature and their lights at night are so beautiful.

This country of ours is vast and beautiful. More people should move to the middle. I drove some of the same roads in Arizona I drove last year in the motor home - I was impressed! I must have been absolutely terrified.

Here I am and here comes Nora (hurricane). I've never been through one of these on this coast - will let you know what happens.

So today, with thinner blood and a week behind me, my biggest problem is if I'll get smacked by a jumping mullet as I swim or buzzed by one of a swarm (seven) of hummingbirds vying for my feeder.

I miss East Hampton and all my friends, big and small. I think of how beautiful the fall is on Main Street. I'm already looking forward to next summer.

Life is good.

Love to all,

JUDY HUBBARD

Please address correspondence to [email protected]

Please include your full name, address and daytime telephone number for purposes of verification.