A Journal News editorial

The Nov. 7 ballot asks a question that could, depending on who you talk to, start New York State down the road to improving our state's founding document or could send us spiraling toward the dismantling of core New York tenets. Those hopes and deep fears are seeded in Proposal 1, which will appear on the back of the ballot: "Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same?"

It's a sad day when people can make a legitimate argument about not allowing a Constitutional Convention out of fear that it would simply serve special interests.

Let's prove them wrong and practice some democracy. Let's have a Con Con.

New York's Constitution offers the option of holding a Constitutional Convention every 20 years. But the November vote is just the first step in the process. If the question passes, voters would elect delegates (three from every state Senate district and 15 statewide) on the November 2018 ballot; then the convention would occur in April 2019. The proposals put forth by delegates would then be subject to the public's vote on the November 2019 ballot.

Sure, there are scary parts, including the fact that there is no agenda for the convention. Anything can come up. Fears expressed by opponents include: lost pensions for public workers; changes to reproductive health laws that could make them more or less restrictive; and alterations to constitutional land protections that could either further restrict or open up development.

"They are free to work on what any issues they want, without a restriction," NYPIRG Executive Director Blair Horner explained in a recent roundtable discussion hosted by the Editorial Board. Horner, whose organization has remained neutral on a Con Con, also brought up another scary point for many: "There are no restrictions on who can serve as a delegate."

CON CON: What it is, and New Yorkers should care

CON CON: True/false comments in viral Facebook post

PENSIONS AT RISK? Eight Con Con misconceptions dispelled

So who would these delegates be? Who will run? Who should run? Those against the Con Con say that, most likely, elected officials will be the ones who seek the paid position of delegate. That means, critics warn, we will get the same old, same old and they get a nice taxpayer-funded bonus.

"There won’t be very many Mr. Smiths," said Jerry Kremer, recalling the classic Frank Capra film that sent an everyman to straighten out a corrupt U.S. Senate. Kremer was member of the Assembly during the 1967 Con Con (called by the state Legislature), and said he was shocked by how many delegates turned out to be elected officials. Now the head of a lobbying group, Kremer said that the convention process is not a realistic way to produce results. There's no way to know, he said, what special interests may spend big money to influence an issue the way that hedge-funders have pushed charter schools in New York.

A long list of organizations share his concerns, starting with unions, but including groups from Planned Parenthood to New York State Right to Life Committee. These groups generally believe that a convention made up of politician-delegates won't make things better, but could, because of the unpredictability factor, make things worse.

New Yorkers must remember that November's yes/no vote is just the first step in many important decisions that voters will make. Choosing delegates that will represent locals' interests is key. If a convention is approved, good-government groups, community groups, even groups of neighbors, can work to identify delegate candidates from outside the "system" and to organize their campaigns for delegate selection in 2018. As Wilson said, "It's not 1967 anymore," and savvy New Yorkers can use social media to try to promote their candidates.

Here's a way to accomplish a diverse pool of citizen-delegates: Treat it like service in the National Guard, with employers allowing employees elected as delegates to take unpaid time off so they can serve. This is something that businesses should start considering soon after Election Day, if the proposition is approved. Delegates are, after all, responding to a call to service, in support of democracy.

New York voters would still play an important role after a convention, with an opportunity to support or reject any proposals on the November 2019 ballot. In 1967, the proposals were bundled into one big up-or-down vote. Of course, voters rejected the whole thing. If the Constitutional Convention does the hard work of developing changes for voters to consider, each should be offered on its own merits, with separate questions. That way, voters can keep the best and reject the rest.

A convention could reform New York's voting laws, making it easier for people to register and cast a ballot; overhaul the way redistricting takes place, so voters are represented better and elected officials aren't ensured incumbency in gerrymandered districts; modernize a so-called "unified court system" with its complex web of trial and appellate courts that leads to costly, slow justice; and address other issues that legislators are loathe to tackle like ethics reform.

A full review of New York's governing documents is certainly needed. Jennifer Wilson of the League of Women Voters of New York State pointed out that the League did not support the last Con Con in 1967, but backs holding one now. Since the last convention, she said, 36 legislators have been indicted. Banking on the Legislature to realign New York's convoluted judicial system or strengthen their own ethics rules "has led to nothing but disappointment."

Gerald Benjamin, distinguished professor at SUNY New Paltz and perhap's New York's top cheerleader for a convention, said that skepticism about a convention signals "a loss of faith in democracy." People are afraid, he said, to look at the "fundamentals" of our how state government operates, even though so many are dissatisfied with that very government. Benjamin pointed out that many interest groups, in promoting fear of special interests, seem to be saying "Watch out, you might elect us!"

And there is proof that Con Cons can produce good work, Benjamin said. While conventions failed to gain interest or make change in the 20th Century, cornerstone constitutional provisions, such as "Forever Wild" land preservation regulations, came out of earlier constitutional conventions.

As Horner said, the Con Con is a "risk versus benefit calculation." But we must remember that voters would have final say, in November 2019, over any proposals that come out of a convention. New Yorkers would have at least several weeks, if not longer, to debate any proposed changes. Yes, special interests could try to influence the vote. But we trust New Yorkers to figure things out for themselves.

Voters haven't called a constitutional convention since 1938. Another opportunity for the public to convene one won't come until a century later, in 2037. At a time when many have become cynical about government, what better time than now to try to show that democracy does still work?

We'll stand for putting faith in a process that emphasizes the people's choice, as we remind New Yorkers that this opportunity needs all our close attention, this year and throughout the process.