Since gaining statehood in 1837, Michigan has operated under four constitutions. Our current document, adopted in 1963 after the 1961-62 Constitutional Convention, is a national model, assuring “we the people” of Michigan have authority in our governance.
The 1961-62 Con-Con dramatically updated state government, while codifying the basic and equal rights of all Michiganders.
That constitution’s framers recognized that future Michiganders might see the need for a new constitution. So they included a provision that every 16 years, voters are asked if a new Constitutional Convention should be held.
Proposal 1, which the voters will see on their ballots this Nov. 3, marks the fourth time Michiganders will be asked whether to hold a new Con-Con. In
1978, 1994 and 2010 Michiganders overwhelmingly voted no.
We believe emphatically that our fellow Michiganders must again vote NO on Proposal 1.
Why?
Because practically, a Con-Con is unneeded. The people, or the Legislature, can propose changes through the amendment process outlined in our constitution. In the last 63 years, Michigan’s Constitution has been amended more than 40 times. Many of those amendments expanded our rights ‒ assuring crime victims are treated decently, that Michiganders have reproductive rights and that we the people have the authority to draw legislative and congressional district lines (which saved Michigan from being caught up in the gerrymandering nonsense that swept other states in the last year).
A Con-Con would be an enormously expensive prospect, with delegates elected in a partisan election ‒ which could attract unlimited spending (state law is unclear on whether campaign finance limits would apply to a Con-Con election). Delegates are paid, and there are no rules stating how long a convention could be in session, meaning a convention could go on for years, costing the state millions of dollars which could be better used for education, public safety, public health or improved roads.
And frankly, it’s unclear we could actually draft a document meeting the high, almost idealistic, goals of the 1961-62 Con-Con.
The times, they have a-changed
We are a different people than the delegates who drafted our constitution in 1961-62, and we conduct our politics are differently. Which means holding a Con-Con now would be wholly different ‒ and possibly dangerous.
Con-Con delegates in 1961-62 wanted to build a new form of government, with rights open to all. Many fear today that a new Con-Con would shatter and repress the powers and rights of the people.
Consider: Every member of the 1961-62 convention was one of the Greatest Generation, that endured the Great Depression, lived through the horrors and sacrifice of both World War II and the Korean War. They came together when America was the hope of the world, both in economy and our governance.
No, the 1960s were not a perfect time. But having endured depression and war, as well as hope of economic growth, the ’61-62 delegates understood both the need to agree, and the power of well-managed government. In fact, there was only one major issue at the ’61-62 convention Democratic and Republicans delegates did not agree on: the principle of one-man/one-vote, and that was eventually resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
We know we're an angrier, and in many ways meaner, people. We're more insular, less outgoing, more cynical and more assured of our own rightness, even when we lack supporting evidence. Instead of seeking information, we want confirmation of our beliefs, opinions and biases. Some of us can barely be civil at the Thanksgiving table; how could we expect a new Con-Con to be civil at all?
Would delegates at a modern Con-Con ensure we the people equally oversee our state’s governance? Or would the new delegates strip some Michiganders of the rights and powers we all now enjoy?
And while all Michiganders would be required to vote to approve a new constitution, with massive ad spending and focused media pounding biased messages, we believe there's some chance even a flawed document could pass.
Michigan’s Constitution is strong, ensuring all of us the needed authority to oversee good governance in our state. We need to maintain and protect the constitution we have.
On Nov. 3, vote NO on Proposal 1.
Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may publish it in print or online.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: A new Constitutional Convention could go badly. Very badly | Endorsement
