In addition to many of the sitting General Assembly members, it seems the ACLU’s Steven Brown has taken it upon himself to lead the anti-Constitutional Convention charge. However by his logic, we should probably abolish the General Assembly. A move which I wouldn’t be opposed to.

His main argument in this fear has to go back 28 years. He wants everyone to believe that voters feel the same way and would act the same way as they did 28 years ago. I kind of have a feeling that the electorate might have changed a little since then.

In published editorials, including this one in the Journal, he tells us of a fear with former legislators running for office, or family members of current legislators running for office. I guess my question is “So?” If the voters want to elect these people to the Convention, so be it. He mentions seven of which were elected in 1986. I’m not really certain how 7 out of 75 can make much of a coalition.

He also goes for the fear mongering in that the Convention attacked abortion rights. But he doesn’t say why those recommendations didn’t become law. Well, for one because the voters shot those down. That is exactly how the process is supposed to work. If the Convention delegates have an idea the electorate doesn’t like, it goes down in defeat. How often do we get to vote on things that the General Assembly passes? Other than general obligation bonds, that answer is “never.” So if anything, this seems like a better option to form our government in that we elect people who we think will do a good job and who we want to represent us, AND then we approve each measure that comes out. It’s a two-step process that is even better than what the General Assembly gives us.

Brown and others have the fear that “special interest” money will pour into the process and affect it. This sounds ludicrous on its face, not because I doubt it will happen but because that is already in our General Assembly and other elected offices! If we think that we shouldn’t create a method of governance because we fear outside spending or special interest spending, then let’s just shut the whole thing down! Abolish the General Assembly, abolish the Governor’s Office and all the rest. Essentially what these naysayers are saying is that the General Assembly knows best and we don’t. That we can’t be trusted with a Convention that comes up with recommendations and then the voters decide whether they should pass. To me, this sounds ridiculous. There are certain changes that the General Assembly may never take up, especially those that increase their own accountability and those that may decrease their power somewhat. If the people of Rhode Island think that’s a necessary step, we should have that option and the Constitutional Convention is certainly one way to get there.

I will be voting YES on Question 3 on November 4th and I would say that if you want a change in Rhode Island’s government or at least have the chance to do that, you should too.