About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
Should Elected Officials Be Part of a Constitutional Convention?
A good sign for proponents of a constitutional convention: the main controversy here is not whether to have a convention, but how to choose delegates?
All kinds of ideas are being thrown out, but there is one dividing line: whether elected officials should be permitted to be part of a convention. Panelists have argued for a populist vision, with regular citizens serving as delegates. Some say elected officials should be kept out of the situation. They're conflicted, is one argument. They're the prisoners of special interests, goes another argument.
But the idea of excluding public officials is not popular inside this ballroom. Many of the attendees -- perhaps a majority (It's hard for me to tell) -- are local elected officials who have been vocal in cheering each other.
Elected Officials in Conventions
This is a tricky topic. The best answer I can give is that those in office should ideally play a limited role. The more the common citizen is in the seat making changes and the less elected persons have a hand in this process, the more legitimate and more proper the reforms that can be had will be.
Convention committees generally have the power (as legislative committees) to take evidence and testimony. If information is needed from those who are in office, it may be had by such hearings. Also, those in office may petition the convention just as any other citizen might do with the legislature.
The Founders of the United States were concerned about conventions being a form of redress. Jefferson espoused them in his notes on Virgina, the federalist papers gave caution to conventions, particularly when an issue could affect the legislature and noted:
". . . the legislative party would not only be able to plead their cause most successfully with the people. They would probably be constituted themselves the judges. The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention. If this should not be the case with all, it would probably be the case with many, and pretty certainly with those leading characters, on whom every thing depends in such bodies. The convention, in short, would be composed chiefly of men who had been, who actually were, or who expected to be, members of the department whose conduct was arraigned. They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them." Federalist 49
In the First US Convention in America, which formed the US Constitution, and then after in both California conventions, members who held seats in the legislatures found their way into these hearings. However, the 1879 Convention in California had less of this form of influence. At one point a sitting Judge for the County of Santa Barbara had been elected by the citizens of that community to replace a member seated in the Convention. Those in the Convention debated the issue hotly. A vote on the issue was had the convention itself as to whether an office holder should have a seat due to the office they held. It was generally held that conventions members should not hold elective office. Also, the legislature did not hold session while the convention was being held and this seems to be the typical process when full conventions are held.
It is interesting to note that most conventions (considering the US and the two past Conventions held in California) sat members of the wealthier classes of people. They were generally the most respected class of individuals by their communities, but the less welathy tended not to have a say in these matters or were left to sending in petitions for the convention members to debate.
The second Convention of California between 1878-1879 was a very broad cross-section of the State with over 100 members. Each County was represented, each Representative of the State in both Houses of the state Legislature and both houses of the Federal Legislature had a representative.
I can only hope that any state convention that may be had in the future (some time soon) will have access by all persons of the state. This may require a very large group of people of course! At the very least each County should have one person sitting and a consideration for our State's large population should be considered as well.
Michael C. Warnken
Santa Barbara, CA
Post new comment