Opinion: Should Michigan hold constitutional convention?

Talk about politics making odd bedfellows.

What issue can unite Governor Jennifer Granholm and Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom George on one side and the conservative Mackinac Center with the liberal Michigan Education Association on the other? What is one issue gubernatorial opponents Democrat Virg Bernero and Republican Rick Snyder can agree on?

How about a new constitutional convention?

This November voters will have a chance, for the first time in 16 years, to call for a complete revision of the Michigan Constitution. Granholm and George favor a new convention and the Mackinac Center and the MEA oppose it. So do Bernero and Snyder. Odd bedfellows indeed.

The current state Constitution, approved in 1963, is the fourth for the state of Michigan, more than most American states. Only 10 states have more constitutional rewrites than we do, and most of those are in the south where the Civil War and Reconstruction motivated the revisions.

We have created new constitutions in 1835, 1850, 1908 and 1963. Under the current state constitution there is an automatic vote to call a new constitutional convention every 16 years. In 1994 and 1978 the voters rejected the option by substantial majorities, and this year we have a new opportunity to revisit the issue.

Potentially there are a lot of issues at stake. Groups from both the left and the right and those in between will have their favorites.

Among the topics that might be dealt with in a new constitutional convention are a graduated income tax, provisions for the death penalty, stem cell research, the redistricting process, term limits, affirmative action, gay marriage, change in the selection of judges, use of eminent domain, change in the state's recall procedure, the budgeting process, reduction of the number of local governments, a part-time legislature, a unicameral legislature and funding for public schools.

And that's just a start.

The bottom line is that everything would be on the table. Everyone who would like to change something about the state Constitution would try to put their item on the agenda.

And that fact may be at the core of the arguments for and against a new constitutional convention.

Those who favor a new constitutional convention argue that state government is "broken" and that only a wholesale redoing of the 1963 document would put us on track for the 21st century. Rather than a piecemeal approach, a full revision would produce a better written and better organized document.

Supporters argue that a long, drawn-out amending process would be more expensive and uncertain than a single convention to rework the entire document. They say that the Constitution has been rewritten about every half century and the current document is on schedule to be redone.

Opponents argue that it would cost the state too much to elect 148 delegates and pull them together for a months-long session in Lansing. A common estimate is that it would cost the state $45 million for the convention.

Those opposed also argue that a new convention would simply be a forum for every fringe group to make its voice heard and that a new document would either produce a collection of conflicting ideas that few would support or would produce a deadlock.

Opponents also argue, that even under the best of circumstances, a constitutional convention would put nearly everything in the state 'on hold' until the document was completed, a process that could take up to two years. Given the current economic problems in Michigan, they argue that two years of inaction is dangerous.

Opponents argue that the amending process is a more rational, if slower way to change the things that need changing in the Michigan constitution and that each issue could be considered on its own merits.

Yes, there are a number of things I'd like to change in the Michigan Constitution. But, all in all, I guess I'll vote with the Mackinac Center and Rick Snyder on this issue — and Bernero and lots of others, too.

Odd bedfellows to say the least.

Don't hold your breath — this isn't likely to happen again.

–––––––––––––––––––––––