Specious argumentation shouldn't stop convention

Blog: Between The Lines

Abstract

House of Representatives debate over a bill to call
a limited constitutional convention in Louisiana exposed the shoddy, illogical,
and evidence-free arguments against it, hopefully propelling it to Senate
passage and enactment.

HB 800 by
Republican state Rep. Beau Beaullieu,
in its current form, would convene legislators plus 27 gubernatorial appointees
to meet in committees or as one starting as early as May 30 to review what eligible
portions of the constitution should be converted into statute. No later than
Aug. 1 the entire convention would begin review of the committees'
recommendations with any of these sent forth as a proposition for voter
approval accepted by the convention no later than Aug. 15. Separate majorities
of representatives, senators, and gubernatorial appointees would have to coalesce
for this forwarding. Articles dealing with citizen rights, power distribution, the
legislative branch, the executive branch, judges, district attorneys, sheriffs,
tax collection, bond funding, the Budget Stabilization Fund, the homestead
exemption, state employee rights, retirement matters, and existence of the
Southern University System would be off limits to transfer out.

It passed
the House 75-27,
surpassing the two-thirds supermajority required, with the only GOP member present
state Rep. Joe
Stagni in opposition but with Democrat state Reps. Roy Daryl Adams,
Chad Brown,
Robby Carter,
and Dustin
Miller in favor, with Miller being the only black male among them while all
other black Democrats plus the two white Democrat females were against, among
those present. Even if badly outnumbered, the opposition went down spewing a
lot of hot air.

Basically, they threw out three objections to the
bill. First, they claimed legally the convention couldn't be limited. Second,
they said the matter was too rushed, leaving insufficient time for deliberation
among delegates and within the public. Third, they argued few in the public
wanted this.

All such objections, when exposed to scrutiny, are
nonsense. There is a question about whether a convention can be limited, as the
constitution itself
on the matter is silent. But that's irrelevant particularly when each chamber has
a veto power over anything that would come out of a convention. If the enabling
legislation contains guardrails enacted by two-thirds and more majorities, its
reasonable that they would adhere to those at the convention itself.

Nor is the matter rushed at all. Keep in mind that
whatever a convention would come up with, it doesn't change anything about how
the state is run. Whatever product if approved by voters merely becomes a
bookkeeping exercise of transferring constitutional provisions into statute at
the end of 2024, and nothing more. That makes it all a very simple question:
does the voter support transforming a specified list of constitutional
provisions into statute. Nothing is being changed and nothing is going away. And
two months of public input during the committee phase, two weeks of public
deliberation at the convention, and nearly three months of public discussion prior
to the national election date on any end product would be more than adequate
for gauging the wisdom of engaging in such a simplified procedural move.

Finally, anybody who thinks elected officials must
act solely as mouthpieces for the public, articulating whatever they think the
public wants and if they don't think the public cares then ignoring the issue,
has no clue as to how to perform their job. Politicians by design are invited
to inject their judgment into their governance, as presumably by their positions
and successful elections they have demonstrated such aptitude. If they spot something
about which the public may seem to be apathetic but that they realize is
important to lead the polity to better living, they must pursue it. And even if
the public cares and solidly expresses a preference contrary to the better judgment
of a politician, that official should act to follow his own conscience even if
unpopular. That's what it means to lead, and any elected official that can't do
that shouldn't be in office, much less argue for inaction (for the record, a recent
news organization poll noted that out of a menu of items only one percent
of the public argued having a convention was the most important issue and only
just over half even had an opinion about a new constitution, slightly
negative).

And even if any of these excuses not to have a
convention were valid, opponents ignore the most crucial point of all: any
changes must meet with popular approval at the polls. If a majority of the
people don't like the product, if they think it was rushed, if they don't see a
need for a change, or all of the above, they'll vote it down. There's no reason
not to see what a convention comes up with, since the people will have the
final say and if approving will signal they agreed with the subject matter,
they felt they had enough information about it, and they thought a change was
needed.

Senators can't let specious argumentation derail their
understanding that, in the short run, to address looming fiscal concerns and, over
the long term, to improve the state's economic development fortunes and the
life prospects of its citizens they need to start down the road of reform of a
state government that wastes too much as a part of spending too much that the
straitjacket of a constitution written under a very different political ethos
of a half-century ago prevents fixing. Laying out such bad argumentation
against this betrays the real goal of those in opposition: maintenance of big
government to slake their own thirst for power and privilege and that of the
special interests backing them. Don't be fooled by their whining.