A proposal working its way through the state Legislature would make it more difficult for citizens to amend the state’s Constitution. The measure would require a certain number of petition signatures from each congressional district in order to place a question on the ballot, and would allow an amendment only if it receives at least a 60 percent favorable vote.
In our view, it comes down to the question of whether the Constitution is the guiding set of principles for the state, or whether it’s a “to do” list of rules and minutia, usually placed on the ballot by special interest groups.
We think the Constitution should be the former.
It’s far too easy to get enough signatures to place an initiative question on the ballot. And in off-year elections, it’s not difficult to get the majority of voters to go along with questions that have popular appeal, but can also have a profound negative effect on the way the state does business.
We don’t think the Constitution should be easily changed, so we support this proposal. It should be treated as we think the drafters intended: as a set of overriding principals that directs the Legislature on how to conduct business, and guides citizens in the way they interact with THEIR government.
Critics may argue that such a change disenfranchises the electorate. What those critics ignore is that we have a representative government, and state statute can be changed by those who represent us in the Legislature. And while we don’t always agree with the Legislature, we acknowledge that the process of readings and hearings ensures that legislation is thoroughly discussed and examined before implementation. Laws are enacted after deliberation, not primarily upon emotion, as is generally the case with initiatives.
We agree with the Legislature’s move to make it more difficult to amend the Constitution, and should it pass, will support the change should it go before the voters.