In 1997 I supported a constitutional convention. The New York City Bar Association opposed it, vigorously objecting to a deeply flawed delegate selection process. Putting aside that issue at the time, I believed that New Yorkers would have a greater opportunity to effect government reform through a convention than by continuing to urge an unresponsive state legislature to enact meaningful change. Only Gov. Mario Cuomo and a handful of other respected leaders shared this view. Our position was soundly defeated at the polls.
Twenty years later, I have come to the opposite conclusion?hat a constitutional convention under the very same delegate selection process that existed in 1997 would either fail to enact change or, worse, undermine if not eviscerate many existing constitutional protections. I no longer view the issue as one of "hope over fear." Instead, I am persuaded that the realities of the inherently flawed delegate procedures outweigh any hoped-for reform.
This year, the city bar supports a convention. Although it concedes that the delegate selection process, unchanged, still has "deficiencies," it pins its hopes for a successful convention on "[s]tatutory revisions to the delegate selection process [that] can be made [by Albany] this year [or next]." There is absolutely no basis for this hope.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.