Writing for the Evansville Courier & Press, Bryan Corbin examines the oft-repeated thought of calling a statewide constitutional convention to examine the convoluted structure of government that may be contributing to some of the higher property tax vbillss across the state. Of course, the problem with doing this would be that once you put all of these lawyers and politically-inclined voices in a room, there is no telling what they would do.
If the Legislature agreed to trigger the rarely-seen convention process, "it would be a remarkable civic occasion for Hoosiers to consider fundamental principles about who we are as a state. But it could turn into an ugly spectacle and also invite a lot of groups to try to muscle their way into the constitution," said Robert Dion, associate professor of political science at the University of Evansville. "I'm sympathetic to the idea that the Kernan-Shepard commission wants to revisit the foundation of the organization of the state and achieve real fundamental reforms, and not tinker at the margins.
"But if you open the door to rewriting the constitution, you're asking for a storm of amendments and competing causes. It would be a real mess."
Delegates to a constitutional convention could alter basic features of government - not just the number and duties of state, county and township offices, but also the lengths of terms that officials serve - and they could change redistricting.
The big issue that has been raised by many about such a convention would be the ease in which right-wing activists like Eric Miller could slip in anti-GLBT provisions, such as last year's SJR-7. But don't worry, because Miller pinky-promises he would never want to do that:
A constitution rewrite would open the door to adding SJR 7 while bypassing the time-consuming amendment process. But one of the most vocal supporters of SJR 7, lobbyist Eric Miller of the conservative group Advance America, said he opposes a convention.
"You could have a constitutional convention that could get into many more areas other than finding ways to streamline government," said Miller, who ran for governor in 2004. He said he prefers to pursue SJR 7 as an amendment, not through a convention.
So does state Sen. Brandt Hershman, the Senate sponsor of SJR 7.
"I don't believe in mixing issues," said Hershman, R-Wheatfield.
You don't believe in mixing issues? These are the same people who killed the hate crimes bill because they said it would somehow -- and no one has ever really figured this out -- shut down the ability of churches to say what they want. Oh, and this is the same group of nutjobs who almost killed the Darfur divestment bill by adding in language that would have banned organizations that were at all involved in matters of reproductive rights.
They don't believe in mixing issues? I don't believe that for a second. But I will say that Eric Miller sounded positively moderate in his response. Perhaps gearing up for another run at Mitch in 2008?
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
