On Amending the Constitution
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 28, 2010.
You'll notice an unusual item on your ballot on November 2 - a vote on an amendment to the Vermont Constitution. Its appearance gives me a chance to discuss the long road that an amendment to the Vermont Constitution has to travel, and how widely the procedure varies from amending the United States Constitution.
The process for amending any constitution should not be an easy one - a constitution is the basic law of a political unit, and provides a stable foundation that can be relied on for years, decades, even centuries.
The process of amending the U.S. Constitution has a few different paths, not all of which have been taken.
The most common path is for the Congress to vote, by two-thirds concurrence in both houses, to recommend an amendment. It has never been an easy thing to get a two-thirds vote in Congress, and this high bar reflects the framers' thoughts that changes should only come with broad consensus.
After those votes, however, there is a final stage that can be just as hard to overcome. The amendment is then sent to the states, where three-quarters of them must ratify the amendment.
The states can ratify in one of two ways - by majority votes of each state's legislature (which is most often another two-part hurdle) or, if directed by the amendment itself, by a special ratifying convention called in each state.
This second option may seem like a bit of an end-run around the legislatures, and to some degree it is. However, depending on state law, it is the executive or legislature that must convene the convention, and a determined governor or legislature could refuse to do so or at least drag its heels.
In the case of Vermont, heel-dragging is not an option. The responsibility to convene a convention is given to the governor, who has only 60 days following an amendment proposal to call the convention. The process then involves the voters, who choose 14 people from a list of 28 compiled by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house.
The election must take place between three and 12 months after the governor's call, and the convention itself must take place 20 to 30 days after the election. The convention is free to conduct itself in any way it decides, and a majority vote on the proposed amendment, either way, decides the issue.
The convention route for a constitutional amendment has only been used once - to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and made liquor again legal in the United States.
The second, unused method for proposing amendments is by a convention of all the states. Many fear what amendments could come out of such a convention, and that fear has, in my opinion, been the main reason that many resist any call for an amendment convention.
Amending the Vermont Constitution is a longer process, by design.
First, amendments may only be proposed every four years, beginning in 1975. The Senate must initiate the process, and must approve the amendment by two-thirds vote. The House must then approve the amendment by a majority vote. The last year an amendment could be proposed was 2007 and the next is 2011.
Once this first hurdle is crossed, the amendment must lay dormant until the next two-year legislative session. The amendment is then taken up again and must be approved by a majority of both houses of the legislature. If those votes are successful, the amendment has one final hurdle - the people.
That is the stage the voting age amendment has reached this year. If a majority of Vermonters approve the amendment, it will become a part of our Constitution; if not, it will have to wait until 2011 for another go.
Both methods have pros and cons. The method used by Vermont would probably be unworkable for an electorate on the scale of the United States, so even though there is value in getting the direct voice of the people, the methods already in place work well enough. The nation needs a way to rapidly change its constitution in a time of crisis, so the built-in speed bumps in the Vermont amendment process could actually be dangerous for the federal constitution.
When you go to the polls next week, be sure not to miss the question on the constitutional amendment presented to you. It is a rare opportunity for you to voice how our constitution should be constructed.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Elect Peter Shumlin
Elect Peter Shumlin
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 14, 2010.
It should come as no surprise to any regular reader that I'm endorsing Democrat Peter Shumlin for governor, and urge everyone else to vote for him, too. Williston did not come out strongly for Shumlin in the Democratic Party primary - he was third behind Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz - but now it is time for Vermonters in general and Democrats in particular to rally behind Shumlin.
What might be a little surprising is that my decision to endorse Shumlin was not as automatic as one might infer from my partisan label.
I believe that the legislative and executive branches should not be in collusion - they should, in fact, be at odds at how things should get done. There might be agreement about final outcomes, but what I want to see is disagreement about how to get there. Because when there is disagreement, there is a place for compromise; and it is in compromise that we find the best laws and policies.
If there is one truism in Vermont politics over the last several decades, it is this: incumbent governors keep their job as long as they want it. The only change in the governor's office we've seen since the election of Madeleine Kunin in 1984 has been when a sitting governor decided not to seek reelection, or a sitting governor died in office.
The governor we elect in November, then, will likely be the governor of Vermont, for better or worse, for the next six or eight years. The decision is not to be made lightly. With this knowledge, I looked thoughtfully and seriously at Republican Brian Dubie.
Dubie is an honorable man who has served his state and country with distinction. Politically, we have some agreements - our positions on Vermont Yankee, for example, are pretty close. He has a good and valid point when he notes that Vermont's regulatory procedures should be reviewed and streamlined.
Most of his other positions, however, sound like more of the same Republican parroting that we hear over and over again at the national level. The solution to our woes is lower taxes and cuts in spending.
Neither of these platitudes is a solution in itself. There are places taxes can and should be cut - I certainly don't advocate that we willy-nilly raise taxes, nor does any Democrat. But the opposite - cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! - seems to be the default Republican war cry, and Dubie is not deviating from that position.
Similarly, I do not think that every program is necessarily worthy of its current funding level, so funding levels should be examined closely, but Dubie criticizes, first and foremost, the generosity of Vermont's social programs, which protect our most vulnerable citizens - an expense well worth paying.
What Shumlin brings to the table is all the best of Dubie's plans - to grow the green economy, for example - but with the touch of a Democrat who wants to look out for the little guy rather than the big guy.
Shumlin also has the advantage of knowing the Vermont business environment from the business-owner side of the equation. He knows the challenges that an overly onerous regulatory process can impose, and can offer suggestions to the legislature to ease the burden without losing the benefits of good regulation.
He also knows that to have a better society, we have to not only cater to business but we also have to protect and improve the lives of the people.
Shumlin's platform not only focuses on growing the jobs market and the green economy, but also sustaining and improving education, health care, equal rights for all Vermonters, caring for our older population, and maintaining Vermont's farm economy.
In short, Shumlin has a better plan, a more humane plan, a more attractive plan.
Brian Dubie would not be a bad choice for Vermont. Peter Shumlin, however, is a much better choice. I hope that you agree with my assessment and vote for Peter Shumlin for governor on November 2.
----
This year will mark a first for me - since I'll be away on election day, I'll be voting early for the first time. If voting on election day is an issue for you, I encourage you to visit the Town Clerk's office at your earliest convenience and get an absentee ballot. There is no excuse for not having your voice heard.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 14, 2010.
It should come as no surprise to any regular reader that I'm endorsing Democrat Peter Shumlin for governor, and urge everyone else to vote for him, too. Williston did not come out strongly for Shumlin in the Democratic Party primary - he was third behind Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz - but now it is time for Vermonters in general and Democrats in particular to rally behind Shumlin.
What might be a little surprising is that my decision to endorse Shumlin was not as automatic as one might infer from my partisan label.
I believe that the legislative and executive branches should not be in collusion - they should, in fact, be at odds at how things should get done. There might be agreement about final outcomes, but what I want to see is disagreement about how to get there. Because when there is disagreement, there is a place for compromise; and it is in compromise that we find the best laws and policies.
If there is one truism in Vermont politics over the last several decades, it is this: incumbent governors keep their job as long as they want it. The only change in the governor's office we've seen since the election of Madeleine Kunin in 1984 has been when a sitting governor decided not to seek reelection, or a sitting governor died in office.
The governor we elect in November, then, will likely be the governor of Vermont, for better or worse, for the next six or eight years. The decision is not to be made lightly. With this knowledge, I looked thoughtfully and seriously at Republican Brian Dubie.
Dubie is an honorable man who has served his state and country with distinction. Politically, we have some agreements - our positions on Vermont Yankee, for example, are pretty close. He has a good and valid point when he notes that Vermont's regulatory procedures should be reviewed and streamlined.
Most of his other positions, however, sound like more of the same Republican parroting that we hear over and over again at the national level. The solution to our woes is lower taxes and cuts in spending.
Neither of these platitudes is a solution in itself. There are places taxes can and should be cut - I certainly don't advocate that we willy-nilly raise taxes, nor does any Democrat. But the opposite - cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! - seems to be the default Republican war cry, and Dubie is not deviating from that position.
Similarly, I do not think that every program is necessarily worthy of its current funding level, so funding levels should be examined closely, but Dubie criticizes, first and foremost, the generosity of Vermont's social programs, which protect our most vulnerable citizens - an expense well worth paying.
What Shumlin brings to the table is all the best of Dubie's plans - to grow the green economy, for example - but with the touch of a Democrat who wants to look out for the little guy rather than the big guy.
Shumlin also has the advantage of knowing the Vermont business environment from the business-owner side of the equation. He knows the challenges that an overly onerous regulatory process can impose, and can offer suggestions to the legislature to ease the burden without losing the benefits of good regulation.
He also knows that to have a better society, we have to not only cater to business but we also have to protect and improve the lives of the people.
Shumlin's platform not only focuses on growing the jobs market and the green economy, but also sustaining and improving education, health care, equal rights for all Vermonters, caring for our older population, and maintaining Vermont's farm economy.
In short, Shumlin has a better plan, a more humane plan, a more attractive plan.
Brian Dubie would not be a bad choice for Vermont. Peter Shumlin, however, is a much better choice. I hope that you agree with my assessment and vote for Peter Shumlin for governor on November 2.
----
This year will mark a first for me - since I'll be away on election day, I'll be voting early for the first time. If voting on election day is an issue for you, I encourage you to visit the Town Clerk's office at your earliest convenience and get an absentee ballot. There is no excuse for not having your voice heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)