A constitutional convention in Pennsylvania could open opportunities for governmental reform — or jeopardize the democratic process.
Those were the arguments of local elected officials debating the merits of a constitutional convention Tuesday morning before the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County.
State Rep. Scott Conklin, D-Rush Township, who has penned legislation calling for a statewide vote on whether to call a constitutional convention, argued the measure could depoliticize the redistricting process, reduce the size of the General Assembly, reform campaign finance laws and eliminate lame-duck sessions.
Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Bellefonte, said it is elections that should play the pivotal role in reforming government.
“You’re opening up Pandora’s box by continually opening up the constitution,” he said.
Calls for a constitutional convention have increased in recent years — five bills have been submitted for consideration by members of both parties this legislative session.
Those in favor of such measures have argued only a constitutional convention can lessen the power of special interests and reverse the tide of increased state spending.
“(It) is absolutely necessary if citizens want to reclaim their government and change the way things have been operating,” said Tim Potts, the head of advocacy group Democracy Rising PA, who spoke at the debate.
Conklin’s bill calls for a referendum to determine whether Pennsylvanians favor a constitutional convention and, if so, which parts of the state constitution should be amended. If approved, between 150 and 200 delegates would be chosen to redo the portions of the constitution allowed by the ballot initiative. The rewritten sections would then have to receive backing from two-thirds of delegates before being presented to voters for final approval.
State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, the State Government Committee chairman, decried the need and public will for a constitutional convention, and particularly excoriated the specifics of Conklin’s plan.
He criticized the $20 million estimated cost of the initiative, and called the appointment, rather than election, of delegates a “danger to freedom and liberty.”
“We have elections to give us a government that makes those policy decisions,” Metcalfe said. “Setting up a convention causes a cost to the taxpayer that does not necessarily make any policy change that is representative of the citizens.”
Conklin, however, said he believes the cost of a convention would be offset “100 times over” by savings garnered by constitutional reform.
Potts added his belief the appointment of delegates would craft a more representative cross-section of the state’s population than elections. The legislation, he said, also would make it illegal to attempt to influence the delegates in their deliberations.
Potts presented data from a 2010 Franklin & Marshall College poll showing 72 percent of Pennsylvanians favored a constitutional convention.
But Benninghoff and Metcalfe said they’ve not heard much from their constituents on the issue.
“I’m more concerned about the unknowns of just putting this out, when the average person doesn’t know what they allegedly want to change,” Metcalfe said. “We don’t have a problem with the document itself, we have a problem with people willing to uphold and defend it.” Cliff White can be reached at 235-3928.
