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.
