Amending the State Constitution

The most discussed items at my own precincts caucus last evening were the assorted proposals the state legislature is considering passing along to "we, the people" for our decision in November.

Ours was a civil conversation. 

The greatest concern we all should have is the tendency to cast a vote out of ignorance, or prejudice; failing to consider the long term implications of doing something we might well regret later.  Acting out of the passion of the moment is dangerous. But that is precisely the reason the current proposals are being considered to send our way, with misleading names, and supposedly "will of the people" intentions. The phrases "shoot first and ask questions later", and "caveat emptor" come to mind.  

There is a lot of history on amending constitutions, in our own state and elsewhere.

This is a good time to really do some learning.  There is a lot of easily accessible and factual information. 

I summarized this in a brief post at my own blog on January 31, as follows:

If you have an interest in the 150 year history of these [state constitution] amendments, all the information can be accessed here. Click on the link to the Minnesota 2011-12 Legislative Manual (Blue Book) at the end of this page, and in the Blue Book, the information is found in Chapter 2 on pp 75-84.

Here’s a quick scan of Adoption or Rejection of amendments, by time period:

1858-1900

48 – Adopted
18 – Rejected

1898 legislature made it more difficult to pass amendments

1900-1950

26 – Adopted
56 – Rejected

1950 – present

45 – Adopted
18 – Rejected

In all, for the first 153 years of our history, here’s the cumulative totals for Amendments considered:

119 – Adopted
92 – Rejected

In our democracy we elect representatives to deliberate on and make decisions about things that affect us collectively.  Even in our townhome association here in Woodbury, our small community of 96 homes, we elect representatives to consider and decide*, hopefully wisely, on necessary actions affecting us. 

If we don't like their decisions, we can run for office ourselves.

My guess is we would tire hurriedly of our Townhome Board, the people we elect, sending everything back to we residents for decisions they really should be arguing and compromising about, and ultimately agreeing to, at their monthly meetings.

Even in small settings, direct democracy does not work, and is subject to mischief which has very bad long term implications.

Take the time to learn about the implications of these proposed state ballot initiatives, and note the identities of those who want to direct these decisions back to we the people.   

You owe it to yourself.  We owe it to ourselves.

* Note: that word "decide" is interesting in itself.  Its root is also the root of other words like "suicide", "homicide", etc.  It is not a neutral word.  You're stuck with the results of a bad decision.  A carefully considered choice has more potential of success, and escape routes as well.

The writer writes regularly at www.outsidethewalls.org