I've heard from numerous people that Andrew Romonov's Romanoff's (oops) approach to fixing the contradictions in our state constitution is to pass an amendment that undoes the "only one issue" amendment restriction, just for a specific amendment. Then 2 years later, we would have the one magic amendment to un-contradict the constitution.
This approach won't work.
When the politicians get too clever, the voters almost always say no. When this "cleverness" requires two consecutive votes, 2 years apart, the odds drop to about 0. This is akin to FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court - the voters and many in the Senate supported FDR's laws that the court was overturning, but they would not countenance a change so fundamental.
But we are left with a state constitution that is inherently unworkable with the various contradictions in funding requirements. Ref C let us put the day of reckoning off a little, but the root problem remains and me must address it.
We need to have a constitutional convention. This is the proper way to address the fact that the constitution has become an unmanageable conglomeration of individual special interest clauses. It is the only way to clean up the entire mess. And it is a straightforward approach that is sell-able to the voter of this state. Just show them how long the existing constitution is - that alone makes the need for wholesale revision clear.
But what if the new constitution is worse? That is the big fear from many in the political elite. The short answer is - trust in the judgment of the voters. Voters pay attention when they feel it is necessary and, for a new constitution, they will put in the effort.
First is who they elect to the constitutional convention. (Disclaimer - if this occurs I probably will run for the convention.) When electing a state rep or senator voters want someone who will fight for their specific interests. But when electing someone to the convention, many will take the view that this requires people who will take the approach of what is best for the state as a whole.
Second, the new constitution needs to win in a general election vote. The odds are stacked against it as every special interest group that has it's own little clause in the existing constitution will be fighting it. The only way it has a prayer is if the new constitution meets two criteria. First, it is significantly better. Second, that it doesn't change much.
The big fear should not be will be get a constitution that's worse. The big fear is will we get one that can pass. So the downside is minimal. The upside is we fix the problems that exist in the constitution and clean the entire thing up at the same time.
