Constitutional Confusion (an unfiltered opinion)

This year, New York voters will decide on an automatic ballot measure asking whether a convention should be held "to revise the state constitution and amend the same." The question, provided for by Section 2 of Article XIX of the constitution, provides for this referendum every twenty years. The last convention called by this measure took place in 1938, yielding a variety of reforms. In 1965, although the ballot question was not up for automatic offering, public outcry for constitutional reforms spurred the state legislature to place the same on that year's ballot. The subsequent convention, held in 1967, represents the last time a state constitutional convention has been held (though the proposed changes were rejected by voter referendum).

I had hoped to draft this article merely to provide information without revealing my personal views on the subject. However, my opinion is itself influenced by considerations from both sides, which I hope will help others make an informed decision, whatever that may be.

I describe my position as a "soft 'yes'". As a student of law, policy, and regulation, it excites me that we have an opportunity to participate more directly in our democracy by electing delegates to convene and discuss possible changes to our state's governing document. And yet, for months now ago, the campaign for a "No" vote has enjoyed a strong public presence on social media and car magnets.

What bothers me about the "No" campaign is its use of misinformation and fear-mongering. For example:

• A circulating Facebook post propagated an unsubstantiated rumor that questions left blank would be counted as a "Yes" vote. This. Is. Not. True. First of all, the constitutional provision states that a convention be called "in case a majority of the electors voting thereon shall decide in favor of a convention". That is to say that a majority of voters must affirmatively vote yes to effect a convention. Furthermore, in no election in our democracy would a blank ballot count as a vote in favor of anything. 
• A lot of materials throw around $350 million as the cost of a convention. However, this has been debunked as resulting from an error which inflated the cost of the 1967 twice over. The true cost is thought to be more like $47 million; not peanuts, for sure, but an infinitesimally small percentage (0.02%) of the state's $163 billion budget for fiscal year 2018. 
• Public employee unions have placed an undue focus on pensions. This is not without some basis in reality; research has revealed that a majority of New Yorkers favor a shift away from the current level of government (i.e. taxpayer) support for certain pension reforms. 
• As the above-linked pension-issue article explains, unions’ opposition to the convention "has been grossly misleading. As with any politically sophisticated special interest group pursuing an unpopular agenda, the unions have tried to exercise their influence in the shadows while framing their opposition in terms of popular causes and groups." It's ironic that the "No" campaign assails an amorphous cohort of "special interests" as an invisible hand with nefarious influence over a potential convention. First of all, "special interest" is defined as "a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying." Hence, the union-backed "No" effort is itself a "special interest". Further, if the objection is financial, the "No" campaign has spent just as much - if not more - on its efforts surrounding the convention question. Some uncertainty exists because the "No" campaign derives support from groups who are not required to report such expenditures to the state Board of Elections.  Thus, the accusation of devious political activities by the pro-convention side rings incredibly hollow. 
• Similarly, certain "No" campaign materials gloss over the details of the referendum procedure to depict a possible convention as a sketchy backroom reimagining of the constitution by which "they" completely screw "us" over. Think about this, though: I've seen A LOT of "No" bumper stickers. If, somehow, a strong "Yes" vote comes out of the woodwork and a convention is called, opponents will clearly have a strong and unified voice with which to elect delegates and oppose any proposed amendments harmful to their interests. Indeed, people seem to ignore the fact that any proposed amendments will be voted on as ballot referenda on Election Day 2019. A simple diagram illustrates the process:

Despite the availability of neutral materials explaining the convention procedure, the oversaturation of fear-mongering antagonistic literature has left a wake of distrust and confusion amongst the public. Some opponents have expressed trepidation about the delegates who'll convene in Albany in 2019. "I don't know anything about the delegates! And they could potentially strip us of our rights!" This uncertainty is a necessary part of our reality, since candidates won't register and begin campaigns unless and until a majority of New Yorkers vote "Yes". Other skeptics understand this dilemma, but lament that the candidates for convention delegate will emerge from the same party-run machines that have yielded our current situation as one of the most corrupt, divisive, and ineffectively governed states in the country.

The refrain of "same flawed process, different mechanism" rings true, to a degree. Nonetheless, how can we expect things to change if we don't take advantage of different opportunities for change? Holding a convention would afford us an opportunity to fix a number of problems in our state, including:

• reforms to streamline the court system, eliminating inefficiencies that are estimated to cost the state $502 million per year; 
• enumerate rights not currently in the state constitution despite their guarantee by the federal Supreme Court; 
• remove constitutional provisions that are redundant or unnecessary; and
• enact voting reforms, such as allowing for same-day registration and other measures to increase voter participation. 

The whole enterprise involves a certain leap of faith: faith that if we vote to hold a convention, we will elect competent delegates who draft proposed amendments in the public interest. Then, if all else fails, the popular vote will prevent any nefarious proposals from being enacted. Because of this failsafe mechanism, I think the convention is a chance worth taking. People are very quick to criticize our state's elected leaders and the corruption that seems to pervade all levels of government. It's sad that a collective cynicism threatens to quash a once-in-a-generation opportunity to participate in government in a different way.

I'll concede, of course, that it would be wasteful if a convention took place, only to yield no viable amendments and therefore no tangible progress. This is why I'm a "soft 'yes'" ...instead of a "raging-liberal constitutional opportunist 'Yes'". As laid out about, the likely cost of the convention sounds like a lot of money, though it pales in comparison to our state's overall spending. Further, spread across our entire population, it translates to a handful of dollars per person. At the very most, we'd be out a few bucks. Without taking the leap, however, we lose the chance to reform our government in ways that can pay for themselves several times over.

Based on the sheer presence of the "No" campaign, I'm not holding my breath that a convention will be held. If it is, though, you can be sure to find further coverage of the process here.

Gun Chaos

It's been over two weeks since the mass shooting at the Route 91 music festival in Las Vegas, which killed 58 people and injured nearly 500 others. 

In the interim, you've probably seen and heard all the related banter: calls for restricting firearm access for the mentally ill, proposed bans on accessories that can be used to make guns fire more rapidly, lamentations that gun control laws couldn't have prevented this sort of incident anyway, assertions that the way to make people safer is more widespread firearm dispersion, etc. You've likely come across the staggering fact that more people have been killed by guns in the United States since 1968 than have died in all wars, combined. You've seen Second Amendment advocates lament that these sorts of incidents are simply "the price of freedom", amidst frightening statistics that there have already been around 275 mass shootings this year. Parents' forums have bubbled with fears of the next school shooting.   

Mass shootings demonstrate the extensive lethal capabilities of firearms, naturally placing the spotlight on the extremely divisive national debate over gun control. When it comes to policies and regulations, though, they "are a bad way to understand gun violence." 

Most everyday incidents of firearm-related death and injury differ significantly from tragedies such as the recent one in Vegas. Many gun-related deaths occur in connection with domestic violence incidents, with an average of 50 women per month killed by romantic partners. The presence of a gun in a domestic altercation makes it five times more likely that the woman will be killed. Others firearm fatalities occur in inner-city communities, with black men statistically fourteen times more likely to be shot and killed than white men. Around 62 percent of all firearm deaths are suicides. 

On an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns. This number exceeds the amount of fatalities in certain so-called mass shootings, but because the deaths occur under various circumstances, dispersed around the country, they don't garner the same immediate attention and outpouring of sympathy and outrage. With any policy issue, it's unproductive to focus only on the most significant, horrific, and sensationalistic national events and shouting about one particular solution. As reported on fivethirtyeight.com:

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.

The response to this tragedy has been mixed. Some have opined that there is no solution, at all - the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own guns and thus can't be infringed upon, period. A few, including U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, asserted that better health care for mental illness could prevent mass shootings. Other advocates acquiesced that background checks and other regulations are necessary to restrict gun ownership to people who will use them responsibly. Gun control cynics pointed out that background checks won't necessarily prevent criminals from obtaining dangerous weapons. Some have made the distinction between rifles or sport-shooting guns and more deadly semi-automatic weapons. 

Despite this range of opinions, today's climate of clickbait news headlines and viral social media memes has portrayed the issue as falling on a typical "us-vs.-them," "conservative-vs.-liberal," "pro-vs.-anti-" divide. The implication is that one must pick a side - you're either pro-gun, or anti-gun, and that's it. This sort of environment makes it easy for individuals to misunderstand the positions of others. People miss the nuance of the debate, assuming that anyone who disagrees even slightly must have a view diametrically opposed to their own. 

Viewing the Second Amendment as absolute ignores the fact that all of our rights are subject to oversight for safety purposes. No one would seriously assert that the regulation of driver's licenses and automobile ownership unconstitutionally limits our freedom; we accept as reasonable that operating a car is a complicated and potentially dangerous activity that should be undertaken only by those with proper training - not to mention insurance. In fact, some have suggested that we should regulate guns in the same manner we do cars. (I know, I know, there's an obvious distinction insofar as there's no line item in the Bill of Rights about vehicles; aside from the fact that there couldn't have been one since automobiles didn't exist in the 18th century.) 

Another line of discussion has emerged about consumer areas more regulated than firearms - cold medicine, wireless phone contracts, puppies, and hunting. An important note here is that these are regulations on industry players - not on the consumers they serve. Part of our social contract as a democratic nation is that the government places restrictions on entire industries, limiting what products might be sold and to whom. Where there are safety, security, or even practical concerns, the state might require licensing and registrations to ensure compliance with  goals. So a better analogy than the car industry may involve the First Amendment: we each enjoy "freedom of speech," but no one expects to take the Time Warner Center elevator up to the CNN studios for unfettered access to an on-air microphone that broadcasts their opinions globally. 

While the outcry in favor of gun ownership usually centers on the individual right to bear arms, most observers agree that it's driven by the gun industry itself. Statistically, it's estimated that 37% of Americans own a firearm. Though gun owners comprise much less than a majority of the population, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has mobilized them as a vocal political presence closely allied with the Republican party. Their lobbying has eliminated manufacturer liability for gun fatalities, spurned the passage of state laws allowing firearms in public places, and exacerbated the cultural importance of guns as a states' rights issue. 

Another statistical approximation is that there are around 300 million guns in the United States. Speaking during a live episode of Pod Save America, University of Chicago Crime Lab director Jens Ludwig asserted that most such weapons are owned by otherwise law-abiding citizens who keep them in a basement or garage and don't actually put them to sue. He asked the audience to imagine the country as a bathtub, wherein the entire tub is full of guns "but we only need to worry about the drain" - "the drain" representing use of firearms for dangerous criminal activity. 

The Las Vegas massacre has yielded some discussion of graded weaponry and deadly gun accessories. The shooter used what's known as a "bump stock" to make his semi-automatic weapon operate like an automatic one. Since such a device exists only to make it shoot faster, thereby making it more harmful to targets, a bipartisan effort has emerged to ban bump stocks. As with many politically divisive issues, though, the focus on this particular facet of the debate seems destined to please no one: those who truly want to eliminate firearms from society feel that bump stock regulation doesn't go far enough, while staunch Second Amendment advocates see any such limitation as an infringement on their rights. 

Thus, it's likely that any policy changes will be achieved slowly as the debate rages on. Oddly enough, I keep coming back to the idea of compassion. Those on all sides of the issue obviously feel that their view is the correct one, without considering why their opponents feel the way they do. Like many other divides in our political climate, we stand a better chance of making meaningful progress if people venture out of their insular communities where everyone is like-minded. This, too, must be incremental; it seems unfair to say that someone who lost a loved one to a gun fatality (and therefore opposes gun ownership) should commune with firearm enthusiasts. 

Nonetheless, we must strive for a meaningful exchange of ideas across these divides. The current approach, wherein everyone remains set in their individual camps, clearly isn't working very well.