At the polls in November, voters will be tasked with a big decision — one that could destroy the state’s legislative process with a constitutional convention.

The decision comes down to whether New Yorkers think the state’s constitution should be amended. The last constitutional convention occurred in 1967, but the constitution hasn’t been updated since 1938. This year, a convention seems more likely to happen than before, with 44 percent of New Yorkers backing a convention and only 39 percent opposing, according to a Siena College Poll.

Too bad us darn conservatives are stuck in our old ways and don’t want it to happen. We fear the elimination of charter schools and the religious liberty clause and the continuation of unrestricted abortion rights. There are other risks associated with the convention, but most importantly, we fear the potential abolition of the New York State Legislature’s bicameral system.

Andy Mendes | Digital Design Editor

The shift toward supporting a constitutional convention may be a result of the public mobilizing after the 2016 presidential election, said Gerald Benjamin, a political science professor at the State University of New York at New Paltz. With a constitutional convention, or “con con,” voters may think they have the opportunity to enact change without dealing with a corrupt legislature.

That’s why the con con is widely supported by government reformer organizations including the Citizens Union and New York State Bar Association, which believe the structure of the state government is broken and can’t be fixed through the traditional legislative process.

These reformers aren’t looking to make small changes. One potential outcome could be the adoption of a unicameral state legislature — a form of government Benjamin said he believes would be more effective.

Andy Mendes | Digital Design Editor

But unicameralism, or consolidating the State Legislature from a Senate and Assembly into a single body, has potentially disastrous effects. It would dissolve the three-way negotiative process between the Assembly, Senate and governor and would threaten the separated power structure government that fairly represents New Yorkers’ diverse interests.

New York’s bicameral legislative system maintains checks and balances. The fact that a bill cannot become law without approval from both the Assembly and the Senate helps ensure minority voices aren’t drowned out by the majority.

Likewise, the two houses in New York’s State Legislature serve as checks against each other’s authority, theoretically preventing a tyrannical power.

As opposed to the traditional legislative process, a bill proposed in a unicameral legislature would automatically be sent to the governor for approval without checks from two houses. If the governor vetoes a bill, a veto override wouldn’t need a two-thirds majority vote in both houses to pass. Relying on one house for that overriding vote gives a single house more legislative power.

Likewise, a unicameral legislature is essentially guaranteed to be dominated by one party. Bills would easily get passed without the conflict and compromise within the current State Legislature.

Luckily, any changes agreed upon during the potential convention would also need to be approved by a statewide vote. But that doesn’t mean we need to sit around and wait for this to happen.

We shouldn’t allow con con campaigners to sell us the idea that New York’s current legislative system is corrupt or too complicated. If you agree with or benefit from the current policy decisions, then, ultimately, it shouldn’t matter.

Joshua Nelson is a senior political science major. He can be reached at jqnelson@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @joshqnelson.

Published on October 25, 2017 at 10:24 pm