By Harold Moskowitz

As was indicated in Part 1 of the last  issue, a referendum will be used on November 7, 2017 to potentially authorize revisions of the New York State Constitution. This article will explore some of the issues and motives which are in play in this high stakes political game. Although the process is supposed to be controlled by the people, that promise could well become a manipulated illusion. 

In 2008, Presidential candidate Obama successfully used “Hope” and “Change” as his slogan. Each potential voter was left to imagine that the “Hope” was what he was hoping for and the “Change” would be the change he would like to see occur. To many, the idea that a state constitutional convention could bring about the types of changes they might be hoping for is an attractive lure. 

Groups, individuals, the state government and local governments all see revision of the state constitution as a means to further their agendas. Political reformers hope for ethics reforms in a state where political corruption has gotten national exposure. Many would like to see term limits for elected officials. Elections, they say, are not a substitute for term limits considering the advantages held by incumbents for reelection. 

Others would want “Initiative” and “Recall” added to our state constitution. In the former, sufficient numbers of petition signatures of registered voters could force the legislature to take action on an issue it has been avoiding. In the latter, a sufficient number of valid petition signatures would force an elected official to step down before the end of his term of office. 

One particular group hopes to have delegates elected to the convention who would propose dividing the state into “upstate” and “downstate” autonomous districts. Each district would have the power to repeal “disadvantageous” laws previously passed by the legislature such as the SAFE Act. Self-described “fiscal conservatives” seek budget reforms, including spending limits and transparency in the budgeting process. 

They seek an end to defined benefit pension plans for public sector employees which they consider to be an unsustainable fiscal burden. Associated with this goal of reducing pension costs is a potential motive for a convention by the state and local governments to revise the clause in Article 5, Section 7 which protects public employee pensions. 

Basically, it states that public employee pensions are of a contractual nature and cannot be “diminished or impaired.” Presently, monthly retirement amounts cannot be reduced regardless of pension system investment results. Lack of this protective clause in a state’s constitution makes it increasingly tempting for governors, county executives, and mayors to under fund or not fund their employee retirement systems.

 Withheld pension fund contributions can then be diverted for budget balancing. They make exaggerated predictions of investment results to make up for the under funding of the retirement system. 

Progressive liberal agenda goals such as “social engineering” and elimination of “income inequality” related issues would likely be proposed. In particular, they would look to expand Article 17 Section 2 of the state constitution which guarantees the “aid, care and support of the needy.” This could be expanded to create new programs to remedy perceived “economic inequality” based upon economic data from the 2010 census compiled by zip code. 

New York could be declared a “sanctuary state” in which those here illegally could be guaranteed full protections, entitlements including college tuition, driver’s licenses and the right to vote. 

Second Amendment supporters would hope for the “Castle Doctrine,” concealed carry, or a “stand your ground” proposal. However, delegates must be elected and some will be currently elected politicians. 

Delegates are not penalized for misrepresenting their true views. One could reasonably count on prominent anti-Second Amendment billionaires gladly spending millions of dollars to fund the campaigns of hand-picked potential delegates who, if elected with or without misrepresentation, would propose even more stringent “common sense” gun control restrictions and measures to hasten the day when the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in New York State would be almost non-existent.

Although any proposed amendments have to be approved by the voters in November, 2019, fewer people vote in off-year elections and of those who do vote even fewer take the time to indicate their choice on propositions. 

Thus, a very small percentage of the state’s population could unleash huge impacts upon the state’s residents. Publicly, Governor Cuomo does not promote a convention but close aides have indicated his support. If he is in favor, that should give all Second Amendment supporters pause to stop before voting to give life to a constitutional convention.