Does Md. need a convention? No – now is not the time

Posted: 7:00 pm Sun, July 25, 2010
By Steve Lash
Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer

One might assume that Sen. Jamin B. “Jamie” Raskin — a constitutional law professor — would favor a constitutional convention. The rare event, last seen in Maryland in 1967, would enable the state’s residents to engage in the process of “renegotiating the essential covenant that governs us,” as Raskin describes it.

But now is not the time, the Montgomery County Democrat says.

“A constitutional convention should be saved for historical moments when we need sweeping cultural reform of the government [or] elucidation of the rights of the people,” said Raskin, who teaches at American University’s Washington College of Law. “Our system of government is essentially sound.”

As evidence, the senator cited legislation the General Assembly’s enacted last year, after it came to light that state police had conducted covert surveillance on anti-war and death-penalty opposition groups in 2005 and 2006. The 2009 law permits undercover surveillance only when police have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of current or planned criminal activity and when an undercover operation is the least intrusive way to investigate effectively.

“The legislature acted strongly with regard to that offense to civil liberties,” Raskin said. “The rights of the people are safe with respect to state government.”

Raskin’s opposition to a constitutional convention remains strong despite legislative defeats of three measures he supports: death-penalty repeal, same-sex marriage and the medical use of marijuana. Such deeply emotional issues should be resolved in the legislature, he said, not placed before the people as part of a constitutional reformation.

“We like to think about Madison and Hamilton and Adams” when we think of constitutional conventions, Raskin said. “But we could also get a circus of some hot-button issues. We have to keep in mind the difference between legislative politics and constitutional politics.”

Former Gov. Parris N. Glendening also opposes a constitutional convention now, calling the proceedings unnecessary, expensive and unrestrained.

“I do not personally see any burning issues out there that can only be resolved by having a constitutional convention,” said Glendening, a Democrat who led the state from 1995 to 2003. Even the most controversial issues facing the state “can be resolved through political will within the existing process,” he said.

The measured and limited debate that characterizes the legislative process would not occur among convention delegates assigned to review and potentially change the constitution, Glendening predicted.

Holding a convention would be “fairly expensive” and create “the potential for mischief,” he said.

“Once a convention is called, it is very difficult to put any restraints on the process,” he added. “We can get sort of a runaway convention.”