« Ind. Law - More on: Daniels suggests rewriting the entire 1851 Indiana Constitution | Main | Ind. Courts - Former Allen County judge Sheldon dies at 77 [Updated] »

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Ind. Law - Still more on: Daniels suggests rewriting the entire 1851 Indiana Constitution

Following up on its story yesterday (see ILB entry here), the Evansville Courier & Press today has an editorial expressing its views on an Indiana constitutional convention. Some quotes:

A constitutional convention to rewrite Indiana's 1851 state constitution would be a fascinating spectacle to watch. It's probably unnecessary, however, and the process could open up the constitution to mischief by special-interest groups. * * *

Such a convention would be unprecedented in Indiana in modern times. The last one was in 1851, when the current constitution we all live under was adopted.

One obvious drawback to a convention is that every special-interest group that has ever tried to get an amendment passed — for and against abortion rights, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, even a constitutional right to hunt and fish — could try to get its language written into the new constitution.

While the governor is interested in eliminating obsolete layers of local government, convention delegates might not heed that call.

Theoretically, delegates could change anything about the structure of government. I * * *

Of greater concern than the organizational chart for politicians is the question of legal rights that all residents of Indiana enjoy. In some ways, the 1851 Indiana Constitution has stronger protections for citizens than does the U.S. Constitution. Throw open the door to changing that in a convention, and it could create new legal precedents that no one can foresee.

We look forward to hearing the Kernan-Shepard commission's non-binding recommendations on how Indiana's 19th-century government might be restructured, a goal we support. We suspect some changes can be made administratively, still others by the Legislature passing new statutes. Some changes might require a constitutional amendment to modernize offices for the 21st century, while keeping the underlying document intact.

But a constitutional convention just invites legal mischief and unintended consequences. We are opposed to one unless the governor can show the needed reforms cannot be achieved by less drastic, less radical means.

The ILB hasn't had the time to do much research yet, other than the entry last evening on the "Report of the Constitutional Revision Commission 1969."

What I have turned up looks like the General Assembly would have to send a referendum on a constitutional convention to the voters, who could approve or reject the referendum. Potentially, the referendum could be narrower in scope than a rewrite of the entire document. But this is subject to revision when I get a few minutes to look into the matter further.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 31, 2007 06:52 AM
Posted to Indiana Law