This year voters will decide whether to hold a state constitutional convention. A constitutional convention proposes constitutional amendments for voter approval.  These amendments could dramatically reform state government. 

What could a constitutional convention propose?  It could propose an inspector general responsible for preventing and detecting fraud, and waste.  The federal government and many states have an inspector general.  If there had been an inspector general overseeing DOT, maybe the Washington Bridge fiasco could have been prevented. 

A constitutional convention could propose an amendment to require voter approval of any major debt obligation that puts taxpayers at risk.  Voters are asked to approve millions in bonds, but they get no say on the debt for certain unpopular projects.  As a result, taxpayers are now stuck paying $132 million for a Pawtucket soccer stadium.  

Debacles are not inevitable.  The General Assembly could have created an inspector general or required voter approval for the soccer stadium.  It chose not to.  Through a constitutional convention, the people get a chance to vote on proposals the General Assembly will not support. 

In Rhode Island government, there is too much power concentrated in too few people.  Power is concentrated in the General Assembly, which is controlled by a handful of politicians who are influenced by a small group of special interest groups. 

Good government is limited government, and in limited government, power is dispersed.  A constitutional convention could propose amendments that reduce this concentration of power.  Proposed amendments could include: term limits for state legislators, a line-item veto, and voter initiative which gives the people the power to put legislation on the ballot for voter approval.  Numerous states have these government reforms. 

Not surprisingly, the special interest groups and politicians who control the state house are opposed to a constitutional convention.  When powerful people are scared, they use scare tactics.  First, they claim a constitutional convention will strip away rights.  This is misleading.  No change in Rhode Island’s constitution can affect our rights under the U.S. Constitution.  Furthermore, any proposed constitutional amendment cannot go into effect unless it is approved by the voters.  For example, in 1986, a pro-life constitutional amendment was overwhelmingly rejected by Rhode Island voters. 

Second, they claim special interest groups will influence the constitutional amendment process.  This is hypocritical.  Well-funded special interest groups already influence the Rhode Island political process.  Special interest groups have already spent over $130,000 opposing a constitutional convention.  Special interest groups, some from out of state, spent $600,000 in 2022, to help Gov. McKee win a primary after McKee’s tie-breaking vote in favor of the soccer stadium. Furthermore, it should be noted that voters have previously rejected an out of state special interest group’s effort to amend Rhode Island’s constitution.  In 2006, the General Assembly proposed a constitutional amendment which allowed casino gambling and benefited Harrah’s.  Harrah’s spent large sums of money, but voters overwhelmingly rejected it.

Third, they claim a constitutional convention will be expensive.  This is inaccurate.  The 1973 constitutional convention cost less than $20,000.  Furthermore, the costs of any convention could be easily offset if voters approved an inspector general or a line-item veto.  

Basically, the opponents of a constitutional convention are saying: you are smart enough to elect legislators to the General Assembly and to vote on any constitutional amendment the General Assembly may propose, but you are too stupid to elect delegates to a constitutional convention and to vote on any constitutional amendment the convention may propose.  

If you believe state government needs to be reformed, and you are skeptical the General Assembly will reduce its own power or upset the special interest groups that influence it, a constitutional convention is your best hope.

Steven Frias is a lawyer, a local historian, an award-winning writer, whose campaign for state representative has been credited with leading to the phase out of the car tax.