STATEMENT OF PROFESSORS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND GOVERNMENT

ON A NEW YORK CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

This November the people of New York will enjoy an opportunity that arrives only once in a
generation an opportunity to assert direct, popular control over the States government. Under a
provision of the New York Constitution, the November ballot must include the following question, posed
every twentieth year: Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution or amend the same?

As professors and academics who have long studied constitutional law and governance, we
intend to vote yes on this question, and we believe others should do so too. Here are our reasons.

1. Restoring democratic accountability. The foundation of all legitimate democratic government is

accountability to the people. If that is lacking, nothing else matters. In New York State, the
problems are well-known and long-standing: bipartisan gerrymandering; party cross-endorsement
of candidates; abysmal voter turnout; a lack of meaningful controls on campaign finance; closed-
door policy making by three men in a room rather than openly in a democratically elected
legislature; and restrictive, highly technical ballot access laws that prevent challenges by outsiders to
the entrenched political establishment. All these have a constitutional dimension.

2. Imposing political ethics. This lack of democratic accountability has enabled elected state officials
to behave with shocking impunity: more state legislators have left office under criminal prosecution,
threat of prosecution, or death than by being voted out. State government will not reform itself;
incumbents have too much to lose. Despite repeated calls for action and many promises, the
legislature has failed meaningfully to open and democratize state governance or to regulate its own
ethics. A convention would allow the people to do it for them.

3. Reforming the state judiciary. The former Chief Judge of New York has called the state court
system the most un-unified, dis-unified, fragmented, cumbersome, complicated, antiquated trial
court system in the United States. The inefficiencies created by the constitutionally-based
fragmentation of the system have been estimated to cost the State, litigants, businesses, and
municipalities an unnecessary half-billion dollars per year. This system is in desperate need of
simplification.

4. Opportunities for positive change. We are people of disparate views who would not necessarily
agree on other items of reform. Nevertheless, we believe a convention offers a rare and valuable
opportunity for reflection and debate on many other issues that the legislature has failed repeatedly
to take up. Regardless of the outcome of those deliberations, we believe the opportunity should be
seized to give mature and deliberate consideration to:

a. Strengthening environmental protection.

b. Improving the quality and fairness of the States educational system.
 c. Strengthening local government.
d. Establishing constitutional rules of succession to the governorship.
e. Modernizing state and local finances.
f. Ensuring that rights threatened in Washington are protected here.

5. Objections by opponents are unpersuasive. Some have already come out against a constitutional
convention. We believe their objections are inadequate, and we take issue with their appeal to fear
rather than reasonable and justified hope. A convention is not merely an opportunity for the
political establishment to preserve or even worsen the status quo. Unlike a legislature, a state
constitutional convention lasts for only a few months. It is temporary. It sustains no careers, has no
institutional interest. It does its job and dissolves. It is we the people who call a convention to life;.
we who elect those who serve as delegates;. we who must approve any constitutional changes a
convention may recommend. Nothing can or will sneak by unnoticed, as things often do at the close
of annual legislative sessions.

Objection by entrenched politicians is to be expected; a convention will very likely threaten

legislative leaders iron grip on power. More difficult to explain is opposition raised by groups with
long-frustrated change agendas. Such groups, representing diverse sides of many issues, appear so
terrified of one another that they would rather see the perpetuation of an unacceptable status quo
than undergo the risk of open and frank debate on the issues that a convention will provide. In fact,
there is no possibility that a constitutional convention could be captured by any particular interest
group. Support for the convention is rising from the grass roots, from people all across New York
whove had enough of business as usual in our state government. These New Yorkers will be the
ones who elect delegates to the convention, and they, not interest groups, will set its agenda.

The existing constitutional provisions most often said to be at risk like the assurance that our
Adirondack and Catskill Preserves remain forever wild, the guarantee of public employee pension
rights, the states unique commitment to provide for its poor - were put into our constitution by
earlier conventions. Environmental and worker protections and our core social commitments can be
strengthened if we call one this year. There is no experience in the states long history of a
convention diminishing rights and protections, only expanding them.

For these reasons, we will vote yes on a constitutional convention in November, and urge all citizens
to do the same.

AGREED TO BY THE UNDERSIGNED

2
[Institutional affiliations are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed herein are
those of the individuals named, and should not be attributed to the institutions with which they are
affiliated.]

Gerald Benjamin SUNY New Paltz

Richard Briffault Columbia Law School

Keith J. Bybee Syracuse University

James Cauthen John Jay College, CUNY

Christopher Drennan Clinton Community College

Henrik N. Dullea Cornell University

Daniel Feldman John Jay College, CUNY

Lucinda Finley University at Buffalo School of Law, SUNY

Esther Fuchs Columbia University

Peter Galie Canisius College

James A. Gardner University at Buffalo School of Law, SUNY

Steven R. Greenwald Wagner College

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez Columbia University

Nancy Kassop SUNY New Paltz

Ethan Leib Fordham Law School

Mary Lyndon St. Johns University

Michael Malbin University at Albany, SUNY

Thomas Mandeville Clinton Community College

Burt Neuborne New York University Law School

Richard L. Ottinger Pace University Law School

Jessica Owley University at Buffalo School of Law, SUNY

Eduardo Pealver Cornell Law School

3
Justin Phillips Columbia University

Nicholas A. Robinson Pace University Law School

Jennifer Rodgers Columbia Law School, Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity

David S. Schoenbrod New York Law School

Donna E. Shalala University of Miami

Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law, SUNY

Rick Su University at Buffalo School of Law, SUNY

Philip Weinberg Pace University Law School