Should New York Have a Constitutional Convention?

Originally published in The Post-Journal on Sunday, April 16th, 2017.

A view from the original New York State Constitution Ratifying Convention in July, 1788 by Gerald Foster.

Every 20 years, New York residents get a chance to vote on whether or not to have a “Convention” to evaluate and propose changes to the state’s Constitution. Any recommended changes from such a Convention would need to be submitted to the voters for approval. 

Usually, every two decades, this proposal gets voted down. Opponents say: “It will be too expensive.” Others just vote “No” because that is the default position for people who don’t like government. However, the biggest opponents are usually the entrenched interests in Albany like the large state public employee unions and can include the Governor and leaders of the legislature. Why change things if you believe the system is working on your behalf? 

The difference this year is the tremendous cloud that hangs over Albany because of the convictions and indictments of so many of the big “players” on the statewide scene. The past Speaker of the Assembly and Majority Leader of the State Senate are appealing their convictions of selling influence. A grand jury has indicted key individuals in the Governor’s office of rigging the bidding for state contracts. It is not a pretty picture. There is talk of ethics reform but tough new laws on oversight and accountability are difficult to accomplish when they are related to the power structure of state government. 

Because the problems that have evolved are “structural” in nature, the only way to effectively deal with them is through amending the state’s Constitution. 

I have some understanding of the issues since I viewed the process during the four terms I served in the New York State Assembly. Because the problems that have evolved are “structural” in nature, the only way to effectively deal with them is through amending the state’s Constitution. 

For example, should New York limit the terms that a person can serve as Speaker of the Assembly or Majority Leader of the State Senate? This approach has been implemented in California. Should the state limit the number of terms that a Governor can serve… as we do at the federal level in limiting the President to two terms? To implement such structural changes in our state would require a change in the New York State Constitution. 

Other structural changes could include establishing a non-partisan commission perhaps consisting of jurists to implement the reapportionment of legislative and congressional districts that takes place every ten years. Right now, the legislature and governor make these decisions based more on political considerations that anything else. Other states have implemented non-partisan redistricting panels moving away from the “gerrymandering” approach still followed in New York. 

Realistically, the only way to make any changes of this magnitude would require a Constitutional Convention. Such proposals are not going to come from the Governor or state legislature. Is the state ready for this? These are not ordinary times. The political quagmire that our state politics has become requires change. In my view, this is a year to vote “Yes” on a Constitutional Convention. 

The voters will have the last say. They will first need to vote for a Constitutional Convention…then they will subsequently have to approve any recommended changes to the New York State Constitution that would be proposed by the Convention. The important vote on having a Constitutional Convention only happens every 20 years. Citizens of New York need to be thinking about how they will vote in November. 

For more information on the New York Constitutional Process and critical timelines, visit 

The New York State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse.

Rolland Kidder 

Stow, NY

Spring Starts with the Masters

Frank Deford, NPR, April 5, 2017

Amen Corner at Augusta, where treachery and beauty blend together as well as any James Bond villainess

In days of yore, Opening Day of the baseball season was special, signifying that spring had come at last.

Today, however, Opening Day sort of dribbles into existence, and the spiritual start of spring now belongs to the Masters golf tournament, where the azaleas and magnolias and dogwood bloom. And if they dare look like they're gonna bloom too soon, in March the groundskeepers are rumored to pack them with ice to make sure spring comes as God intended it, which this year is on Thursday.

By now, in fact, the Masters course is a federal treasure, to sports what Old Faithful is to the National Park Service. And once again it is peaceful at Augusta National Golf Club, after some rather ugly stand-offs in recent years, when the club balked at changing its all-white, all-male membership tradition. African-Americans and female Americans are on the club manifest now along with other golf-Americans, and all is serene once again.

Yes, some people do find the Masters too snooty and the closing ceremony is so painfully precious that even the man who for years himself produced the coronation admitted that it was "the worst thing in the world." But I'm being picayune. The Masters is otherwise a thing of efficient beauty.

Start with the name.  Masters sounds almost too elegant to be American. 

And when it comes to names? There are really only two discrete pieces of official U.S. sports real estate which are familiarly known by a title. One is a huge ugly slab, but besides that Green Monster at Fenway Park, there is only Amen Corner on the back nine at Augusta, where treachery and beauty blend together as well as any James Bond villainess.

Even the fans, who must be called "patrons," are more polite and litter-conscious than at other sporting venues. The Masters is not greedy. You wanna buy a Masters souvenir logo shirt? Sure, let's go over to the nearest Ralph Lauren boutique. Oops, you can only purchase Masters memorabilia at the Masters, this one week of the year. And most meaningful of all to patrons watching at home, the tournament has fewer commercials than other sports events.

Well, yes, the Masters is too stylish to be an American icon. It's as out of character for Uncle Sam as a McDonald's is for France. But hush now and stay behind the ropes. Spring begins on Thursday.

A New Governing Coalition

Published April 2, 2017 in The Jamestown Post-Journal

If you are my age, you probably remember the great old western movie “High Noon.” The Marshall (Gary Cooper) of a frontier town meets a gun-slinger and his outlaw gang at noon in a shoot-out. It is a tense, decisive moment.

On a recent Friday, it was “high noon” in the halls of Congress as the time approached for a decisive vote on the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. But then, it didn’t happen. The votes weren’t there. “High noon” was a fizzle.

I am sure many in our community were watching since in the midst of all the legal language in the bill was a provision that would have prohibited New York state’s current mandate of requiring that a significant portion of Medicaid costs be paid by counties. Since 50% of our local county property tax bill goes to Medicaid, this could have ended up being a tremendous benefit to local tax payers.

However, that provision, along with everything else being proposed never saw the light of day. Action on the repeal of Obamacare was called off, and I doubt will be tried again in this current Congress.

What the blow-up in repealing Obamacare highlighted was the continuing story we have seen since John Boehner was Speaker of the House of Representatives. There really is no true governing majority in the Republican Party in the House when it comes to tough issues.

It appears likely that we are entering a time of national political gridlock where very little is going to get done.

The same kind of impasse is likely to be seen again in upcoming tough votes like extending the national debt limit or passing another budget. It appears likely that we are entering a time of national political gridlock where very little is going to get done.

Let’s hope it doesn’t result again in a shutting down of the government.

What it means for our new President is that he is going to have to try and cobble together a coalition which can govern. The “Art of the Deal” is now going to be more difficult. Somehow a coalition of Republicans and Democrats will need to be formed in the House of Representatives so that the governing of this great nation can continue to happen.

One idea might be to look at what the Republicans in New York state have done in the State Senate.

They have agreed to work with a splinter group of Democrats (who call themselves the “Independent Democratic Coalition”) to cooperate on major legislation and in putting together the annual state budget. So far this effort of bi-partisanship in Albany has been productive.

Are the Republicans in the House of Representatives in Washington ready to embrace such an idea? Is there a group of independent minded Democrats who will break with their established ranks to do this?

The lesson being learned again in Washington is that it is a lot easier to get elected than it is to govern. Yet, good governance is actually what the people need and want. What we are going to find out in the coming months is whether the Congress is capable of doing it.


Rolland Kidder
Stow, NY