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