Galie:NYers, embrace constitutional change

Peter J. Galie, a retired professor of political science at Canisius College in Buffalo, is the author of "The New York State Constitution: A Reference Guide."

Over the past 20 years, no major constitutional amendment has been adopted in New York. But Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is hoping that constitutional slumber is about to end. He has called for the adoption of amendments that would constitutionalize the legislative redistricting process and permit wider casino gambling.

Article XIX of our state constitution provides for amending it either through the legislative process or by way of a constitutional convention. Amending the state charter by the legislative process requires majority passage of the proposed amendment in both houses, a second majority passage by both houses after an intervening election, and approval by a majority of the voters in a general election.

Unlike the federal amending process, which requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, New York requires only a majority vote -- and unlike the federal process, state amendments must be submitted to the people for approval. This makes amending the constitution easier in New York than in Washington. The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1791; New Yorkers have adopted more than 210 amendments to their 1894 constitution.

But over the past 35 years, New Yorkers have shown an uncharacteristic reluctance to effect major reform of their constitution. In 1995, an amendment incorporating a series of wide-ranging proposals that addressed the state's questionable financial practices was rejected by the voters. An attempt in 2005 to ensure timely budgets and a greater role for the legislature in that process was also rejected. A combination of indifference -- more voters ignored these propositions than voted for them -- and suspicion of elected officials seemed to be reflected in the outcome, rather than a belief that reform was not necessary.

And none of the amendments adopted in the past 30 years has addressed the major constitutional problems facing the state. We made the language of the constitution gender neutral, allowed use of prison labor in not-for-profit organizations, liberalized qualification for civil service credits, and approved land exchanges in the Adirondack Park -- all worthy endeavors, but hardly the kind of reforms necessary to address the dysfunctional aspect of New York government.

In 1977 and 1997, voters answered "no" to calls for a constitutional convention, and the state entered the 21st century with a governing charter adopted at the end of the 19th.

This voter suspicion, combined with long-standing indifference that has seeped into New York's constitutional tradition, does not bode well for the two amendments now being considered. Indifference will be the great enemy of an amendment placing legislative redistricting beyond the control of the legislature. The current proposal, which still grants the legislature a substantial role in drawing new electoral maps, may make it through its legislative rounds, but it's likely to fuel voter suspicion.

And suspicion along with doubts about the wisdom of legalizing casino gambling will be the enemies of the latter.

Voters in 18 states have the tool of a constitutional initiative, which permits amendments to be placed on the ballot without legislative action. That lack here, coupled with the decline of constitutional reform as a means to confront problems facing New York, has resulted in our state missing out on the major constitutional developments that took place elsewhere in the last quarter of the 20th century. Twenty states have adopted term limits; a few have established independent legislative redistricting commissions; Florida established a permanent constitutional revision commission, with the power to send proposals directly to the voters; Maine has placed campaign finance reform in its constitution; the California charter requires the state to reimburse local government for costs of state mandates; other states have imposed constitutional spending limits on their state and local governments; some, like Oklahoma and Colorado, have required supermajorities for passage of tax increases.

However we judge the quality of these developments, New York's recent constitutional torpor is inconsistent with our traditions. In the past, New Yorkers have demonstrated a willingness to ponder and revise their constitution. Let's hope what's past is prologue, and voters begin again to weigh the issues with less suspicion and indifference.