Constitutional Convention meets briefly, delays action on amendments

This is not uncommon for these joint sessions of the Legislature. All proposed amendments to the state Constitution must be heard by Senate and House members meeting together no later than the second Wednesday in June, and it’s also common to immediately delay actual action on these measures to a later date.

If approved by a majority of both houses during the current two-year session and again in the next session, the proposals will go on the ballot for the following statewide election. If the voters approve any of them, they will be added to a document already amended 120 times since it was adopted in 1780.

The proposed amendments arrived on the floor of the Constitutional Convention with a mixed bag of committee recommendations, but most were given an “ought not to pass.”

These include new constitutional provisions that would require eminent domain takings to be for a public purpose only, make changes to the Governor’s Council, retire judges at age 76 rather than 70, establish a graduated state income tax, require a two-thirds vote to spend from the state’s “rainy day” fund, take the power of redistricting away from the Legislature and give it to an independent commission, and prohibit any citizen initiative petitions that would restrict any rights already contained in the Constitution.

The measures that did receive favorable committee recommendations would allow greater use of absentee ballots, establish a 10-day early voting period and give the governor the power to appoint a lieutenant governor in the event that office becomes vacant.

It’s possible the amendments with negative committee recommendations will ultimately be approved at the October or subsequent conventions this session, but not likely. And gaining a committee’s positive recommendation is no guarantee of success at the convention, but these have a much better shot at being approved.

One of the amendments least likely to pass is the one establishing an independent commission to handle legislative redistricting, a good idea whose time has come. The task is now done by the Legislature itself and it has so far rigorously defended its right to choose the districts its members are going to represent.

This is in spite of the fact that redistricting by state legislatures around the country routinely produce irregularities and get court challenges. Massachusetts is one of 28 states where the legislature is solely in charge of this task, a process too easily politicized, especially in states where one party has all the power.

Only nine states now use independent commissions and the rest use a “hybrid” system where, usually, the legislature partners with some other government agency.

Not coincidentally, the three proposed amendments that got favorable committee recommendations are the least controversial of the bunch. Many states have expanded voting by absentee ballot, and having a 10-day window to vote prior to an election is sensible and something every state should do. Massachusetts has lagged behind on these practices too long.

And having a constitutional amendment to replace the lieutenant governor in case of a vacancy makes sense, even though the only constitutional duties of the lieutenant governor are to sit in if the governor is away or that office is vacant and to preside over the Governor’s Council, the elected body that reviews judicial appointments.

We’ll have to wait until Oct. 9 to see what the Legislature does with all these amendments, but it’s a safe bet nothing too radical is going to happen.