‘ConCon defeat is very good’

Well-respected current issues and history instructor Sam McPhetres said the defeat of the Constitutional Convention question in the Nov. 5 general elections was “wonderful” and “very good.”

“ConCon is waste of time and waste of funds,” said McPhetres.

He said there is really no need to convene a Constitutional Convention since amendments can be made through a legislative amendment and a popular initiative.

“We’ve got two other legal means to amend the constitution,” he said.

The ConCon question failed to get the required number of affirmative answers in the Nov. 5 general elections.

The Constitution requires that the affirmative votes for the Constitutional Convention question reach two-thirds—or approximately 66.66-percent—of the votes cast.

Without the absentee votes, the ConCon question only obtained 6,708 affirmative votes versus 4,766 “no” votes, which translates to only 58 percent of the total 11,474 votes favoring the holding of a Constitutional Convention.

Even if all the over 1,602 absentee votes turn out in favor of a ConCon, affirmative votes could only get 8,310 votes—63 or 64 percent of the new total votes of 13,000.

If it sailed through, the Legislature would have been mandated to convene a convention promptly pursuant to the CNMI Constitution.

People will then elect 27 delegates, who each would get a per diem during their work, which takes about 45 days or more, depending on the issues addressed.

The delegates would have to rent an office and hire a legal counsel during the process.

After they have finalized their recommendations, each amendment would have to be voted on by the public.

McPhetres said that in the 1996 Constitutional Convention, all 17 proposed amendments were rejected by the people.

“Nothing was changed in the end,” he said.

In a voter’s manual issued by the Election Commission this year, it warned that a Constitutional Convention could be “a costly exercise in futility.”

The poll body said that changes to the Constitution could also be made through a legislative initiative and a popular initiative. “So why do we need a constitutional convention when there are other tools available? What should this convention accomplish that the people themselves and the Legislature cannot do?” the commission asked.

It said that the CNMI’s experience with the past three constitutional conventions could provide voters some idea of a fourth one.

“Armed with legislative-type agendas built upon frustration over legislative sessions which have in their view resulted in nothing, or a mindset that places provincial concerns over the ‘big picture’ Commonwealth-wide concerns, little, if nothing, will actually be done,” the commission said.

It further added, “The convention in all likelihood will end up looking, sounding, and acting like the legislature. Do we really want to spend precious public funds on another legislative body?”

The commission agreed, though, that there are issues that can be up for constitutional amendments.

These are land alienation and public land matters, especially for investment purposes; an elected attorney general; a requirement to improve the process and transparency of legislative deliberations; and constitutional protection currently afforded board appointees.

The commission said board members’ tenure of office should be coterminous with the governor to give each new chief executive the opportunity to appoint people who understand the administration’s expectations better.