As even the editors of the liberal Washington Post admitted today, the Maryland state constitution is a lengthy, arcane monstrosity ripe for replacement.
But today the paper urged its well-educated subscriber base in the Old Line State to reject a ballot question that, if approved, would authorize a state constitutional convention, delegates to which would be elected by the people of the state.
The chief reason: constitution writing apparently is too delicate a task to leave to ignorant laymen.
While the Post has complained about the one-party monopoly on power in the state's General Assembly, the editorial board hinted that the state legislature was the best avenue to pursue amending the state charter:
The problems start with the cost, which would inevitably run into multiple millions of dollars; after all, a constitutional convention would involve the election of scores of delegates and creation of dizzying amounts of paperwork - and might drag on for years. Beyond that, the chances of success are slight; the potential is vast for an endless, irresolvable brawl over practically any and every inflammatory issue in American politics. As political spectacle, a convention might be entertaining. As an exercise in problem-solving, it would probably be futile. The last one to take place in Maryland, in 1968, was a flop.
For those who want to redraft state laws governing abortion, redistricting, gun rights, gay marriage or any other issue, the means to do so already exist in Maryland's General Assembly. Creating a costly new elected body - populated by who-knows-which delegates and regulated by who-knows-what rules - is highly unlikely to produce the cogent, concise new constitution that advocates imagine.
