Lawmakers in Massachusetts are considering a resolution to convene a Convention of States, a process voting rights groups said could put civil liberties at risk.

Congress is required to hold a convention under Article V of the Constitution if two-thirds of state legislatures call for one.

Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said there are no rules in the Constitution for how to govern a convention and no guarantee, even the First Amendment, would be safe.

"There's great risk and great potential harm to everything already enshrined in our Constitution if we do open up this Pandora's box," Foster cautioned.

Foster pointed out a convention could potentially allow unelected delegates and special-interest groups to enshrine their agenda into a founding document. Supporters argued a convention is needed to rein in federal government spending and give more power back to the states.

Twenty-eight state legislatures have already petitioned Congress for a constitutional convention, with the majority calling for a balanced-budget amendment. Just six more states are needed to trigger the event.

Some states are pushing for term limits. California wants an amendment to ensure local governments can enact stronger gun safety laws.

Foster emphasized the problem is not the issues groups want addressed but rather the process of the convention itself.

"There are very deliberate efforts to undermine institutions of democracy, so this is not the time to test an unprecedented process to make changes," Foster asserted.

The state's Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs recently heard testimony on the Massachusetts resolution aiming to limit the federal government's jurisdiction and spending. Foster added he believes legislators in Massachusetts understand the risks associated with a constitutional convention and the prospects for a constitutional crisis.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

The weekend assassination of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman is seen by many as a setback in recruiting future civic leaders who seek out bipartisanship.

One organization doing this work said it is still possible. Hortman was often credited for a being a fierce advocate for causes aligned with her supporters but also for striking compromises serving as House Speaker in the State Legislature.

Jake Loesch, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Citizens League, said training people how to work with elected officials from the "other side" is a key part of their programming. He acknowledged it might be hard for the public to see but there are moments where good faith bargaining wins the day.

"There are always good, bipartisan things that come out of any legislative session here in Minnesota," Loesch pointed out. "I think unfortunately, that doesn't always attract the news headlines."

Loesch's organization has a new program prompting state lawmakers to visit legislators from another party in their home community. He explained it makes it easier for them to see each other as humans, not the enemy. Loesch admitted the political system is still built around a "winner take all" approach, which often rewards partisan fights.

Loesch added if lawmakers can learn more about each other's backgrounds, a better understanding could hopefully rub off on voters and diminish the thirst for hateful rhetoric. He cautioned progress will not happen right away.

"We didn't get here overnight and it's going to take a long time to find a better level of collaboration and political understanding, and to stop attacking the other," Loesch emphasized. "There are lots of forces working against that."

He cited the overlap with social media as one such force. Meanwhile, political researchers noted besides Minnesota and a handful of other states, most legislatures in the U.S. have one-party control -- some since the mid-1990s -- making it difficult for lawmakers to gain compromise skills.


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota and the nation are feeling the emotional weight of political violence after this weekend's assassination of a top Democratic state lawmaker and the attack of a fellow legislator.

Rep. Melissa Hortman, D-Brooklyn Park, who had served as Minnesota House Speaker, was killed inside her home along with her husband. In the nearby suburb of Champlin, Sen. John Hoffman, D-Champlin, and his wife were also shot and wounded. Police call the shootings "politically motivated."

The incidents follow a trend of political violence beginning with this spring's arson attack at the Pennsylvania Governor's mansion.

David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University, said the current mood somewhat mirrors the violence toward prominent leaders seen in the 1960s.

"Once violence starts to occur, people get used to violence or it becomes part of the game," Schultz explained. "That seems to be where we're degenerating right now."

The events follow last year's assassination attempt on President Donald Trump on the campaign trail, along with increased threats against poll workers. Schultz noted in a healthy democracy, ballots, elections and other engagement tools resolve differences, not violence. He worries the attacks will discourage elected officials from talking with constituents and curtail open meetings.

Schultz pointed out society has grown used to a more isolated way of life, pointing to shopping habits and some people choosing to live in areas cut off from those with different views. Making matters worse, he added, political messages spread through social media fuel misinformation and radicalization.

"Falsity travels more rapidly, more deeply than truth," Schultz observed. "The relative anonymity or distance of the social media also emboldens people to radicalize. Put all that altogether, that gets us part of the recipe of where we are in our society right now."

Schultz added he is not optimistic heightened tensions and political violence will end anytime soon. He said there are some encouraging signs younger voters will not embrace identity politics and demonize their political opponents, but he believes the patterns have shifted, delaying a return to a moderate political tone.


get more stories like this via email

It is estimated 3,000 to 4,000 Hoosiers marched around the Indiana Statehouse during the "No Kings" protest in downtown Indianapolis on Saturday.

The demonstration took place on President Donald Trump's 79th birthday and the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, two milestones marked by a military parade in Washington, D.C. Protesters in Indiana criticized what they called authoritarian behavior and attacks on democracy.

Micah Pulliam said the concerns drove her to the march.

"America hasn't had a king," Pulliam pointed out. "We rejected kings years and years and years ago, and Trump is acting like a king, like he can make all the decisions and what he wants. That's not how America works."

Indiana State Police detained one person after a scuffle with a counter-protester. No other arrests were reported. Supporters of the President said Trump is defending constitutional values and using lawful powers to advance his agenda.

The 50501 movement organized the "No Kings" demonstrations. The group began calling for nationwide demonstrations against Trump in February, organizing hundreds of protests throughout the previous four months.

Mary Sutton came from Carmel and called on elected officials to act.

"The people in the House and Senate need to grow a backbone and the courts need to stand solid," Sutton urged. "If a judge makes a judgment, then the people need to follow it or go to jail."

The protest ended peacefully by midafternoon. The Indianapolis event was one of more than 2,000 "No Kings" rallies throughout the country.


get more stories like this via email