EVOLVing democracy: A Constitutional CALL for cROWDOCRACY to restore community Self-Government (Why Voting “YES” For A New York State Convention Is A Bold And Necessary Proposition) By Zevin X. Cruz In the Northeast, temperatures are dropping, the Fall foliage is falling and October baseball has culminated to its ultimate series ending game seven as the Houston Astros and Los Angeles Dodgers waged a war of attrition in the 2017 World Series. However, another battle has been brewing but it isn’t baseball, instead, it will take place on another playing field. On Tuesday, November 7, New Yorkers will have an opportunity to hit a political grand slam of their own by getting a chance to vote for “Proposition 1,” a referendum to convene a state Constitutional Con- vention in 2019. Why is such a political endeavor so significant? Because it offers the populous a rare political op- portunity to propose bold state Constitutional Amendments like abolishing corporate constitutional rights at the state level that subverts municipal home rule and instead have a chance to propose community constitutional rights to legalize ecological sustainability. This is the people’s best and maybe last in-a-20-year-chance on the state level at stopping conglomerates from stripping local communities (especially in upstate New York) of the power to adopt and enforce local laws that come into direct conflict with decisions made by corporations that want to exploit our communities for various destructive and unsustainable projects. And solely relying on career politicians, business interests and lobbying groups to continue to wield their uncontested power and influence through politics as usual that only serves the irresilient status quo is pure lunacy and an abdication of our rights and responsibilities as not only New Yorkers but American citizens born from the very same process of a constitutional convention that gave birth to our nation. After all, such audaciousness is much more easily implementable at the state level than on the national scene. But most Democrats, Liberals and Progressives are cowering at the current opportunity before them with the pro- posed New York Constitutional Convention and instead offering only false arguments that foster unrealistic specu- lations and unfounded fears as lame excuses not to be bold. This is why Liberals lose and the problem with progres- sives in general—their lack of vision, courage and conviction when it’s needed the most. This is why I am going from being a registered Democrat, which has de-evolved to be fundamentally just an “anti-this” and “anti-that” po- litical party to an Independent voting “YES” for a state Constitutional Convention. It is my hope that the following passages will persuade you the reader to get off the political “bench,” so-to-speak, and step up to the plate to seize this monumental moment to become a profound player by taking a swing for the much needed swift and sweeping social change in New York state and potentially act as a positive catalyst for comprehensive change for the rest of the country and even the entire world considering the urgency of our times. “Humanity stands at the brink of global environmental and economic collapse,” Thomas Linzey, author of the pamphlet, On Community Civil Disobedience In The Name Of Sustainability. We have pinned our future to an economic system that centralizes power in fewer and fewer hands, and whose benefits increasingly flow to smaller and smaller numbers of people. Our system of government is simi- larly medieval—relying on a 1780s constitutional form of government written to guarantee the exploitation of the natural environment and elevate the production of “endless more” over the rights of people, nature, and their communities. But right now, people within the community rights movement aren’t waiting for power brokers to fix the system. They’re beginning to envision a new sustainability constitution by adopting new laws at the local level that are forcing those ideas upward into the state and national levels. In doing so, they are directly challenging the basic operating system of this country—one which currently elevates corporate “rights” above the rights of people, nature, and their communities—and changing it into one which recognizes a right to local, community self-government that cannot be overridden by corporations, or by governments wielded by corporate interests. 1 [The following] short primer from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund [CELDF] explores and describes the philosophy and underpinnings of the community rights movement that has emerged in the United States—a movement of nonviolent civil disobedience based on municipal lawmaking. […] CELDF is bringing public law, grassroots organizing, and community education together in unique legal and organizing strategy to build a movement for community rights. CELDF has partnered with close to two hundred commu- nities across the United States to establish community rights and ban practices—including fracking, factory farming, and water privatization—that violate the rights of people, communities, and nature. To protect those rights, CELDF addresses the key barriers to local democracy and sustainability—including corporate “rights”— and has assisted the first U.S. communities to establish the rights of nature in law and to elevate community rights over corporate “rights.” CELDF is bringing communities and grassroots groups together to form state Community Rights Networks and the National Community Rights Network to drive change upward from the grassroots to the state and na- tional level.1 But first, let’s explore the pros and cons for convening a New York State Constitutional Convention. After all, if we can convince residents to vote “YES” it would allow us the once-in-20-years opportunity to implement commu- nity rights amendments at the state level in one swift swing, thus saving time, money and energy in doing it multiple times on the municipal level throughout New York State. THE OPPONENTS AND ARGUMENTS AGAINST A NY STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION The arguments against a New York state Constitutional Convention (otherwise referred to as “Con-Con”) are at best weak (loss of union rights and a hijacking of the convention by special interest groups) and at worst, specula- tive and fear-based (“we shouldn’t attempt to change things because we might make things worse,” or “lose what little we already have”) usually given (unfortunately) by unions, lobbying groups, non-profits and big money inter- ests like the following well-meaning opponents: 1) Truth Against The Machine (a progressive online news site on Facebook), 2) Planned Parenthood, 3) New York State Pistol And Rifle Association, 4) New Yorkers Against Cor- ruption (a coalition of more than 100 separate interest groups across the political spectrum), 5) New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), 6) Ithaca’s Teacher’s Association, 7) New York State AFL-CIO, 8) Chemung County Democratic Committee, 9) State legislative leaders and 10) Adirondack Council, to name a few. Most of these op- ponents adhere to the following arguments against a state constitutional convention Con-Argument #1: American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is behind this endeavor to undermine democ- racy and whatever other mischief they will do if that door is opened for them. Counter-Point A: This is false. I agree ALEC is a coalition of business and political special interests detrimental to our democracy despite how their website characterizes themselves as “America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state leg- islators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism” but there is no evidence that they are behind the New York State Constitutional Convention. It is not something they conjured up to subvert our democracy. In fact, according to the state constitution, a convention can only be held every 20 years and only after a public referendum so its origins and approval based on a public vote and has nothing to do with an ALEC conspir- acy. “The New York State Constitution requires that every 20 years the people decide if a Constitutional Conven- tion should be held to consider amendments to the State Constitution. The purpose of this Ballot Question is to allow the voters of New York State to determine whether a Constitutional Convention will be held in 2019.”2 Con-Argument #2: A convention would risk environmental protections, collective bargaining, pensions and other hallowed protections. Counter-Point B: This would only be true if Constitutional Convention delegates pro- posed such amendments and the majority of New York residents voted for such measures which would be virtually impossible due to the exiting opposition that already exist to voting “Yes” for a state Constitutional Convention. Not to mention the opposition has the opportunity to put up their own delegates that would block such proposals. 2 Con-Argument #3: Sitting politicians would have an added advantage of being elected as delegates due being backed by special interest groups. Counter-Point C: This is true in every significant election in the United States so to suggest that this is only possible during a New York State Constitutional Convention is disingenuous at best and quite frankly a “cop-out,” to shirk our duties as a responsible and informed citizenry, otherwise, by this line of rea- soning, why vote in any important election in our country. Con-Argument #4: Offbeat political propositions that ordinarily wouldn’t be presented during normal state legislative procedures would now be slipped through to become law during a state constitutional convention like the separation of New York City from the rest of the state. Counter-Point D: All proposed amendments must be vot- ed on by the public before passage so nothing will get “slipped through” unless New York residents voted for it. Opponents who make this argument are not aware of the political process or purposely misrepresenting the facts.