Just Vote 'No'?

[trof]

Dear Constitutional Reform Supporters,

Many of us on the Board and supporters of Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR), Inc., and its efforts to persuade the legislature to allow the people to vote on a constitutional convention, are considering and/or planning to vote "no" on all constitutional amendments next Tuesday.

Although the ACCR, Inc, Board has not officially adopted a Just Vote No strategy, we would like to hear your opinion on the subject
as we consider our legislative and advocacy options for the upcoming legislative year.

The Birmingham News' editorial this week, copied below, sums up the thoughts and views of its Editorial Board for your
consideration.
Please reply to this e-mail to let us know your view on whether you support a formal Just Vote No strategy as a part of ACCR, Inc's
legislative strategy for next year.

[e-mail]
Lenora Pate, ACCR, Inc. Chair
Nancy Ekberg, ACCR, Inc. Communications Chair

OUR VIEW: The News recommends voting no on proposed constitutional amendments
in an effort to force a new Alabama Constitution Birmingham News editorial board
Published: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 5:45 AM

For years, the siren song for constitution reformers in Alabama has been: Vote "no" on all proposed amendments on the ballot,
and force the Legislature's hand on an embarrassing, inefficient and racist constitution. Always, though, some amendment
demanded a "yes" vote in the name of progress, and the temptation to gum up the works faded. If it wasn't removing the ban on
interracial marriage, it was setting up a fund to help lure new industry to Alabama, or raising money mostly for schools while
making the unjust state tax system more fair and government more accountable, or removing racist language about separate
schools and poll taxes.

This year, there is no compelling amendment requiring a "yes" vote. Instead, the four statewide and 33 local amendments on
the ballot remind us of the 1901 constitution's biggest flaw.

The lack of self-government, or home rule, hamstrings local governments. Blame the constitution's drafters, who didn't trust the
people or local governments. That forces county commissions and city councils to seek the Legislature's blessing on
amendments that let them do what the constitution prohibits.

That's why this year, Baldwin County needs approval to set up a county storm water management authority; why Calhoun
County needs help to allow the city of Anniston to fund a scholarship program; why Covington, Geneva, Macon, Russell,
St. Clair and Tallapoosa counties have to ask for permission to raise court costs (as dozens of counties already have); why
Madison County wants the OK to control dangerous dogs, and on and on.

The fact counties must beg for permission to perform basic functions is the main reason well more than 800 amendments
weigh down the Alabama Constitution. What we have isn't a fundamental charter spelling out citizens' rights and state
government's responsibilities, but a string of statutory laws for state and local governments.

It makes for inefficient government on a grand scale. Statewide Amendment 4, for example, forces voters across the state
to weigh in on whether Blount County can prohibit any city outside the county from imposing taxes or regulations on those
who live in the county within the city's police jurisdiction. Why should voters around the state decide what happens in Blount
County? If state voters say no, Blount County officials have to start over.

Enough! Starting this election cycle, The News' editorial board will recommend "no" votes on virtually all constitutional
amendments.

The gum-up-the-works strategy worked in Louisiana, forcing the Legislature there to deal with an outmoded constitution.
We realize there could be a time down the road when an amendment is so important there's no choice but to recommend
a "yes" vote, but those instances will be rare. One time, for sure, will be if lawmakers ever put before voters a constitutional
amendment that would set up a citizens convention to draft a new state constitution.

For now, we recommend voting "no" next Tuesday on all state and local amendments.

[Syrinx]

1. I don't know what to think about amendment 3

I know our state constitution is an embarrassing monstrosity, and that we are in dire need of constitutional reform. Yet our roads and bridges could also be called accurately "an embarrassing monstrosity."

I'm not as well-informed on this as I should be. I've been nursing a few minor, but painful, health issues recently, and haven't been paying as much attention as I should.

The Tuscaloosa News says vote for it, and I usually agree with their editorial board (a notable exception being their endorsement for Richard Shelby's re-election). And the Birmingham News, as you note, says to vote no, but doesn't base that recommendation on the merits or demerits of the particular measure.

Do you, trof, have a strong opinion on amendment 3 one way or the other?