Question 1 on the Nov. 5 ballot will ask voters to approve calling a state constitutional convention. Arguably, this may be the most consequential question on the ballot. A state constitution provides the foundation of Rhode Island’s political system and powers of government. It protects the people in their exercise of civil liberties, defines the powers of government, and creates permanent government institutions.

Proponents of a convention contend that it is needed to enhance basic rights and provide for more accountable and transparent government. They suggest that a convention might review such topics as making access to equal educational opportunities an enforceable constitutional right, reforming the electoral process to encourage participation and reduce voter suppression, and numerous reforms to enhance governmental accountability.

More: Taking sides: Where do RI leaders stand on constitutional convention question?

Opposition to a constitutional convention emanates from a well-funded coalition of progressive groups led by the AFL-CIO, the ACLU, and others . They believe that a convention imposes a threat to civil liberties, and is subject to the influence of out-of-state money, and that a more efficient and economical way exists to address constitutional matters.

The claim that a constitutional convention could roll back civil rights may be overstated. Adding to or modifying constitutional rights requires a vote of the people. It cannot be done solely by the delegates to a convention. For example, while the last constitutional convention proposed a “right to life“ amendment to limited abortions, it was rejected by 66% of voters. Sen. Sam Zurier opined that the 1986 convention’s “approval of ethics reform and shoreline access rights are probably viewed as a victory for civil rights and government reform.”

The civil rights issue of our time is access to equal educational opportunities. In Rhode Island this will require making education an enforceable constitutional right. The General Assembly has refused to put this matter before the people.

Rhode Island has two pathways to amend and revise the state constitution. One is for the legislature to propose amendments and submit them to the electorate. The second is for a convention, called by voters, to place amendments on the ballot.

Experience suggests, as opponents to the convention contend, having the General Assembly submit proposed amendments directly to the people is theoretically the most direct route for revising the constitution. For example, during the 1990s, legislatively initiated amendments resulted in voter approval of landmark constitutional reforms. The terms of the governor and general officers were lengthened from two to four years, and term limits imposed. The membership of the General Assembly was reduced, legislative compensation was modernized and pensions eliminated. The method of selecting judges was reformed. State spending was restricted to 97% of revenues and a budget reserve account was mandated. Finally, a separation of powers amendment was approved.

Unfortunately, over the last two decades the General Assembly has not addressed urgent constitutional concerns. If elected representatives will not deal with compelling constitutional issues, the only alternative is for the people to exercise their prerogative of voting to call a constitutional convention. However, to be successful a convention must be organized to operate in an accountable and transparent fashion, limiting the State House political influence that impacted the 1986 convention.

Holding a constitution convention may be the only practical option the people have to make education an enforceable right for all kids, and enhance governmental accountability so political cronyism, incompetence and failed leadership do not lead to another Washington Bridge-type fiasco.

Convening a constitutional convention may be indispensable to restoring confidence in our democratic institutions, protecting basic rights and achieving better government.