For those of you who read are or are about to read Kevin Landrigan's Sunday column in the Nashua Telegraph, beware!
Question three on tomorrow's ballot is NOT a Constitutional Amendment and does NOT require a two-thirds majority.
It asks whether voters desire a Consitutional Convention; the question must go before voters every ten years, and it requies a simply majority.
By a razor thin margin both 10 and 20 years ago, voters decided against having a ConCon. I would urge everyone to vote against it again. It would cost cities and towns hundreds of thousands of dollars (a special election would be required to select ConCon delegates) and cost the state even more than that to hold the ConCon.
The ConCon would do what the House and Senate can already do--propose Consitutional Amendments which would then have to be approved by a two-thirds majority of people voting in a future election.
However, the call for a ConCon only requires 50 percent.
I seem to recall pointing this out to Kevin when he made the mistake once before.
The reason for the misunderstanding my be that the yes and no totals were reversed in a Red Book (election results book) once thus making it seem like there was a majority of Yeses albeit not two-thirds! In fact, it was a 51-49 percent No margin!
I will be voting NO on question three.
We do not need a Consitutional Convention, and it will cost precious dollars which could be spent better (if at all) for other things.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Keith and stuff
Connect With Us