By Erin Cole

While many national pundits will be keeping score of the battle for control in the U.S. House and Senate, Election Day will also decide whether four states scrap their state constitutions and go back to the drawing board.

In Iowa, Michigan, Maryland and here in Montana, voters will decide whether to call a new state constitutional convention. It is a unique moment for so many states to be considering such a move and the first since the rise of the constitutional activism of the tea parties exploded onto the scene.

The funny thing is, contrary to what one might expect, the tea parties have remained largely silent on the issue of whether to rewrite these state constitutions.

Big Skies the Limit

Other than a handful of outspoken opponents and proponents, it’s not apparent that many Montanans know, or care about the initiative, which crops up on the state’s ballot every 20 years.

With constitutional activism at a historic high, it’s surprising that few Tea Party groups in the state have campaigned in favor of calling a constitutional convention, or con-con, as it’s known, to rewrite the constitution.

According to a report prepared by the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights,20 Tea Party groups exist in Montana, although other estimates pin the number closer to 30. Their loose affiliation might come into play when considering the lack of con-con promotion.

Montana’s tea party groups find some of their richest sources of members in its Tractor Country counties in the eastern expanse of the state as well as the smattering of rural areas west of the Continental Divide.

In an e-mail, Grace Larson, organizer for the Rosebud County Tea Party Patriots in eastern Montana, said she is “in favor of a Constitutional Convention mainly because the way this one is written, it favors the environmentalists.”

The constitution’s “clean and healthful” environment provision, as well as its firm stance on the reclamation of lands disturbed for the gain of natural resources, has been a sore spot for conservatives.

A Constitutional hippiefest

Brian Schoof, of the Custer Country Patriots, feels that these provisions are some of the most undermining points of the constitution.

“It’s vague, open to a lot of interpretation and was written by a bunch of 1960s hippies,” he said. “It’s not a good constitution.”

Schoof favors the 1889 constitution, which he said was “written for the individual” whereas “the 1972 one is for the masses.” 

Because he is running for the Montana House of Representatives, Schoof said he hasn’t had time to actively campaign on the issue. And that may be the story out here. If you look at the Patchwork Nation analysis of tea party meetups between July and October, there simply have not been any. Zero. The tea party folks, while supportive, have been careful not to get too involved. 

In fact, the constitutional convention’s biggest proponent is not a tea party member, but a Bozeman accountant. State Sen. Joe Balyeat (R) contributed to the official voter pamphlet in favor of the con-con. Many of the faults he finds with the current constitution pertain to economics.

 “When Montana’s expansive constitution is placed in the hands of our overzealous courts,” Balyeat wrote, “the net result is assault with a deadly weapon on Montana’s economy and jobs.”

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Unlike Balyeat, Fritz Snyder, a professor at the University of Montana School of Law, feels Montana’s economy is doing fine, as is its constitution. Speaking earlier this month at a symposium on the subject in Missoula, Snyder also cautioned against the expense of holding another convention. The 1972 convention, according to Fritz, cost $650,000, which in today’s dollars would amount to $3.4 million.

“Furthermore, if another constitutional convention were to be convened, there’s no guarantee that the resulting constitution would be passed by the voters,” he said. “In fact, more often than not, proposed constitutions do not pass.”

But even more than the cost, there is the innate fear of calling the convention, political scientist James Lopach recently told the Community News Service.

“Those who follow political issues and know what it’s about believe that neither political side is willing to risk opening up this Pandora’s box of issues,” he says.

Constitutional Endurance

The situation is not much different in the other states considering the call of the con-con. This year marks the first time that four states have dealt with the issue at the same time, a political phenomenon that won’t happen again until 2090, but only one seems to be truly considering the proposition and there it is not Sarah Palin, but Vatican that may be pushing the hardest.

The discussion in the state of Iowa has taken on real intensity due to the state’s 2009 legalization of same-sex marriage. The Iowa Catholic Conference has backed the call for a convention. Unlike Montana’s Tractor Country which is conservative, but largely pragmatic, Iowa has a large number of Emptying Nests along its northern half. These communities are more traditional and concern about gay marriage in these places could drive a fair amount of turnout to defend the traditions these older voters prize. In 2008, when we first started following Sioux Center, a Tractor Country in northwestern Iowa, social issues like gay marriage were always key to voter interest.

But the Dubuque Herald-Telegraph editorialized this month, pleading, “Iowa has managed nicely for 90 years without a constitutional convention. Surely, the state can continue to seek political solutions that don't involve opening up this can of worms.”

The last state constitutional convention was held was in 1984 in Rhode Island.  Only today's results will reveal if 2011 will call for more.

Erin Cole is a journalism student at the University of Montana.