THE CALIFORNIA Journal of Politics & Policy Commentary Constitutional Reform, Yes; Constitutional Convention, No Robert W. Naylor* Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller and Naylor Someone should survey the people who favor a con- stitutional convention to find out if there is any agreement whatsoever on what the convention should do. My guess: opinion would be badly splintered. Everyone agrees that the current system is broken, dis- credited, dysfunctional. But if we get several hundred Cal- ifornians in a room, whether elected or chosen at random, what makes us think they will be able to agree on a reform package? Or if they do, that it will make enough sense for the public to support at the ballot box? www.bepress.com/cjpp Volume 2, Issue 2 , 2010 It is even possible, if not likely, that they will have a harder time agreeing on sensible solutions than the legisla- ture everyone likes to complain about. There are also some significant risks (not present in the regular initiative process) in using a constitutional conven- tion, operating by majority vote, as the means to constitu- tional reform: 1. Runaway convention. The convention delegate mix could be skewed away from balanced representation of the interests of the state. If it were a cross section of the kinds of activists who show up to partisan conventions—and remembering that by definition, they will be people who have no accountability to anyone for the decisions they make (other than their handy work can be defeated in the election)—it is not hard to visualize a far left or far right group hijacking the process. *Robert Naylor is a partner in the law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller and Naylor and served as M i nority Leader of the California Assembly and Chair of the California Republican Party.