Mitch Daniels and the Indiana GOP would love to pretend that the Republican rank and file are 100% behind him and his re-election bid, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of disgruntled conservatives across the state. The sale of the Indiana Toll Road was the general equivalent of the Dubai Port Deal at a state level, and a lot of the right-wingers in the state were pissed that their man Mitch would sell a public infrastructure to a foreign consortium.

I think there is a real possibility that Miller could step in and try to get one wing of the party with his talk of fiscal change, and the other with his talk of making homosexuality the illegal act that the good book says it is.

And lets be honest here: If a constitutional convention is called, there is no way in hell that Miller doesn't bring his circus to town, with all of the hateful bells and homophobic whistles he can manage.

VERY good comment, Don. I'd like to know the answer myself. I spent a good long time looking around and couldn't find a clear answer myself and left it out because of it. Thanks for bringing it up right away.

I'm worried about Miller's true motives too, Thomas. All his literature and rallies and e-mails and appearances sure don't send the message "I'm NOT running for office."

[EDITOR'S NOTE:] I accidently deleted Don's comment. I'm recopying it here, but it will be under my name. Sorry Don!

One of the questions all of this raises is what the mechanism would be to call such a convention. Article 16 of the current constitution contains only one method: the current two-separately-elected legislatures have to pass the measure and then a popular vote. I haven't read all the other sections but don't see anything about a constitutional convention.

Interestingly enough the Indiana constitution prior to the current (1851) document had a provision saying that every twelve years the people could vote on holding one, and apparently that is how the convention that produced our current one got called. The U.S. Constitution contains two ways for it to be amended: 2/3 vote in each house of Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states, or one that ultimately involves a constitutional convention. So far as I know because of the can of worms it
would open nationally, the latter has never been used. So, back to my original question: without a provision in the current Indiana constitution, how does one get called, by who, and how does this become legitimate? I'm sure people are looking at that one. If anybody knows it would certainly be enlightening.

When this subject came up on TDW, I wrote that maybe we were making too much being worried about Miller and this constitutional convention idea. I was going to write about this on my own blog but am taking a hiatus. Points about a constitutional convention: 1) Don is correct that the 1851 Constitution does not speak of conventions and he might want to take a look at Wright v. House, 115 N.E. 943 (Ind. 1917) and Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336, 99 N.E. 1 (1912) (the last one is an amazing bit of conservative judicial activism); 2) I know Mitch talked about this when he ran last and did nothing and so why now is a good question (my own opinion varies between he has no idea of what he is talking about - his knowledge of Indiana's Constitution being shaky - to it is a red herring; and 3) in 1851 there was an election for delegates - two per county, IIRC - and just how well have Miller's candidates done in general elections where the electoral districts have not been gerrymandered? A good deal of oxes could get gored in a constitutional convention but do take a look around at other states who have changed their state constitutions more regularly than we have and you will see that the Bills of Rights do not change. I still think it is a very interesting idea and one that the progressive community ought not reject out of hand.

I have not really engaged in the debate over whether Gov. Daniels' idea for a constitutional convention is, on the whole, a good or bad idea. But I am intrigued by it. According to Constitution Making in Indiana, Vol. IV. 1930-1960, on Jan. 24, 1945, House Bill 207 was introduced to determine if a constitutional convention should be called. The bill is set forth at length and verbatim at pp. 140-149 of that book. The measure would have scheduled a referendum in Nov. 1946 to vote whether a constitutional convention should have been called in 1947. Interestingly, it forbade political parties from nominating candidates for delegates to such convention. Also from that volume it also appears that a referendum over a proposed constitutional convention was actually held in Indiana during the November 1930 election, which resulted in a vote against such a convention, with 355,546 voting in favor and 439,461 voting against.

Vol. II says there were also attempts to call conventions in 1881, 1895 and 1915, and bills providing for referenda in 1879, 1883, 1885, 1887, 1899, 1903 and 1911. A call for a constitutional convention was endorsed by both the Republican and Progressive Party platforms in 1912. The impetus for a convention that year was the attempt to gain women's suffrage. It appears there was also an actual plebiscite on calling a convention in 1914, which was defeated by a vote of 235,140 to 338,947.

Vol. III contains discussion about other attempts to call a convention in the days before the passage of the amendment giving women the right to vote. It reports on a decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in 1917, Bennett v. Jackson, 186 Ind. 533, holding that the people must vote to call a convention; one cannot be decreed by the governor or legislature.

The point is, there's lots of historical material out there for lawyers and scholars to look into with respect to the procedural requirements for calling a constitutional convention, including bills that have been introduced over the years to do just that. But it does appear that before any constitutional convention may be called, the people must first approve it by majority vote. At least that's what the Supreme Court ruled in the Bennett case in 1917, which as far as I can tell is still good law.