In early January of 1972 – 50 years ago – Lt. Governor Frank Wenstrom rapped the gavel to launch one of the most unique events in North Dakota history – the holding of a convention to update the state’s constitution. The only one since 1889.

Before him were 98 delegates, two from each legislative district, a cadre of public-minded individuals – a dozen legislators, business folks, social workers, lawyers, former judges, and a host of community leaders, two-thirds Republicans and one-third Democrats.

Most of those delegates are gone now. Only a few of the younger ones are still around.

The convention proposed a wide assortment of changes, all defeated when the constitution was rejected by a vote of 64,000 to 108,000.

The proposal to change from a two-house legislature to a unicameral legislature, voted on separately, lost 48,000 to 109,000.

Among the proposals were: making the state auditor accountable to the legislature as “auditor general”; reducing the number of elected state officials from 14 to seven; abolishing the biennial 60-day legislative session for a flexible 80-day session, increasing terms for house members to four years; making 18-year-olds eligible to serve in the legislature.

Requiring open sessions of the legislature; limiting state government to 15 agencies; giving governor the item veto on appropriation bills; requiring governor to assign work to lieutenant governor; unification of the judicial system; change the initiative and referendum to a percentage of the population instead of a fixed number.

Authorizing home rule for cities and counties; create a state board of public education; increase the board of higher education from seven to nine; guaranteed everyone a healthy environment; develop in a code of ethics; make state and local governments subject to lawsuits and make 18-year-olds adults for all purposes.

Even though the proposed constitution lost by a great margin, many of the provisions were presented piece meal in following elections and were adopted, the 80-day flexible legislative session being the most obvious.

A lesson learned was that the citizenry is unable to consider the broad brush of constitutional revision. Too many provisions presented too many different issues at the same time – one vote on the whole package.

When we were developing the model home rule charters in 1970, we started to build the structure of the government. But then we realized that the document with most of city and county government would be difficult to communicate so we changed strategy and gave all home rule powers to the cities and counties to sort out.

Opposition to the proposed constitution came primarily from organized labor and right-wing extremists. They teamed up to distribute thousands of flyers, painting the new constitution as the end of the state.

Even though one-third of the convention voted to eliminate the anti-union provisions, effort didn’t count. The president of the AFL-CIO said they would kill this one and get a better constitution in 10 years. The attitude of the state toward organized labor has, regrettably, not changed.

As for the far-right, their concern was the increased bonding capacity of the state and local governments. Besides, they always populated the “status quo” element that has plagued the state from the very beginning.

No lobbyists were around to pedal contrary provisions. A few of the delegates were influenced by their own occupations and experiences, but the deliberations were open, honest and free. A mutual respect prevailed in the committees and general sessions.

Considering the variety of issues that could have been divisive, the convention came to a remarkable conclusion: 94 of the 98 delegates gave their signatures to the final document. The Constitution of the United States did not have such support on final passage.

This convention could not be held today. Everything has become partisan, whether it is partisan or not. We no longer have the mutual respect required for civil and successful discussion.