To comment on this issue, please see our forum

Students in Robert Benedetti's California government class at the University of the Pacific will spend the term rewriting the state's constitution. Based on what they have learned so far, the students were asked if they thought regular people would be capable of taking on this task as part of a constitutional convention, or if the job would be better handled by experts. Here are some of their responses:

Kobina Armah, 19

California's constitution is far from simple and permanent. California's state constitution is a living document, free to be changed. What remains the same throughout the constitution's existence is the power of the document. Recent events have raised questions about the constitution, and opportunities regularly arise for change. The possibility of monumental reform has caused citizens to wonder if "regular" citizens are qualified to rewrite the constitution. That question cannot be answered until it is understood what "regular" is. Who are the regular citizens of California? Is there a regular citizen in a state so diverse, large and progressive? Only when California, as a whole, can answer what a "regular" Californian is, can Californians rewrite the constitution while holding the common interests of everyone with value.

Nabeel Cajee, 21

Until I began studying California government and its constitution, I never considered what it would be like to rewrite the constitution. Now, as an aspiring college student and community activist, I hold the belief that "regular" people and experts both have seats to fill at a constitutional convention. Regular people have keen insight into the role they want government to play in the lives of the common man. It is crucial that this insight is matched with experts who can help predict the foreseeable repercussions of lawmaking. Such a partnership would lend itself further to create a more responsive and effective California Constitution.

Tara Ignont, 19

Can regular people rewrite the constitution? This depends on what your definition of a regular person is. I think that educated people are more likely to know what is going on in politics, but it is not certain. I do not believe that a regular person should be excluded from rewriting the constitution, but that there should be a mixture of people – educated and non- educated – so that they can learn from one another. A constitution is supposed to protect the rights of citizens no matter their wealth or education. People should be involved in rewriting a constitution that is supposed to protect them because they know the rights that the government has infringed upon.

Gerry Latasa, 21

I believe the the solution falls somewhere in the middle. I do not feel that constitutional changes should be decided upon by experts in a bubble. I firmly believe that the people need to have a say in how their government functions. That being said, I also realize that not all citizens of California have the background in government and politics necessary in order to properly determine what should be done with the constitution. I feel the solution lies somewhere in the middle, with both experts and regular citizens working together. Experts and regular citizens should work together to create a document that would represent all of the people, yet also be able to function. This combination would produce the best possible document.

Raymond Zulueta, 19

I believe that the citizens in California are more than qualified to rewrite the constitution. It is my view and understanding that the constitution was created in order to be the infrastructure of our state, and it would govern the way our state is run. If this view is correct, then it is apparent that all views and ideas from citizens in this state are valid and relevant.

If the rewriting of the constitution was left solely in the hands of politicians, you would see a constitution that would be very long and inefficient because there are very few times in which a bill or measure is put into play that pleases everyone. I think that our constitution is as long as it is now because politicians have to play the game where they give a little and get a little in order to get their ideas put into play. With a more direct democracy, which would allow the constitution to be changed by the common person, you would see more participation, and society would be more pleased with the decisions that were being made.