Source: http://www.lwvil.org/ConCon_Con.html
Issues Briefing 2008 featured a panel discussing the pros and cons of having a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). Unfortunately, the unexpected death of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn's father prevented his attendance and presentation of the pro side. Former State Representative Nancy Kaszak had previously debated Lt. Gov. Quinn on the need for a constitutional convention at the Illinois Municipal League. She presented numerous arguments in opposition to those in support of a Constitutional Convention.
Kaszak commended the LWVIL for being a leader in 1988 in opposing the call for a Constitutional Convention that won 75% of the vote. Twenty-seven states currently have commissions that review the Constitution and recommend updates. She suggested the League oppose this call to Convention for three reasons:
Issues often raised as reasons for a Con-Con to which Kaszak responded include:
Other concerns are that Illinois has a broader Bill of Rights protecting more people in more situations that the U.S. Bill of Rights, and Con-Con could result in changes that would restrict civil liberties. The cost of Con-Con is estimated to be about $100 million with no defined funding source in a state already in debt. Also, Con-Con could eliminate pensions or reduce current funding obligations.
In conclusion, Kaszak suggested there is a need for new courageous leaders, not a new Constitution. Kaszak opined, “Con-Con risks making things more difficult for our most vulnerable citizens.”
Moderator Paul Green, a professor at Roosevelt University, provided some background information on the issues for a possible Con-Con. The League thanks him for his insight and willingness to moderate.
Several League members asked if the Constitution could be amended to restore a balance of power, but the Constitution merely provides a framework and basic rules. Con-Con is unlikely to solve issues, and Green commented that “It would be a mistake to throw more oil on a fire of incompetence.” Several League members suggested that mandatory voter initiatives are very empowering to voters and represent a serious commitment to good government.
Each local League should have a copy of the Illinois Constitution (found in the Illinois Handbook of Government) and the excellent LWVIL Constitutional Convention Study Guide prepared by the committee. While the history of the 1970 Constitution is fascinating, Leagues need to focus on the future as they prepare to answer the single question asked: Should the League of Women Voters of Illinois support or oppose the call for a state constitutional convention?
Source: http://www.smilepolitely.com/opinion/2008/06/why-an-illinois-constitutional.php
Posted to Opinion by Abram Book. Monday, June 23, 2008 11:00 AM
In accordance with state law, a provision must appear on the Illinois general election ballot every 20 years asking voters whether or not to call a constitutional convention. That question will be on the ballot this year, but do not expect it to receive the 60 percent affirmative vote that it needs in order to trigger a call.
Business and civic organizations across the state are mobilizing against holding a Con Con, arguing that holding one in the midst of such a poisoned political atmosphere in Springfield could produce a document worse than what we already have.
The League of Women Voters recently announced on its web site that it would not be supporting a convention call, and other notable organizations have done the same. The Teachers Retirement System of Illinois, The Illinois Education Association, and the Illinois Federation of Teachers have all argued against a convention — all citing concerns that a call could result in current pension protections guaranteed by the current constitution being minimized or eliminated completely from a new one.
In addition, 1970 convention delegates and constitutional experts have noted that there has been no significant preparation or in-depth study done on the benefits and drawbacks to holding a constitutional convention in 2010. Preparatory work began nearly two years in advance of the 1970 convention, and Governor Jim Thompson commissioned “The Group of 50” to study a potential Con Con in 1990 (the provision was voted down on the 1988 ballot by almost 3–1). The lack of significant study ahead of November’s vote has scared off a number of constitution scholars and experts from supporting a call.
Though costs for a convention are difficult to determine — most estimates fall between $50–80 million — a sum that even some Con Con proponents admit is a significant commitment for a cash-strapped state. The 1970 convention cost Illinois approximately $14 million, a figure that, when adjusted for inflation, would equal about $78 million in today’s dollars. Concerns over how delegates would be elected, how they would be compensated and the amount of time that would be needed to produce a new constitutional document — all of which affect cost — are contributing to a general feeling of apprehension toward a Con Con.
The main issue driving convention proponents seems to be the need for some kind of a recall election system. Proponents have tried to capitalize on the public’s overwhelming dissatisfaction about Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s job performance to push the issue, but opponents don’t seem convinced that the state needs a convention in order to get recall. Judicial recall seems to be particularly controversial. One law professor expressed concern about it, saying that most voters do not understand legal precedent, which could potentially create a situation in which a judge could be recalled simply for making a sound legal decision that for whatever reason is unpopular with voters.
An intangible factor also working against a Con Con is that Illinoisans are simply not used to voting on ballot provisions. While Californians are used to voting on between a half dozen and twenty provisions in any given election cycle, Illinois voters simply are not used to voting on ballot provisions beyond the symbolic ones on the local level. As evidence, one need look no further than the last constitutional convention vote in 1988, where more Illinoisans opted not even to vote on the convention question than voted in its favor.
The Obama effect on a convention vote remains to be seen. His “change” constituency could see a constitutional convention as a practical way to give a new generation of Illinoisans a new start — or they could be so caught up in the fervor of voting for Obama that they forget the provision is even on the ballot.
There are certainly factors that could work in Con Con’s favor, one of which is Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn. Quinn is probably the most vocal supporter of a constitutional convention, and if he were to throw significant weight behind the idea, it could have some traction headed into November. Also, if a visible figure with a few million dollars to burn (such as a Jim Oberweis or a Blair Hull) wanted to make Con Con a pet project, that could give it some momentum as well.
The Illinois Citizens Coalition, which supports a convention call, has tried to educate voters on the need for a convention, and has even produced a sample constitution. The Coalition’s founders, Chicago attorney Bruno Behrend and Champaign radio show host John Bambenek, say that people are more receptive to the idea of a constitution the more they hear about it.
Unfortunately for the ICC, it appears that the Con Con naysayers will win out this time.
Source: http://crazypolitics.blogspot.com/2008/09/illinois-constitutional-convention.html
Coming up on November 4th is a chance for Illinois voters to call a Constitutional Convention for the state.
Jesse White, the Secretary of State sent out a pamphlet that everyone should have gotten, explaining why this is on the ballot, and what happens if the voters call for a convention. It also contains some pros and cons of holding the convention. I'll list them here for you, then comment.
The Pro Convention arguements:
1. A constitutional convention allows delegates to consider important substantive issues that have failed to advance in the legislative process. 2. Changes to our state and local governments are best addressed by delegates elected solely to review the Constitution. 3. A constitutional convention would provide the first comprehensive review of the Illinois Constitution since its adoption in 1970. 4. Any proposed changes to the Constitution must be ratified by the voters before they become effective.
The Against arguements:
1. A constitutional convention could cost as much as $78 million. 2. The current Illinois Constitution could be changed without a constitutional convention, and in fact has been changed 10 times since the last convention. 3. A constitutional convention could be controlled by special interest groups and lobbyists, and there is no way to limit the issues discussed. 4. A convention could threaten the economy by creating an unstable business climate.
Every one of the arguements on both sides is legitimate, however a few are missing. In fact, if you put #5 on the arguements for a convention, it would require only two words Emil Jones. While we have made some changes over the last 38 years to the current Constitution, the truth is nothing of substance in it will change with the current leadership in our legislature.
Item 4 is the most important, no matter what a convention comes up with, the people still have to approve it.
Arguement 3 against the convention, that special interests might control the convention is really a moot point. If we've learned anything over the last 6 years in this state it's that our government is already controlled by them. How many lobbyists, and 'friends' of our politicians, and politicians have ended up in jail because they were scratching each others backs. Yes, there will be groups that lobby to have parts of their agenda included or to get someone elses excluded from the new document. Guess what, that happened when the original US Constitution was written.
Illinois needs some true reform. Our school funding method is completely disfunctional, the make up of our local governments needs to be consolidated, and transportation funding needs to have some sort of strength behind it, instead of being at the whim of a few legislators.
The current State Senate and Assembly have proven totally inept, and unable to handle any of those reforms, so the best alternative is to rewrite the State Constitution to force certain actions to happen. If legislators are incapable of doing their job, the great thing about our country is that “we the people” can find ways to make it happen anyway.
Will it be expensive? Probably, but it will most likely cost less than the free rides the Governor is giving away on the transit systems. Will there be some ugly fights about content, yes. But an open debate at both a convention, and afterwards when things need to be ratified would be welcome.
What we can't do is sit around and wait for Emil Jones and his cronies to do something. As the current fight over ethics legislation has shown, Jones isn't about doing the right thing, he's about doing what best for him politically.
Source: http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1221703,101508convention.article
October 15, 2008 By Maura Possley, Staff WRiter
Under the swirl of political fever this fall is a question that will come at the top of ballots Nov. 4: Should we make changes to the state constitution?
But some voters are finding themselves on political overload, with most of their time spent following the historic, marathon presidential race.
“To be honest, I didn't realize you could make changes,” said Park Forest resident Randy Warren.
“This is something that's just bubbling to the surface,” said business coach Mike Davis, of Chicago's Hyde Park community. “Certainly it's an issue that shouldn't be taken lightly.”
Warren and Davis, like others, are finding ways to inform themselves before heading to the polls. Tuesday, that was at the Chicago Southland Chamber of Commerce regional consensus lunch in Tinley Park.
“Either way it goes, it will have a critical impact on Illinois,” said Lisa Zeigler, president and chief executive officer of the chamber, which has yet to come down against or in favor of the convention. “We only have every 20 years to do this.”
The last convention was held in 1970. The idea must be approved by a majority of voters. If it passes, two delegates from each of the state's senate districts are elected to propose changes to the constitution, which must be approved by voters.
It's not a good idea, said attorney Wayne Whalen, a delegate to the last convention, at the chamber event.
One reason is to protect government employee pensions that could see changes to their benefits if amendments targeted pensions, Whalen said.
“Those benefits could be changed as we've seen happen in private industry,” he told the crowd of about 80 people.
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, a staunch supporter of convening over the constitution, was set to rebut Whalen at the event at the Holiday Inn but was unable to attend.
“There are different challenges for our time, and the constitution needs to stay current with the times,” Quinn said later Tuesday in a telephone call. “Constitutionally mandated ethics in our state - we don't have it. We've had one political scandal after the other. It's high time that we have that in Illinois.”
Other issues that might arise at a convention, Whalen and Quinn said, include property tax reform to reconfigure how the education system is funded, recall of elected officials, home rule for municipalities, redistricting of House and Senate seat boundaries, electing or appointing judges.
“You spend a lot of time on these separate propositions when maybe what we should be doing is focusing on getting the very best people in the legislature,” Whalen said. “To get good people there and they would act according to their judgment, that would be a wonderful thing.”
The cost of a convention depends on who you ask. Whalen said a $70 million to $80 million figure came from the University of Illinois, but Quinn said the state's legislative reference unit puts the figure at much less, between $14 million to $23 million.
Maureen Kelly, chamber vice chair of government affairs, said cost isn't figuring into her decision. Right now, she's leaning toward voting for a convention.
She can't find a reason more important than how to fix the education system.
“I don't think (cost) is a good enough argument against education, which is so important,” she said. “I hope everybody picks up the newspaper because it's going to affect our state for years to come.”
Source: http://www.lwvil.org/SBR_Dec07/SBRConConArticle120907.pdf
by Sharon Z. Alter, LWVIL Con-Con Study Committee Co-Chair
On Election Day November 2008, as required by the Illinois Constitution every 20 years, Illinois voters will vote on whether to have another state constitutional convention.
A convention will take place if voters give their approval either by a 3/5 majority of those voting on the question or by a majority of all voters in the election.
The issues to be considered at a state convention are to be determined by the delegates themselves at the convention. This means that neither the November 2008 voters nor the state legislators nor any elected executive or judicial officers can limit the state convention to a particular issue or issues or a limited number of issues.
As one considers how to vote in November 2008, it is very important for all Illinois voters to know that a constitution is the means by which the people give government the power to govern. In doing so, a constitution divides power among the various branches of government and among the levels of government while reserving certain powers and guaranteeing certain rights to the people.
While a constitution provides the basic government framework and guarantees basic individual rights, a constitution is not self-enforcing. Legislation is needed to provide the details and the enforcement powers.
If November 2008 Illinois voters were to approve having a constitutional convention, delegates to that convention could consider a wide spectrum of issues that include: (1) separation of church and state; (2) death penalty; (3) gun control; (4) abortion; (5) samesex marriage; (6) stem cell research; (7) definition of person; (8) term limits for elected officials; (9) recall of elected officials; (10) amendatory veto power of governor; (11) merit selection of state judges; (12) home rule; (13) eminent domain; (14) education funding; (15) graduated income tax.
If there were to be a state constitutional convention considering these and other issues, convention delegates could draft an entirely new state constitution and/or draft new constitutional amendments, all of which would be subject to ratification by Illinois voters.
Ratification would occur with approval by a simple majority of those voting on the proposed constitution/amendment.
In the question of whether to support Con-Con, one must consider the extent of (1) the need to improve the Illinois Constitution, (2) the urgency to institute multiple reforms simultaneously, and (3) the potential to achieve piecemeal change through the current amendment process. Such a review must balance the anticipated benefits from rewriting specific articles by a convention against the potential risks involved in exposing the entire constitution to revision.
It is imperative that as many League members as possible participate in their local league consensus meetings which will be held between late February and early April. League members will consider their Con-Con positions with assistance from a study guide compiled by the 2007-8 LWVIL Con-Con Study Committee. Materials will also be available on the LWVIL web site after January 31, 2008. The LWVIL Issues Briefing on
February 23, 2008 will include a session on Con-Con.
The Illinois Constitution can be found in The Handbook of Illinois Government available from the Illinois Secretary of State’s office or online at ilga.gov.