Source: http://www.lwvil.org/ConCon_Pro.html
By the Decatur Herald and Review Editorial Staff, June 19, 2007
IT'S NOT too early for Illinois voters to start thinking about approving a state constitutional convention at the polls in November 2008.
The state asks voters every 20 years if they would like to hold a constitutional convention to consider changes to the state's top legal document. If the measure is approved in the 2008 election, the convention would be held in 2010 with delegates elected from districts to consider changes. The last time the measure went on the ballot, in 1998, it failed by a 3-1 margin.
At that time, almost every politically powerful group in the state - business leaders, organized labor leaders and elected officials - opposed the idea of holding a state constitutional convention.
It will be interesting to see their opinions in 2008. The chief proponent of the last try at a constitutional convention was Patrick Quinn, who is now the state's lieutenant governor. Although we question Quinn's stance on many issues, he was certainly a man ahead of his time in this debate. Quinn suggested that a constitutional convention be held to address giving voters the right to recall officeholders, reform property tax law, require election of Illinois Commerce Commission members and impose stronger ethics laws. Not all of those ideas are necessarily winners, but it's also interesting to note that none of those issues has been adequately addressed in the last 20 years.
It's clear that Illinois state government needs to be reformed. It's also clear that elected leaders do not have the willpower to impose any meaningful reforms. If they were going to do anything, they'd have done it in the last 20 years.
Here's an early list of issues that a constitutional convention could address:
There are plenty of other possible issues that a constitutional convention could address. We expect that political leaders will try to assure voters that changes in the constitution aren't necessary. But it's clear that our political leaders are not willing to address meaningful reform. If Illinois voters want a government they can trust, they will have a chance in November 2008 to set that process in motion.
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.
Governor Rod Blagojevich has done something remarkable in Illinois. He has managed to unite people across the political spectrum to create consensus that he absolutely stinks as a governor. Illinois deserves better than Rod Blagojevich.
Because of his low approval in both parties and the budget fiasco of last year, legislators (even those in his own party) are talking about amending the constitution to allow recall votes of sitting politicians. The timing for such talk is opportune because on the November ballot this year there will be a question on whether to have a constitutional convention for Illinois to rewrite or amend the state constitution.
The ability to throw a politician out of office after he or she has be shown unwilling or unable to govern according to the public interest is popular among the voters and is growing popular among politicians who want to take revenge against Blagojevich. Yet a convention should include more than just recalls. While throwing public officials out of office that has shown themselves to be a complete failure is a good start, revising the constitution should produce an overall solid framework for good governance.
There are many good reforms that should be considered and factor into a complete rewriting of the Illinois Constitution. The practice of gerrymandering needs to be eliminated. There are disturbingly few uncompetitive races throughout the state. Democrats have their seats, Republicans have theirs and often they do not even try to compete for the other party’s turf. Politicians should not be able to choose their voters; it should be the other way around. Take a look at the map of Illinois Congressional District 4 to see how ridiculous gerrymandered maps can be.
Along with gerrymandering, it is time to consider term limits for every elected and appointed office in the state. Far too many politicians rule “for life” without any real means for the voters to make them responsive to their needs. Every elected office on all levels should be limited to a maximum of 2 terms or 8 years. Likewise, appointed officials who hold a great amount of power who are not directly accountable to the people need to have their terms of office limited as well.
Open ballot access should be implemented. Every person should have equal ballot access regardless of political affiliation or non-affiliation and a true democracy requires nothing less. The freedom to vote does not mean much if there is no real choice. Independents and third-parties often have to get over 10 times the amount of signatures as established parties do. This system has led the federal courts to repeatedly rule against our election system.
Citizens should be allowed to put binding referenda on the ballot. When state lawmakers refuse or are unable to come up with solutions to problems, the citizens should have a means to bring them up directly. Such referenda, to be effective, need to be binding and not subject to overturning except in rare circumstances.
There are those who are against a constitutional convention because they think the current constitution is fine. To show how the current constitution is not “good enough”, take a look at Article VIII Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution which requires that the budget for the state be balanced.
Yet, according to the Commercial Club of Chicago, a prominent business group, the State of Illinois is in about $106 billion worth of debt. Being thoroughly disabused of the notion that a balanced budget requirement in the Illinois Constitution has produced a balanced budget, we can go forward with discussing rewriting the document.
This November, the citizens of Illinois have a great opportunity to take bake their government from the corrupt and entrenched politicians who rule with their “pay-to-play” politics. A convention, however, should not touch on solitary reforms but to reform the entire constitution to create a foundation and framework for good governance in Illinois. Illinois deserves better than this.
Source: http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/can-can-you-vote-for-con-con-in-2008.html
If the General Assembly can’t break the deadlock on education funding reform, ethics and property tax relief, then the Illinois voters should be encouraged to support the call for a constitutional convention, possibly changing the state document and making that reform happen. That’s what 48 representatives approved Thursday morning before the House and Senate finished their first, three-day week of overtime session. The House won’t be back in the Capitol until the June 12, the Senate June 14, much to the dismay of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. His administration repeated its belief that lawmakers should work all week every week until they agree on a state budget before the next fiscal year starts July 1.
The stalemate over the FY08 budget is just one example of the General Assembly’s inability to resolve some major policy issues.
In 2008, voters will be asked on the ballot whether Illinois should call another constitutional convention, last held in 1970. The existing state constitution requires the question to be on the ballot every 20 years. The last time was in 1988, when the call for a “con con” was soundly defeated by more than 1.8 million votes, said Cris Cray, legislative liaison with the Illinois State Board of Elections. Rep. John Fritchey hopes voters are frustrated enough to reconsider this time around.
His measure approved Thursday encourages Illinois voters to support the 2008 question and lists education funding, ethics and property taxes as issues unable to be resolved the General Assembly. The Chicago Democrat said during debate that a convention would allow the opportunity to reconsider whether the constitution should be changed to address those and other stubborn policy issues. “It’s about putting a room full of people in here that are going to put policy and intellect over election cycles, over politics, over campaign funding,” he said.
He gained support from Republicans, including his co-sponsor Rep. Bill Black of Danville, who said it’s time for the public to finally have a say in education funding reform. Because, he said, the other way to establish a major policy change, through legislation seeking a constitutional amendment, typically gets stuck in the legislative process.
Such opponents as House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie of Chicago and Assistant Majority Leader Lou Lang of Skokie don’t like the idea of opening up the entire state document to change. “I think there’s a big risk in saying, ‘Let’s throw the whole thing open. Let’s start from scratch,’” Currie said. “We don’t need to start from scratch” because the General Assembly has a “good, sound” document to guide its operations. Lang added that a convention would invite all types of groups with specific agendas to cause “mischief” in altering the framework of the constitution.
Forty-seven House members rejected Fritchey’s measure, but it had enough votes to be adopted.
Shortly after lawmakers left town for the weekend, the governor led the third overtime meeting with the four legislative leaders. But his “speechmaking” and “nebulous talking” isn’t getting them closer to a budget agreement, according to Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson per his spokeswoman, Patty Schuh.
Blagojevich sent out Deputy Gov. Sheila Nix to address reporters again after the meeting. She said he wants property tax relief, that he’s willing to consider different approaches and that he plans to bring in Cook County Assessor Jim Houlihan into next week’s leaders’ meeting.
This morning in the mail I received a brochure from the Illinois Secretary of State’s office on the proposition that will be on the ballot in November on a proposal for a constitutional convention. In Illinois such a proposal must be voted on by the electorate every twenty years. The last time we voted on the proposal in 1988 it was rejected. I suspect it will be this time, too.
Illinois is in truly desparate need of constitutional reform and the only way that’s likely to happen is through a constitutional convention. Illinois’s politics is dysfunctional and corrupt. In just my lifetime four governors have been jailed for corruption after serving their terms as governor and we bid fair for a fifth. The state legislature, completely dominated in both houses by Democrats, is immobile due to feuds and factions within the Democratic Party.
Here in Illinois the state’s share of funding for public schools is one of the lowest in the nation. This is manifestly unjust and unfair. Rich districts prosper; poor districts languish. Anyone who drives to or from Illinois into any adjoining state can’t help but be struck by the low standard of maintenance of our highways relative to those in neighboring states. Our governor, who has been named several times in ongoing federal corruption investigations, keeps proposing expensive new programs while no one has yet devised a method for paying for the programs already in place.
In Illinois state and local public employee pension plans have constitutional force; this hasn’t stopped the governor from raiding those plans in pursuit of money to further his goals. One way or another the money will need to be paid back and this is a pretty darned bad time for the state to be looking around for credit to satisfy its commitments.
Property taxes and sales taxes are about tapped out as revenue sources and there’s no will to raise the state income tax rate.
For practical purposes Illinois has neither the initiative, the referendum, nor recall. The initiative we have is limited. Here’s the relevant language:
Amendments to Article IV of this Constitution may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal in number to at least eight percent of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election. Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.
Article IV refers to the legislature. Consequently, introducing any checks on the legislature by the people must be pass by the legislature itself.
If I were to wish for a single change to the Illinois Constitution it would be requirement, similar to the one in place in Missouri, under which any attempt by the state to raise revenue must be submitted to a popular vote.
But I’ll never get that or any other reform in Illinois without a constitutional convention and even then it would be a long shot since most of those who’d attend such a convention would undoubtedly be members of the current legislature.
After November I expect that the Democratic majority will have an even tighter grip on the reins of power than they do now. How we’ll prevent the Illinois House and Senate from becoming the Chicago City Council writ large I have no idea.
Source: http://conconillinois.com/YES (There's also a video on the homepage of this website about the Constitutional Convention.)
Three reasons United Power For Action and Justice supports a “yes” vote on November 4, 2008, to require a new Constitutional Convention for Illinois:
A “yes” vote will send a clear message to the governor and legislature and state bureaucrats that “business as usual” in Springfield is no longer acceptable to the citizenry of Illinois. We feel that a “yes” vote on having a Constitutional Convention will send that message, while a “no” vote will send the message that things are basically fine.
A “yes” vote will give the citizens of Illinois an opportunity to go beyond “the usual suspects” and elect a group of thoughtful, independent citizen- delegates to consider structural changes in how “business as usual” is conducted in Springfield.
A “yes” vote will demonstrate our belief in democracy. We should not bow to the “politics of fear” that says voters are not to be trusted and might support the wrong things. If we have a constitutional convention and don’t like the results, we can still vote down any changes that are proposed.
Here are three examples of things a constitutional convention might be able to accomplish:
Restructure our tax system. Poor and moderate-income people in Illinois actually pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes in Illinois than those with higher incomes, and corporations pay among the lowest corporate taxes in the nation. There is also an increasingly unhealthy dependence on property taxes, sales taxes, casino/lottery revenue in Illinois that is both inequitable and counterproductive. The delegates to a Constitutional Convention could address these issues in a fair and effective manner, without having to bow to the paid lobbyists.
Reorder our funding priorities. A Constitutional Convention would allow us to insist that certain priorities—including health care, education, public transportation, and public employee pensions—be funded by elected state officials before the legislature is allowed to spend money on legislative perks, corporate subsidies and “pork” projects.
Restrict the ability of public officials to assure their own reelection and control the election of others. A Constitutional Convention could limit the terms of some elected or appointed public officials, allow for the merit selection of judges, and reform our campaign contribution practices, which are among the worst in the nation.
There are other issues a constitutional convention might address. It would be up to the delegates who were elected. Remember, however, that whatever they propose would have to be put to a vote in any case.
Written by John Bambenek Friday, 25 January 2008 16:29
Governor Rod Blagojevich has done something remarkable in Illinois. He has managed to unite people across the political spectrum to create consensus that he absolutely stinks as a governor. Illinois deserves better than Rod Blagojevich.
Because of his low approval in both parties and the budget fiasco of last year, legislators (even those in his own party) are talking about amending the constitution to allow recall votes of sitting politicians. The timing for such talk is opportune because on the November ballot this year there will be a question on whether to have a constitutional convention for Illinois to rewrite or amend the state constitution.
The ability to throw a politician out of office after he or she has be shown unwilling or unable to govern according to the public interest is popular among the voters and is growing popular among politicians who want to take revenge against Blagojevich. Yet a convention should include more than just recalls. While throwing public officials out of office that has shown themselves to be a complete failure is a good start, revising the constitution should produce an overall solid framework for good governance.
There are many good reforms that should be considered and factor into a complete rewriting of the Illinois Constitution. The practice of gerrymandering needs to be eliminated. There are disturbingly few uncompetitive races throughout the state. Democrats have their seats, Republicans have theirs and often they do not even try to compete for the other party's turf. Politicians should not be able to choose their voters; it should be the other way around. Take a look at the map of Illinois Congressional District 4 to see how ridiculous gerrymandered maps can be.
Along with gerrymandering, it is time to consider term limits for every elected and appointed office in the state. Far too many politicians rule “for life” without any real means for the voters to make them responsive to their needs. Every elected office on all levels should be limited to a maximum of 2 terms or 8 years. Likewise, appointed officials who hold a great amount of party who are not directly accountable to the people need to have their terms of office limited as well.
Open ballot access should be implemented. Every person should have equal ballot access regardless of political affiliation or non-affiliation and a true democracy requires nothing less. The freedom to vote does not mean much if there is no real choice. Independents and third-parties often have to get over 10 times the amount of signatures as established parties do. This system has led the federal courts to repeatedly rule against our election system.
Citizens should be allowed to put binding referenda on the ballot. When state lawmakers refuse or are unable to come up with solutions to problems, the citizens should have a means to bring them up directly. Such referenda, to be effective, need to be binding and not subject to overturning except in rare circumstances.
There are those who are against a constitutional convention because they think the current constitution is fine. To show how the current constitution is not “good enough”, take a look at Article VIII Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution which requires that the budget for the state be balanced.
Yet, according to the Commercial Club of Chicago, a prominent business group, the State of Illinois is in about $106 billion worth of debt. Being thoroughly disabused of the notion that a balanced budget requirement in the Illinois Constitution has produced a balanced budget, we can go forward with discussing rewriting the document.
This November, the citizens of Illinois have a great opportunity to take bake their government from the corrupt and entrenched politicians who rule with their “pay-to-play” politics. A convention, however, should not touch on solitary reforms but to reform the entire constitution to create a foundation and framework for good governance in Illinois. Illinois deserves better than this.
Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/1213001,CST-EDT-miller10.article
October 10, 2008 by RICH MILLER
'No Negro or mulatto shall migrate to or settle in this state after the adoption of the constitution.”
If you think Illinois politics is bizarre, nasty and brutish now, it ain't got nothing on the past.
That above passage was approved by the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1862.
That's right.
Illinois.
The Land of Lincoln.
1862.
The Civil War.
Amazingly enough, the proposed ban on “negroes” and “mulattoes” was drafted just weeks before President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
The 1862 constitutional convention was dominated by radical southern Illinoisans, widely reviled as “Copperheads,” who sympathized with the Confederacy to the point of advocating secession from the Union.
Times were tense and very tough in Illinois at that time. The war wasn't going well. Most of the state's banks had collapsed. The Mississippi River was closed to barge traffic, so farmers couldn't easily export their crops. Family legend has it that one of my own ancestors was deployed to deep southern Illinois to help quell an armed revolt.
Republican Gov. Richard Yates, a Lincoln ally, called for troops to patrol Springfield during the convention. Gov. Yates believed that the hated Copperheads might use the convention to mount an insurrection and seize control of state government.
Thankfully, the grave injustice and permanent stain on our state's history was avoided when Illinois voters rejected that vile “Copperhead Constitution” during a statewide referendum.
Eight years later, a new constitutional convention was convened and Illinois voters eventually approved one of the most progressive constitutions in the nation. For the first time anywhere, the railroads were subjected to state regulation. The 1870 constitution is now seen as the birth of the modern regulatory society. Several of the convention delegates, most of them young reformers, ended up running for the General Assembly and swept the horribly corrupt old guard out of office.
Then, in 1920, Illinois took another shot at a new Constitution. The United States Constitution had been amended seven years earlier to allow Congress to impose an income tax. Illinois convention delegates followed suit by proposing a new income tax for Illinois. But voters overwhelmingly rejected the constitution during a 1922 referendum, 900,000 votes to 200,000.
It wasn't until 1972 that Illinois voters finally approved a new Constitution, which was considered a model of progressivity at the time. As with the previously successful convention, the page seemed to turn on Illinois politics as several delegates used their newfound reputations as modern reformers to springboard to elective office.
There are two points to this story.
Illinois voters are given a chance to call a constitutional convention every 20 years. This year is the year. And after 18 years of covering Illinois politics, I've come to the firm conclusion that a constitutional convention should be approved. Changes simply must be made.
But earlier this week the Sun-Times editorialized against convening a convention.
“The dangerous wild card in all this, however, is not so much what a convention might fail to do, but what it might do. Once the Constitution is thrown open, anything goes. A woman's right to choose an abortion could be curtailed. Same-sex marriage could be permitted or prohibited.”
That misses a crucial point.
Any proposed constitution must be submitted to voters for final approval. And after looking at the history of far stranger times, I trust the voters to make the right decision.
Also, both successful conventions sparked a new beginning in Illinois politics. The old guard was replaced by the young, fresh reformers who populated the constitutional convention. We need to turn that page again.
So, please, vote “Yes” on the constitutional convention this November.
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.”