If Illinois voters can agree on one thing, it’s that lawmakers in Springfield aren’t as effective as they could be. Take a survey of 2,301 registered voters conducted in mid-May by the automated polling outfit Ask Illinois. When prompted to identify “who would do a better job running our state," former governor George Ryan, now imprisoned on federal corruption charges, outdistanced Governor Rod Blagojevich by four percentage points. Not to be ignored, the General Assembly -- distrustful of the governor and consumed by their own intra-party squabbles -- often fails to deliver timely progressive solutions favored by Illinoisans. Last summer’s budget fiasco is a prime example.
But the ill will towards many of our state leaders begs a crucial question: Is the gridlock in Springfield a result of flawed leadership or structural deficiencies in the Constitution? That’s the fundamental issue voters will answer this November, when the possibility of rewriting the state's governing document through a Constitutional Convention (known colloquially as Con-Con) will be placed on the ballot. Whether a convention provides the best vehicle for progressive reforms is unclear, but the pros and cons deserve serious scrutiny before voters head to the polls.
Some history
In the late 1960s, residents and lawmakers from across the political spectrum agreed it was time to update the Illinois constitution, which at the time was inundated with archaic agricultural rules not relevant since Reconstruction. While they didn’t agree on specific provisions, two powerful Richards -- Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and Governor Richard Ogilvie -- backed the idea and did their best to insulate the delegates (two from each senate district elected on a non-partisan basis) from political pressure so as not to obscure the main function of the convention.
“They moved out of the State Capitol over into the Old State Capitol and that made a real difference,” says Anne Lousin, a professor at John Marshall Law School who served as a research assistant to the convention. “Now they were in a very historic building and they were separate from the legislature.”
After three years of planning and nine months of intense debate, delegates emerged in September 1970 with a Constitution more suited for the twentieth century. Among other issues, the new document established the power of home rule for cities and townships, greatly expanded the veto power of the governor, and created the State Board of Education, the Comptroller's office, and annual sessions of the General Assembly. Delegates also included a provision that guaranteed voters the opportunity to convene additional conventions by referendum every 20 years.
Illinoisans had little interest in reworking the constitution the first time a referendum was placed on the ballot, voting against holding a Con-Con by a 3-1 margin in 1988. But in subsequent decades, discontent with state government has swelled, leading some to believe that a convention is the only suitable form of redress.
The pro-Con-Con crowd
Support for Con-Con boils down to roughly two camps. On one side, there are those who argue that the current constitution restricts democracy by concentrating clout in the hands of unresponsive legislators. “State lawmakers certainly can’t be trusted to undertake the significant changes that need to be fixed,” says John Bambenek, co-founder of the pro-convention Illinois Citizens’ Coalition, “especially when it cuts into their own authority and their own influence and power.”
A new constitution favored by this bipartisan crowd might include measures to recall elected officials and apply legislative term limits, which boast majority support among Illinois residents according to polling data. It could also provide citizens the ability to draft and vote on binding referenda. The way the state draws legislative districts, which often leads to gerrymandering by Republican and Democratic party bosses, could be revised as well.
You could aptly call a portion of this crowd the "Blagojevich haters": citizens so frustrated with the current administration that they are willing to scrap the whole constitution for the opportunity to remove him from the Governor’s mansion (even if the new document wouldn’t be ratified until after his current term ended).
The second camp is more focused on those progressives policies consistently neglected by cautious lawmakers. Among them is the state’s constitutionally-binding flat income tax rate, our reliance on property taxes to fund local school districts, and the loose campaign finance laws that allow special-interest groups to hold disproportionate sway over elections. If these issues are not put before a fresh set of convention delegates, some progressives fear that legislators will continue to cite constitutional restrictions as an excuse for their own lack of political will.
"A Dangerous Time"
While these goals are laudable, the prospect of throwing the constitution open for public dissection certainly has its drawbacks. For one, Article 14, Section 1 of the current document stipulates that the state legislature -- criticized by many for its failure to find common ground -- sets the rules for the convention, deciding how the election will be run, how the votes will be tabulated, when and where it meets, and whether delegates are to be elected on a partisan or non-partisan basis.
“This is a dangerous time to give the keys to the constitution over to the folks who are in leadership in Springfield,” says Nancy Kaszak, former state representative and executive director of the Alliance To Protect The Illinois Constitution, a coalition of civic leaders who oppose Con-Con. “These folks have difficulty passing budgets and … [they] can’t even agree when to meet.”
The cost of a convention is another red flag. Wayne Whalen, vice president of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum Foundation board and a delegate in 1970, told Illinois Issues that facilitating the labor-intensive work of convention deliberations would cost taxpayers roughly $100 million.
That figure doesn’t account for the heavy sum prospective delegates would need to raise to win a seat at the convention either, meaning that lobbyists, special interests, and party leaders would be well positioned to set the convention’s agenda and reap its rewards. “Money is going to play a much bigger role in who runs today,” says Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. “We may get bogged down in discussions on things like gay marriage and choice and gun rights that won’t help us move to a nice bipartisan resolution on the crucial fundamental structural issues we want to confront.”
Constitutional changes would also require both ratification by voters and the development and approval of legislation to carry out the new constitutional directives, meaning the time-consuming and expensive work might not net any productive revisions.
Other avenues for reform
As some point out, constitutional reform doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Since, 1970, 17 amendments to the constitution have been proposed and 10 have passed, none of which disrupted what many consider the most comprehensive Bill of Rights in any state constitution. “Once you have a Con-Con, there are no limits,” says Martire, “whereas in an amendment process, you can very much limit the discussion, the analysis, and the debate to the very specific reform you want to enact at the moment.”
Progressive lawmakers can also propose creative legislation that subverts unfriendly constitutional mandates. A prime example is Senate Bill 2288, which passed the education committee in February and would create a permanent revenue source for schools and property tax relief for homeowners. And if legislators won’t get on board with innovative solutions, strong grassroots primary and general election challenges are effective ways to enforce accountability.
The jury is still out on whether Illinoisans favor a convention. The last survey conducted in January by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs found that only 39 percent of respondents backed Con-Con, well short of the majority needed. A massive 43 percent described themselves as undecided.
What happens in Springfield between now and November will likely tip the scales one way or another. But regardless of those developments, voters should give serious thought to whether Con-Con is a viable answer to our state’s gridlock or a political shortcut with dangerous implications.
Bruno Behrend on Sat, 05/31/2008 - 07:48
At the end of the day, all the arguments against a convention are weaker than the arguments for, regardless of one's political ideology.
The argument of "cost" is the weakest of all. Simply calculating the interest on our $106 billion dollar unfunded liability makes the paltry cost of the convention pale in comparison. The entire convention could be paid for with a few of Emil Jones' member initiatives.
As for changes being made by lawmakers....well, all one has to do is look at the lawmakers and their work product. They aren't serious people. Sadly, the idea that they can be "challenged" electorally is the strongest argument FOR a convention, given that the reality is that incumbents can't really be challenged at all.
We don't need a "progressive" constitution, nor a "conservative" one. We need an honest constitution that re-empowers Illinois citizens, which would reverse the massive transfer of power FROM citizens TO Illinois' corrupt political class that occured in 1970.
We've written a book that lays out the entire case for a convention. It is available on Amazon.
Go to www.illinoiscitizenscoalition.com to buy a copy. It will be available as an audio book as well. We also would gladly attend any public forum, presentation, or debate on this topic, as the convention vote in November is THE most important vote any Illinois citizen will cast.
Vote "Yes" in November
Bruno Behrend on Sat, 05/31/2008 - 08:03
Adam,
I missed the "Blagojevich Hater" commentary, and found it somewhat of a soft "ad hominem" attack on the superior argument. As one of the main (and earliest) proponents of a Convention, I've chided my friends on the right for their incessant Blago bashing.
If anything, Blago has provided Illinois with a valuable public service by being as brazen as he's been. He has merely made better use of our opaque and gamed system than the Republicans who have preceded him. Despite the fact that I disagree with most of his policies, it is clear that under a Topinka regime, we already would have had a massive tax increase with no appreciable reduction in corruption. That's why Blago won.
With 3 of our last 5 Governors indicted or awaiting indictment, and the one former governor not under a cloud (check out Edgar and MSI) acting as their defense attorney, the idea that Illinois can be fixed by existing means is pretty thin.
Blago and G. Ryan are not creatures independent of our substandard constitution. They are manifestations of it. I, for one, thank Blago for the tutorial.
Vote "Yes" in November
Greg Pierce on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 12:41
Greg Pierce
United Power for Action and Justice
United Power for Action and Justice in Cook County has endorsed a new constitutional convention and is actively promoting it through its member institutions. Our goal is to talk with 100,000 people before November 4 to convince them that a yes vote is needed for the following reasons:
1. More democracy is better than less democracy. This point seems to be lost on many liberals, who like democracy in theory but not in practice, and on many conservatives, who like democracy in other countries but not so much here. What we need in this country and in this state is more discussion, more debate, more conversation about what we want and expect from our government and how that government should operate. There is nothing that will facilitate such public involvement than a constitutional convention. United Power is not afraid of differences of opinion or new ideas. What we are afraid of is what has been happening in Springfield over the past few years. Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison: "Every constitution...and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years [a generation]. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." If we don't want to exercise our rights as citizens, or if we are afraid of letting other citizens exercise their rights, then we ought to follow that to it's logical conclusion: some form of enlightened monarchy. (Maybe Nancy Kaszak would like to be named Queen of Illinois?)
2. Those of us who are for a constitutional convention cannot allow those who are against it to say how much it would cost. I think we could run a bang-up constitutional convention for a measly $40 million. (And since it has been forty years since we have had one, that is only $1 million a year in order to exercise our democratic rights and responsibilities.
3. "We can make the changes we need some other way." If you buy that one, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. While it is true that the legislature will have to set up the rules for a constitutional convention, they will do so under intense scrutiny (from United Power and everyone else). The writers (and voters) of our present constitution were wise enough to build in a vote every twenty years on whether or not we need a constitutional convention. They did so precisely because they did not trust the legislature to do so. If we don't take advantage of this opportunity, then shame on us.
If the majority of us vote "no" on a constitutional convention, those in power will say, "See, people aren't that upset with us. We can continue business as usual. Only a "yes" vote will send the message that needs to be sent: "What you are doing is NOT acceptable, and we are going to accept our constitutional right to change how you operate."
Visit our website on this issue at www.conconillinois.com. Vote "yes" on the constitutional convention on November 4.
Anonymous on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 21:41
If voters vent their frustrations at the ballot box and oust incumbents at the ballot box, policies and politics will change in Springfield. Shuffling the organizational charts through a ConCon will prove the political follies can bloom in other guises.
Anonymous on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 10:37
I don't want to see the Republican Party sponsored hate machine writing discrimination against minorities and gays into our constitution for political ends. We will be ultimately sorry if there is a constitutional convention in this climate of hatemongering for votes.
Mark Rhoads (not verified) on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 18:25
One reason I am a conservative and not a progressive is that I trust voters to determine their own destinies under most circumstances even if I disagree with the prevailing public opinion. After many years participating in and writing about politics, I know how to celebrate and I know how to take some lumps. Taking the lumps is often the better teacher. But consider the revealing sentence from the article above under "other avenues for reform." "Progressive lawmakers can also propose creative legislation that subverts unfriendly constitutional mandates." Ouch, I hope you don't really mean that in your heart of hearts.
Of course progressives care passionately about certain reforms and become dedicated to achieving certain outcomes. So do conservatives. But I am hoping the word "subverts" was ill advised and could be replaced by the word "mitigates" the potential harmful effects of some constitutional mandates. A constitution is legitimately intended to mandate procedures and is the key to the rule of law. Before looking for loop holes, one should encourage others to first explore all avenues of reform consistent with the letter and spirit of a constitution.
A new constitution would not be a panacea for all procedural flaws in Illinois government nor would it be a doom's day for consittutional liberties. Conventions met and proposed constitutions between the conventioins of 1870 and 1970 and their work product was voted down by the voters. One danger in a con con forty years after the last one is the temptation to get into ecessive detail and to try to fight battles that should be fought in the legislative arena rather than on constitutional grounds.
Con con is not a magic wand. There will still be geographic, philosophical, and turf battles that are with us anyway. The worst current example of a "constitution" which wound up as an excessively long and complicated legislative package is the proposed constitution of the European Union which has now been rejected by voters in The Netherlands, and France in 2005 and an updated version was turned down by voters in Ireland a few weeks ago. Like voters in Europe, voters in Illinois are unlikely to trust the work product of a con con if they think document it is too complicated and too detailed so that they cannot understand it.
I also was around for the 1970 con con and I have to part company with Prof. Anne Lousin of John Marshall Law School who is quoted in the article above. She is a fine attorney and scholar who I know and respect, But I differ with Anne on the degree of credit that should be given to Richard J Daley and Richard B. Ogilvie for keeping the con con of 1969-1970 insulated from partisan politics. The only delegates that labored under that particular delusion were lobbyists for the League of Women Voters and editorial writers. The con con process in 1969-1970 was very partisan behind the scenes and the Chicago organization knew exactly what it wanted and got most of what it wanted.
I also differ with Anne on veto powers of the governor. As a conservative and not a progressive, I liked the idea of a line item reduction veto for appropriations bills. But I think conservatives and progressives might agree that there was and is a lot of needless mischief and abuse inherent in the overly-broad amendatory veto power of the governor when it is used to make substantive as opposed to merely cosmetic changes.
Even though it has only been 38 years, the time might be right for another con con. My only advice as a veteran of the last process is don't proceed under the illusion that it will necessarily bring about a better process going forward and don't be afraid of trying to experiment either. If the convention is a success and leads to more accountable and transparent government, then it was a worthwhile effort. If the delegates go too far and trample on safeguards meant to protect all citizens, then the voters can always reject the final work product.
John Farley (not verified) on Thu, 10/02/2008 - 13:20
A constitutional convention is a terrible idea. First, it is a big financial boondoggle - estimates are that it would cost at least $78 million, and have you ever seen anything involving government not cost more than the estimates? We can't afford it. Second, it can amend anything and everything in the constitution - a complete loose cannon! Third, there are procedures for amending the constitution without a constitutional convention, so if there are specific changes that need to be made, propose them and campaign for them. As to the argument that the legislature can block amendments, the same would likely end up being true with a constitutional convention, given who would likely end up running it. Do you seriously think the people elected to a "con-con" wouldn't for the most part be the same old politicians that get elected now? We don't need a $78 million loose cannon. Vote NO!
Post new comment