Progress Illinois

Today, proponents of convening a constitutional convention will appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court in their attempt to stay millions of ballots just weeks before Election Day.  At issue is the question on the ballot asking voters to support or reject the idea of holding a Con-Con in 2010.  A Cook County judge recently found the language to be misleading and inaccurate, but ruled that it was too late to replace or alter the existing ballots.  He also turned down supporters' requests for a separate paper ballot, opting instead for a flyer notifying voters of the problem when they arrive at their polling place.

With the case advancing to the higher courts, the nagging need to know who exactly sat on the committee that penned the sneaky language is more acute than ever.  And we've got the list.

The bipartisan legislative working group charged with writing both the Con-Con voter information pamphlet and ballot language -- known officially as the Joint Committee for the Constitutional Convention Proposal -- included eight members of the General Assembly: Reps. John Fritchey (D), Lou Lang (D), Jim Durkin (R), and Pat Lindner (R), joined by Sens. Don Harmon (D), Kwame Raoul (D), Dale Righter (R), and Pam Althoff (R).

In terms of Con-Con opinion on the committee, members say Rep. Lang represented the chief opponent, Rep. Fritchey filled the role of lead supporter, and the rest fell somewhere in between.

But of the committee members I've managed to reach thus far, no one seems to recall who was responsible for the biased ballot language, which includes a sentence noting that in 1988 (the last time voters had a chance to call a convention), 75 percent voted against the idea.

"I'm going to have to go back and check my notes," Durkin said.

"I don't have any idea who wrote the ballot language," Lang said.

"I can't remember," Harmon said.

Their explanation? They got so bogged down with the voter information pamphlet -- which offers arguments for and against a convention -- that the ballot itself became an afterthought.  Nonetheless, someone had to have thought the troublesome sentence was necessary. 

Both chambers of the General Assembly adopted the committee's report in May and, with that, the pamphlet and ballot question were off to the printers. It's a shame that not a single committee member or lawmaker noticed the troublesome language.  It would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money in legal expenses -- not to mention Election Day grief.