Constitutional Convention

The Toxicity Factor

Josh Kalven — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:28:42 -0800

Earlier this week, we flagged a New Republic piece in which Nicholas Stephanopolous made the "case for regularly amending state constitutions -- or at least having the opportunity to" do so. Citing the demise of constitutional convention referenda this year in Hawaii, Connecticut, and of course, Illinois, Stephanopolous concluded:

[C]onvention referenda are useful even if they fail. When the public votes against holding a constitutional convention, it sends a powerful message that it is satisfied with how things are or, at least, opposes the proposals of the convention's supporters. Those supporters can then no longer claim a mandate for their ideas.

While this may be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the defeats in Hawaii and Connecticut, it just doesn't apply here in the Prairie State.

Most residents are not at all satisfied with the state of Illinois government at the moment. Indeed, the sheer distrust of Illinois political leaders led many to vote against Con-Con. There was rampant concern about the role those same politicians and special interests would play in the convention process.

Secondly, the Con-Con supporters -- a bipartisan group with a wide range of viewpoints and specific interests -- put forth many different proposals. To translate the referendum's defeat as a rejection of all those ideas seems absurd. For instance, convention opponent Dawn Clark Netsch repeatedly said that she agreed with some of the revisions proposed by the supporters, while at the same time arguing that opening up the document was not worth the risk in this political environment.

In short, what Stephanopolous overlooked is the toxicity factor, in which voters desperately want change and reform at the state level but just don't believe a constitutional convention will provide a fresh playing field.

Every IL County Voted Heavily Against Con-Con (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:41:23 -0800

Originally posted on 11/21. Updated and bumped up on 11/24 to incorporate municipal results.

A Progress Illinois analysis of the 2008 general election results found that every county in the state -- along with voters in six of the eight cities with their own election authorities -- leaned heavily against the proposed 2010 constitutional convention.

The exceptions were East St. Louis (where 60 percent of those voting on the Con-Con question supported the idea) and Chicago (where 43 percent voted in favor). In both of those areas, however, an inordinately high number of voters ignored the question.

This isn't a huge surprise, considering that the referendum was defeated by over a 30 percent margin at the statewide level. Nonetheless, the lack of variance is pretty striking.

As we were collecting the data, I wondered if we'd end up finding one idiosyncratic little county that bucked the trend. But no dice. In fact, only a single county -- Alexander, located at the southern tip of the state -- saw more than 40 percent vote in favor of Con-Con (42.6 percent to be exact). I'd also wondered if the analysis might yield some geographic differentiation, but there don't seem to be any discernable patterns there either.

Take a look at the map below -- created in conjunction with Paul Smith of EveryBlock -- and judge for yourself:

Click the image to go to the interactive version, which allows you to scroll over the map and view the individual results. You can also peruse the county-by-county vote tallies below (keep in mind that not all of the results have been certified). It's worth noting that over one million Illinois voters -- about 18 percent of this year's electorate -- chose not to cast a ballot one way or another on the Con-Con question:

Con-Con Redux?

Angela Caputo — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:25:05 -0800

For anyone who predicted that controversy over the constitutional convention referendum would end with a stinging defeat at the polls yesterday ... well, that was wishful thinking.

Citing problems at polling places, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is preparing to mount another legal challenge regarding the controversial ballot language. Along with the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), he is drafting an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court based on reports that election authorities flouted a court order requiring them to inform voters that the Con-Con ballot language was flawed.

Quinn is also pushing for an investigation into how the biased language ended up on the ballot in the first place. Theoretically, this two-pronged effort could eventually lead to a special Con-Con election. That seems like a long shot, however, considering that the referendum went down by such a large margin (68-32 percent).

Regardless, Quinn says the challenge is about ensuring fair future elections. "We don't want this kind of precedence," Quinn said. "Win or lose an election or a referendum. You don't want it to be one where the public suspects it was rigged."

UPDATE: Illinois Issues' Bethany Jaeger has more on this situation.

Con-Con Uh-Oh

Josh Kalven — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:59:28 -0800

If the constitutional convention referendum isn't approved by voters today, it's pretty clear that won't be the last we hear of it. After Lt. Gov Pat Quinn and the Chicago Bar Association filed a lawsuit last month to have the flawed Con-Con ballot language replaced, election officials came up with their own solution, which a judge ultimately approved: they would hand out flyers at all polling places that provided the corrected language and informed voters to disregard the wording on the ballot.

But according to many of the readers at Capitol Fax, numerous polling places failed to provide the flyer to voters. In some cases, it was nowhere to be found. In others, it was taped on the inside of the polling booth. (UPDATE: The Madison County Record, a downstate outlet, reports that there's "widespread non-compliance.")

Meanwhile, the Beachwood Reporter's Steve Rhodes appears to have missed the question entirely:

I almost missed voting on the Con-Con referendum. After I thought I had completed my voting, I wondered where the Con-Con question was. I even thought it was missing. Then I found it at the very beginning of the ballot, right where I was instructed to "Start Voting Here."

It was shaded in blue, though, almost like a space for official use only or instructions. My guess is others will miss it too - and not go back looking for it. [...]

Cate Plys writes:

"Bad news, you DID miss the con-con question. I, too, completed the question in blue at the very beginning - but that was just an example. I realized that when I got to the very bottom and found the real Con-Con question, which I almost didn't see. Wonder if they did that on purpose? I checked with the election staff and they confirmed that the blue one was just an example. I checked with them because I was afraid filling out the sample one would ruin the ballot."

That really, really sucks. I really cared about that vote.

Yikes.

Con-Con Supporters Launch TV Ad

Angela Caputo — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:33:33 -0700

The Vote Yes on the Con-Con Coalition -- made up of religious figures, school funding activists, and property tax reformers -- released an ad on Thursday in the hopes of drawing some last-minute support for the proposed 2010 constitutional convention. The spot is set to play on five major Chicago-area networks through Monday evening:

Determined not to be outdone by the Alliance to Protect the Constitution -- which has a an ad on the airwaves featuring Con-Con foe and former GOP Gov. Jim Edgar -- the Vote Yes coalition raised $100,000 to run their own spot during the region's most popular evening newscasts. So far, four networks are airing the segment. The local ABC affiliate put it on hold, however, until the group agreed to remove the word "corrupt," which initially ran alongside an image of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

So where did the money come from? Over the past month, Cook County Assessor James Houlihan has transferred over $60,000 to the Vote Yes coalition. Property tax reform advocates -- including the group's chair Andrea Ralia and her husband -- have the second largest financial stake, according to campaign disclosure statements.

"We're frustrated," Ralia said when asked why she kicked in her own money. "We're citizen activists. We're the ones that get on the bus and go downstate and rally for changes in the school funding system."

What Are They All Saying About The Constitutional Convention?

Angela Caputo — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:18:39 -0700

This year's Illinois ballot includes a somewhat obscure referendum question that, every two decades, gives Illinois voters the opportunity to decide whether to hold a constitutional convention. Since the summer, countless forums and discussions have been held on the pros and cons of rewriting the document. Thanks to a controversy this fall over the ballot language, more voters are aware of the issue today. Still, our polls in the 10th and 11th congressional districts showed that about a third of the respondents didn't know anything about the matter as of mid-October.

In a feature article back in May, we explored what remaking the state's constitution could mean for Illinois' future. A Con-Con could present the opportunity for some very progressive advancements -- like revising our regressive tax code or taking redistricting power out of legislators' hands. Conversely, many worry that that the same problems that pervade the statehouse would carry over into a convention. Others warn that special interest groups might use the process to tamper with our bill of rights.

In recent weeks, the debate has moved onto the op-ed pages. Below is a list of links to those arguments, grouped into pro and con sections. Decided for yourself which are the most convincing. We've got to warn you, though, they don't exactly make for an easy voting guide.

Pro Con-Con:

"Here's a real chance to fix Springfield," Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown

"Illinois should vote for a new Constitution," Capitol Fax's Rich Miller

"Vote 'yes' on Con-Con," Chicago Tribune

"Our Opinion: Vote 'yes' on constitutional convention," State Journal-Register

"If you care about schools and property taxes," Cook County Assessor James Houlihan

"Recall rejected, but the people still have a tool to reform government," Democratic State Rep. Jack Franks

"Con-Con? Yes!," Lake County News-Sun

"Vote 'yes' for a constitutional convention," Journal Gazette/Times Courier

"In the simplest terms, we're too stupid for con-con," SouthtownStar columnist Kristen McQueary

"Time to change politics in Illinois," SouthtownStar columnist Phil Kadner

"ConCon can fix state pension fund," Democratic State Rep. John Fritchey

Con-Con opponents:

"Don't vote for a new constitutional convention," Chicago Sun-Times

"Illinois doesn't need a new constitution," Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin

"Change politicians, not the constitution," former Gov. Jim Edgar

"Illinois not ready for con con," former congressman, federal judge, and White House counsel Abner Mikva

"Vote 'no' on constitutional convention," Daily Herald

"There oughta be a law, but a new state Constitution?" former Chicago Alderman Dick Simpson

"Leaders need changing not our constitution," The Southern

"Dysfunctional state needs leadership, not a convention," Rockford Register-Star

"Politics, not constitution, state's problem," Dispatch-Argus

Con-Con Opponents Release Ad Featuring Edgar

Josh Kalven — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:31:17 -0700

The Alliance to Protect the Constitution has released a new TV ad which features Republican Gov. Jim Edgar speaking out against the proposed 2010 constitutional convention. In the ad, Edgar asserts that the "problem is the leaders in Springfield -- and they'd run the convention." He concludes by urging Illinoisans to vote no on Con-Con. Watch it:

Yesterday, Edgar and former Democratic Comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch held a joint press conference to speak out against Con-Con. Meanwhile, United Power for Action and Justice -- which supports holding a convention -- has released a video of interviews and clips from their recent rally in Chicago. Watch it below:

Con-Con Ballots Upheld

Angela Caputo — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:40:24 -0700

An Illinois appellate court today upheld a recent Cook County Circuit Court ruling that, despite problems with the constitutional convention question, the Illinois ballot will go out to voters as is.

Late last week, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and the Chicago Bar Association (CBA) had petitioned the state court with a request to stay millions of ballots and to expedite a review of Cook County Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr.'s earlier ruling on the matter. While Howse agreed that the Con-Con ballot language is both "misleading and inaccurate," he decided it was too late to make any radical changes. His solution was to disseminate polling place fliers warning voters to disregard the language on the ballot.

The CBA and Quinn had also petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to take up the case. They'd hoped the justices would consider their proposal to distribute a separate Con-Con ballot on Nov. 4. The high court, however, remanded the case to the appellate court on Tuesday.

The Source Of That Sneaky Con-Con Question

Angela Caputo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:51:46 -0700

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.

Con-Con Case Heads To Higher Courts

Angela Caputo — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:35:43 -0700

Undeterred by a Cook County judge's ruling that the constitutional convention question will appear on the Illinois ballot as drafted -- mistakes and all -- Con-Con proponents have appealed to the state's highest court to intervene on behalf of voters.

With only three weeks until Election Day, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and the Chicago Bar Association (CBA) are petitioning both the Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court to reverse Cook County Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr.'s recent decision on the matter. Howse found the Con-Con ballot language to be both "misleading and false," but decided it was too late to do anything but distribute flyers at the polling places with better wording, as well as a warning to disregard the language on the ballot.

The plaintiffs would rather see a separate paper ballot issued for the Con-Con question. This idea, however, has drawn opposition from state election authorities who say that dealing with a hand-count of upwards of 8 million ballots would be a nightmare.

An appellate court hearing on the motions is scheduled for Wednesday. It's not clear when, or if, the Supreme Court will respond to a separate motion filed last Thursday requesting that the court take up the case.

"We're attempting to leap-frog the appellate court because of time," said attorney and conservative activist Bruno Behrend, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team. "It's about time and it's about proper remedy."

When he ruled, Howse acknowledged that his solution was "not perfect," but asserted that the flyer would give voters "the chance to cast their ballots effectively."

The plaintiffs argue that this plan -- in which voters are instructed to first read the question as it should have been drafted and then ignore the flawed question as they actually vote -- is ridiculous.

"The logistics don't outweigh voters' rights to an accurate ballot," Behrend said.