Progress Illinois

It turns out that public support for a constitutional convention might not be as strong as some proponents would like you to think.

Yesterday we reported on a newly released poll conducted in late September and commissioned by the group ConConYes.  In a separate press release, the group asserted that the poll "shows that nearly 60 percent of Illinois voters favor a constitutional convention giving citizens the opportunity to reform state government directly." In their memo on the poll, the group asserts that 58 percent of likely voters surveyed across the state said they would cast a ballot in favor of calling a convention. Another 21 percent said they're opposed to the idea, with 21 percent undecided. 

But that's only part of the story.

Continue reading »

UPDATE: Since posting these numbers, we've learned that they are an incomplete and misleading representation of what the poll found.  Please see our October 10 post to get the full story.

After alluding to the results last week, the Con-Con Yes folks have released a statewide poll they commissioned which suggests a majority of Illinoisans like the idea of calling a constitutional convention.

Overall, 58 percent of the 1,000 likely Illinois voters surveyed currently favor a Con-Con. That's just short of the 60 percent mark that would be required to vote "yes" in order to initiate the convention process. The poll found that 21 percent are opposed to the idea, with 21 percent undecided.

Continue reading »

The fight over problematic language in the constitutional convention ballot language came to a head yesterday, as a Cook County judge considered conflicting proposals for how to remedy the situation in the 30 days before voters head to the polls in Illinois. While the court ultimately rejected a resolution proposed by Con-Con proponents, the controversy has drawn additional attention to the issue and we're certain to hear more uproar in the weeks to come.

At issue are two particular passages in the ballot language.  One sentence informs voters that the Con-Con provision put before voters in 1988 -- the last time the electorate had the opportunity to hold a constitutional convention -- was handily defeated.  The other falsely asserts that a failure to vote on the question amounts to a nay vote.

On Wednesday, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. ruled that the question is both "misleading” and “inaccurate."  During an all-day session yesterday, Howse heard arguments from the plaintiffs -- Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and the Chicago Bar Association -- as well as from government officials, represented by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office, Cook County Clerk David Orr, and Chicago elections authorities.

Continue reading »

On Wednesday, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Nathaniel Howse ruled unconstitutional the wording on this year's Illinois ballots that puts the option of a constitutional convention before the voters.  The sticking point is a sentence informing voters of the outcome in 1988, the last time the electorate had the opportunity to decide whether to hold a convention (75 percent voted nay that year).  Today, the court is hearing testimony on possible ways to remedy this problem.

Our own Angela Caputo is at the court and just called in with the following update.  Continue reading »

In recent months, backers of a proposed constitutional convention have penned plenty of op-eds and hit community forums around the state explaining what they see as the need to open up the Illinois Constitution.  Yet when it came to raising money and showing clout, it didn't seem like they had much juice.

In the past few days, however, things have picked up.

Continue reading »

Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is calling on Secretary of State Jesse White to redraft the language of this year's Con-Con ballot question because it is "biased" and therefore "illegal," his legal adviser said yesterday.

Quinn, a vocal proponent of convening a constitutional convention in 2010, filed an administrative petition (part two can be found here) with White yesterday, requesting that he strike a sentence from the ballot that recounts the outcome of the 1988 election (the last time the electorate had the opportunity to call for a Con-Con). Here's the "proposed call" slated to appear on the November 4 ballot in Illinois.  The bolded line is the one Quinn wants removed:

This proposal deals with a call for a state constitutional convention. The last such convention was held in 1969-70, and a new Constitution was adopted in 1970. The 1970 Illinois Constitution requires that the question of calling a convention be placed before the voters every 20 years. In 1988 the electors rejected the call for a constitutional convention, with 75% voting against calling a convention and 25% voting in favor of calling a convention. If you believe that the 1970 Illinois Constitution needs to be revised through the convention process, vote "YES" on the question of calling a constitutional convention. If you believe that calling a constitutional convention is not necessary, or that change can be accomplished through other means, vote "NO" on the calling of a constitutional convention.

Continue reading »

The AP reported today that the Secretary of State's office has begun distributing a pamphlet informing Illinois voters that the option of holding a constitutional convention in 2010 will be put before them on this year's ballot.  As required by the current state constitution, the document informs residents about the ins and outs of a Con-Con and presents them with several pro and con arguments.  Here's their summary of the arguments in favor of holding a convention:

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.

And here are the summarized arguments against:

Continue reading »

On Wednesday, we noted former congressman and judge Abner Mikva's letter to the Tribune in which he voiced his opposition to holding a Constitutional Convention in 2010.  A week earlier, Mikva and John Marshall Law School professor Ann Lousin both sat down with the Alliance to Protect the Constitution -- a coalition opposed to Con-Con -- to discuss their thoughts on the prospect of a convention.  Listen to this excerpt from Mikva's comments:

Internal mp3

MIKVA: The problem is that when the people are not together on where they want their country to go -- where they want their government to go -- trying to form the basic document that will set that direction is very, very hard.  I think we're at that position today in Illinois.  Our people are very unhappy with state government.  They don't like the decisions that have been made or the decisions that haven't been made.  And I think that any constitution that would come out of that state mood would be a very difficult one to live with.  It would have all kinds of prohibitions on it that probably wouldn't make long-range sense.  It would have all kinds of ideas in it that might solve today's problem, but might not work for the future.  [...]

It seems to me the best thing at this point to do is to live with what we have -- which I think has been a pretty good product, it's worked quite well over the 30 or 40 years since it passed -- and wait until we are in a better mood for revising the basic document that runs us.

Meanwhile, Lousin discussed what she views as the prerequisites for a constitutional convention:

Internal mp3

Continue reading »

In a letter to the Tribune today, former congressman, federal appeals court judge, and White House counsel Abner Mikva explained why he opposes a Constitutional Convention in 2010:

I maintain that the arguments being made in Illinois today in favor of a constitutional convention are not based on the positive reasons cited above but, rather, as a reaction to a perception that government leaders have failed and as an opportunity to advance various special interests from across the political spectrum.

The risks of a constitutional convention driven by the special interests are real, and the casualties could include the power of local governments, an independent judiciary, civil rights for minorities, women and gay people and the rights of gun owners and gun victims alike, to name a few.

Voter disenchantment with Springfield has made the possibility of recall for elected officials an attractive reason for a constitutional convention, but even there the risk for unworkable provisions that hamstring legislators or interfere with judicial independence are real.

A constitutional convention is not the way for Illinois to address its current gridlock, heal its divisiveness or fix a failure of leadership. That's what elections are for.

Later this week, we'll be publishing video highlights from a Con-Con debate between Dawn Clark Netsch and Greg Pierce that took place about a month ago in Chicago.  So be on the look out for that, as well as much more Con-Con coverage as Election Day nears.

The important debate surrounding a possible Constitutional Convention is continuing unabated. WBEZ's Tony Arnold talked to Greg Pierce from United Power for Action and Justice this morning, who said the easiest ways to reform our regressive tax system is by changing the constitution itself. Just as he did in my feature article on the subject, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability executive director Ralph Martire provided the opposing view on Con-Con, arguing that hot button issues like gay marriage would crowd out a reasonable debate about taxes.

If you're interesting in learning more, check out the IVI-IPO Debate on the Constitutional Convention in Chicago tonight ( at the South Loop's SGI Cultural Center, 1455 S. Wabash). At the event, Dawn Clark Netsch, Rep. Paul Froehlich, and representatives from the League of Women Voters and United Power for Action and Justice will debate the merits of the proposal starting at 7:00 p.m, followed by a Q&A.