* Judy Baar Topinka says she’s for a con-con….
I am distraught over state politics, which is why I am encouraging all of you to vote to create a constitutional convention come this November. […]
In the past, it has been voted down because just about every entrenched interest does not want it to happen due to the little sacred cows each has hidden away or approved by the constitutional currently in play. After all, those sacred cows might go to slaughter if the public got into the constitutional convention mode.
Yes, it will be expensive, and, no, it won’t come quickly or easily. The last time we had such a constitutional convention was in 1976. After that, opposition always managed to vote it down: Democrats and Republicans, management and labor, special interests all. […]
It can be argued that all of the extremists and zealots will be energized by the thought that they can get their issues into constitutional form. But, like all things, it will take voting majorities to make such things law, and the better the delegates to the constitutional convention, the better the final result will be.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, to paraphrase, we all need a little revolution from time to time. It is time. One cannot help but be frustrated by the paralysis in the state legislature, where personal egos trump the public good and nothing gets done.
Go read the whole thing.
LIVE session coverage...
- Gimme A Break - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:56 am:
JUDY BARR TOPINKA giving advice? She should go back to doing what she does best……(what was that again??)
- Cal Skinner - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:00 pm:
The constitutional convention was in 1971, wasn’t it?
I continue to think that conservatives will lose, if another one is held.
Why would anyone think that Democrats would not dominate it the way they do the rest of state government?
- The Cowgirl - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:01 pm:
The most democratic aspect of Illinois government is the constitutional convention. State government is presently broken. The people need to assert their power and give our governing document an overhaul.
The comments against a con con that I have read thus far have been, as Topinka states, from special interests terrified that the people might do something with which that special interest disagrees. How elitist, such horror at the people exercising their rightful power.
Our system is broken. It is not merely, as Netsch has proclaimed, an absence of leadership. The system we have will only work if we have THREE responsible people, and there are no real checks and balances to deal with a situation such as we have now. The legislators below the Tops are powerless. We have a lop-sided government structure that is not at all representative. We have the Tops. They rule. Their power needs to be trimmed back into proportion.
- Levois - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:07 pm:
I think she has the right idea. There certainly needs to be change in the state system.
- Anonymous45 - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:15 pm:
“Rod Blagojevich–what was he thinking”? Oh, the irony…
- Reddbyrd - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:22 pm:
Yet another example of why there are few readers, viewers and listeners
Who decided the AccordianGal is news?
Think again
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:24 pm:
===Who decided the AccordianGal is news?===
The above is from her newspaper column.
- Anonymous45 - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:26 pm:
In retrospect Redbyrd, would she have the interests of the voters in her sights more so than the current Governor?…penny for your thoughts…
- Truth - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
How will changing the constitution cure the problem of runaway egos in Springfield?
If she wants better government, she should advise everyone to elect better people.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:49 pm:
Desperate times call for desperate measures. It’s not just the people, but the system itself which is broken. Inadequate checks and balances exist to stem the bad actors. Time for some structural changes.
- Reddbyrd - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:54 pm:
Anon45….
….more than this governor is a pretty meager standard of measure for topic.
….did not see much evidence she gave a hoot about taxpayers/voters/children/ family pets when she was on the dole.
Keep the change.
- Vote Quimby! - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:03 pm:
I’m all for a con-con….nice to see *former* state officials on board.
- Will Clark - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:04 pm:
Uninformed and arrogant as usual Reddbryd…but hey, at least you’re consistent!
- A Citizen - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:11 pm:
Maybe we could save a bunch of money and just copy one of the other 49 states’ cons. Bill and I could take a no-bid contract (big one) and meticulously study them and come up with a solution or two. Sounds like a win (Bill) win (A Citizen) to me!
- central il voter - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:17 pm:
It is the only way to save Illinois. Maybe we need to go back to 3 member house districts to give a balance to the system.
- FlackerBacker - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:21 pm:
I’ve heard a lot of the existing members of the GA want to be on the ConCon, which totally defeats the point. The same inmates that are currently running the assylum will be responsible for rebuilding the assylum. What a waste of money.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:23 pm:
FlackerBacker, using unsubstantiated rumors to bolster your opinion is bogus logic. Furthermore, some legislators would be helpful to the con-con. Most know how screwed up things are and could provide perspective on how to fix it.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:31 pm:
An issue to ride the comback trail. But the last one was in 1970, not 1976. Strange fact to get wrong, considering the source.
- Anonymous45 - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:33 pm:
there should be a provision that no current law maker and/or constitutional officer be included in con con proceedings should it occur…voters for for it, and then rework it…this will never happen of course…just daydreaming…
- Cassandra - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 2:40 pm:
I am glad she is beginning to speak out again and I hope we hear more from her.
She is extremely credible and has had time to reflect without the pressures of being in or running for office, a perspective that is immensely valuable.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 2:40 pm:
I am for a Con Con, I think many of the elected officials realize how bad they look and especially the legsilators will want to fix things. The Legislative leaders and the Governor will not police themselves and are doing nothing but postering and playing political games. It is time for them to learn they work for the Taxpayers and we are sick of their antics.
Also, it is nice that SOMEONE stands up and wants to LEAD in this state.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 2:54 pm:
It’s important to note, even skipping past the various legal prohibitions against double-dipping, members of the ILGA are prohibited from getting paid for two state gigs at the same time in the current constitution. What this means is that unless they resign their seat in the ILGA (and potentially lose it forever) they can’t do both.
In theory, if the ILGA ends on time by May 31, that the convention goes no more than 6 months, and the timing of the elections and everything is absolutely perfect, ILGA members are constitutionally prohibited from doing both.
- the Patriot - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:13 pm:
First of all the system is not broke, the politicians have screwed it up. Despite some pretty bad Governors our state did fairly well until this Governor and the democrats derailed the state. The system if fine, the people running it are the problem. This includes Mike Madigan and his little lady in waiting.
Second, you lost to a very unpopular Governor by 10 points, go away, far far away.
Third, if this is her way of putting out feelers on whether she will run in 2010, will someone come and hit me in the back of the head with a shovel. I can’t do that again.
- Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:16 pm:
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 1:23 pm:
FlackerBacker, using unsubstantiated rumors to bolster your opinion is bogus logic. Furthermore, some legislators would be helpful to the con-con. Most know how screwed up things are and could provide perspective on how to fix it.
I agree with that statement, but I wouldn’t feel very good about it if there were substantially more legislators from one party than another, or if the total number of legislators represented a substantially large proportion of the delegates as a whole.
- Reddbyrd - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:56 pm:
Hey Will Clark…..Very clever
Thanks for the slam….I think you forgot to roll out the AccordianGal’s Greatest Hits list….I remember trying to give away the hotels, poor performing college plans,etc….Give us the amazing accomplishments.
BTW, we all continue to believe Blagoof is the worst. But AccoridanGal was no real alternative
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:57 pm:
We will not be able to extract politicians or politics from any constitutional convention. There has never been a group of decision makers debating social issues without politics. But notice we still have constitutions, and until about a decade ago, a functioning state government. So claiming that since we will be unable to create a politics-free constitutional convention, we should vote against the con-con is a false claim.
Another concern appears to be from those who do not believe that their viewpoints on the issues will be respected enough to enjoy a fair hearing is a concern that contradicts proof of the opposite. No - we don’t have to demand ideological purity from convention delegates in order to create a quota representational system. Honestly, human beings, even the ones currently enjoying legislative votes in the current General Assembly, are fully capable of reaching beyond themselves and empathizing.
Voters are not as stupid as supposedly enlightened opinion makers want to portrait us. It is easy to advocate a personal view that differs from a majority view and add false credibility to it by claiming that, “voters are stupid” - so we need to listen to you. Right? It is an arrogant and downright foolish approach to take. If your views are not represented clearly enough to a majority of voters, it is your fault. We see it has become too easy to claim that the ignorant masses are “bitter” and “clings”, as one famous Illinoian recently said.
So do not be afraid of empowering citizens to gather in order to lead Illinois into the 21st Century. We are a democracy, and as one we have done this enough to have an excellent track record of positive results.
Finally, it is easy to demand that we butcher all the sacred cows. What is sometimes forgotten however is that there are real reasons behind these sacred beasts. Illinois state government needs help, but it is not 100% off track. We should respect what we have enough to trend carefully, yet be bold and fearless enough to intelligently reform what needs to be reform. Zero-based accounting theory is just that. We need to reflect reality. So, I caution against thinking we should start from scratch and start by slaughtering everything with a history. Those who make these claims need to realize that voters with common sense would consider such a demand to be a good reason to vote against a constitutional convention this year.
Let’s go people! We have work to do! Go Con-Con!
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 4:02 pm:
One more thing people - stop dumping on Topinka because she points out the obvious. She isn’t making these statements because of some personal or political quirk you hate.
She is stating the obvious. If the statements she makes were made by Rev. Wright, I’d still have to agree with them.
Chill!
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 4:08 pm:
Could someone please detail precisely what “fix” to the constitution is contemplated that will create a better situation than the one we have now? The 1970 constitution seemed to work pretty well for 35 years. What would you change that would “fix” it and improve it - without offsetting disadvantages, e.g., term limits? (And forgot for the moment whether your fix would have any likelihood of being embraced by both the ConCon and the electorate.) Calling for a ConCon in the hope they will magically come up with some solution that heretofore escapes us seems pretty irresponsible. If the only idea out there is 3 member districts (which I like, by the way) — since that was eliminated by referendum, why not just get a referendum to restore it? You don’t need a whole ConCon for that.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 4:17 pm:
Could someone please detail precisely what “fix” to the constitution is contemplated that will create a better situation than the one we have now?
Obviously not. That is why you asked the question, right?
Your position seems similar to the husband sued for divorce responding that he would like to know what exactly he needs to do to avoid the divorce. Who is it you would rather be married to? Exactly how loudly do I snore? What if I earned $10,000 more? What if we argued less?
And like a divorce, Illinois citizens want a divorce from our current government. They are unhappy. There is a feeling of disconnect between what they are hearing from their elected leaders and their lives. They do not like the direction they feel the state is going. They are concerned about the future.
Exactly what’s the problem you ask?
Sorry, but that approach is not going to cut it anymore. There is not enough faith left in this relationship to warrant a continuation.
If you are correct and there isn’t a real problem then we will discover this as we go through the convention. Too expensive you say?
So are my taxes.
- annon in central illinois - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 4:22 pm:
I don’t think it’s the constitution as much as the players who seem to defy it. It’s just been a very wierd administration in Spfld. You’ve got a governor who does as he damn well pleases, fails to govern or be effective & a GA who supports him & it’s lead by his party. This situation can be easily corrected come November in the election process…the whole House & a 1/3 of the Senate is up for grabs. Quit complaining & vote for those you feel will best represent the interests of the district & the state. As to his {gov}…he’s a very bad choice that Illinois is stuck with. Unfortunaely{fortunately} that’s how it works, our form of gov’t…he got more votes. Unless there is an impeachable offense to begin such a proceeding ; then they’re stuck with the dude till Jan 2011. Perhaps staying in tune with what’s going instead of whatever drove them to vote him in again. It’s a mess to be sure but tinkering with the constitution is a matter for thinkers,critical analysis & clear heads…not emotions.
- Anon 4:08pm - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 4:56 pm:
VanillaMan - your response is nuts. You are like the guy standing there screaming, do something! anything! I don’t know what! Just do something!
Yes, the situation in Springfield is broken, but it’s mostly the players involved. With different players in the past, it worked fine.
What do you propose to change in the constitution that would avoid this situation (and not create equally bad, alternative situations)?
Wishing does not make it so.
What would you change in the constitution?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 7:04 pm:
===Could someone please detail precisely what “fix” to the constitution is contemplated that will create a better situation than the one we have now? ===
Legislative district maps drawn by computer, not politicians. Gigantic check on leadership powers.
Eliminate or curtail amendatory veto powers.
More precisely delineate special session powers (far too vague now).
Better define what a “balanced budget” really is.
Strengthen “preponderance” language to make it crystal clear to the Supreme Court.
I could go on all night.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 7:06 pm:
Also, we’ve had numerous discussions here about what people would like to see come out of a con-con. You must be new.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 7:13 pm:
===The 1970 constitution seemed to work pretty well for 35 years===
The biggest problem with the current constitution is that the Supreme Court came up with a goofy idea that some very important language meant nothing. So, while some of the old con was good, it was essentially struck down.
- Ed at ICJL - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 8:51 pm:
Why don’t we fix the specific weaknesses and problems, rather than risking extreme changes from one side or the other?
The political environment in Illinois in 2008 (and likely in 2009-2010) is ripe for radical (and dangerous) change. Amendment is a safer and saner process. If proponents of change can’t sell amendments, why risk a wholesale re-do?
Doctors don’t perform brain surgery to correct headaches.
- Bruno Behrend - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:23 pm:
I don’t think it’s the constitution as much as the players who seem to defy it.
It is the hallmark of an awful Constitution that it can be ‘defied’.
A good Constitution would give enough power to citizens to allow them to walk into court and force the government to adhere to its text.
Illinois has no such Constitution. When you go to a Union League Club event and hear Dawn Clark Netsch quip about how no one took the “Balanced Budget Clause” seriously because everyone knew “how to get around it”,(I was there) then you can argue that you aren’t really living under a Constittution, but under the arbitrary and capricious ‘rule of men’ (all nine of which hail from Cook County)
The extremely low quality of leadership in Illinois is a FUNCTION of its awful constitution, and Illinos will NOT improve absent a convention. Do YOU want to wait another 20 years?
- Bruno Behrend - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:27 pm:
Sorry for the mis-pasted text above…
The 1970 constitution seemed to work pretty well for 35 years
The state is $106 billion in debt and the leadership of the state is a national laughing stock. It may have taken 35 years to manifest itself so clearly, but the idea that this Constitution “worked” for 35 years would be hilarious, if not so sad.
- Bruno Behrend - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:38 pm:
With all due respect to “Ed at ICLJ”
Illinois is suffering from a deeply metastasized cancer, not a ‘headache.’
Radical surgery and chemo are called for, and to call our current situation a “headache” is a sign of some one who is a little too comfortable with one’s “access” to the cancer eating our fine state.
Ed from ICLJ is correct that things are ripe for “radical change,” and the more “radical” the better.
Tweaking this current Const. through only the “legislative” Amendment process is a far worse fate than giving citizens a shot at tossing the whole roll of TP and writing a Constitution that re-empowers citizens, and disempowers the toady’s who have bankrupted the state.
Sadly, the IBRT, the Chamber, and the ICLJ could find the money to run a sophisticated campaign for a better Illinois with 2-3 phone calls.
Too bad they are too busy hobnobbing with the hucksters who are ruining Illinois.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:40 pm:
===Amendment is a safer and saner process===
It’s also impossible because the GA has refused to approve any amendments this year.
- GOP'er - Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:42 pm:
I was already wary of a Con Con. Now I’m definitely worried, if JBT favors.
Many people just assume things can’t get worse in Illinois. That’s just wrong. They sure as hell can.
- Bruno - Friday, May 16, 08 @ 10:26 am:
GOP’r,
They will make things worse under any circumstance. Holding a convention is the only way you will ever improve things.
You are playing “not to lose”. Guess what? You already lost. It is time to start to playing to win again. Republicans need to figure this out, stop cowering in their bunkers, and fight for they ideas the say they espouse.