* I never believed for a second that the Chicago Tribune would endorse a “Yes” vote on the constitutional convention referendum. I figured their huffing and puffing over the ballot language shenanigans would give them political cover to oppose the referendum itself.
Boy, was I wrong, and how…
Decide right now that you’ll vote yes Nov. 4 on what could be the most important ballot measure you’ve ever encountered. Then relax as the establishment foes of a constitutional convention do their best Halloween act to scare the bejabbers out of you and every other citizen of Illinois.
And when their goblins fly at you, heads spinning, with their best “Bwaa-Haa-Haa!” about the dangers of a con-con, don’t flinch. They’ll screech that convention delegates—your fellow citizens—could try to raise tax formulas, or repeal individual rights, or steer planet Earth into the sun. Answer the bloodcurdling spirits with the mantra they cannot refute: Before our constitution actually would change—We . . . have . . . the . . . final . . . say. All of us. In another referendum. We have to vote proposed revisions up or down.
Wait, it gets better…
Vote yes because if this referendum proposal fails, you do have a guarantee: The sweet-smiling panderers who run this mismanaged state will give you 20 more years of what you have now.
You cannot challenge the interests that own too much of Illinois if you don’t climb into the ring with them.
Big finish…
Let the scaremongers tell you that democracy is dangerous for Illinois. Keep murmuring, We . . . have . . . the . . . final . . . say. Then vote yes on the con-con referendum proposal.
The Tribune muckety-mucks pal around with some of the big business types who staunchly oppose the referendum, and who also happen to advertise in their newspaper/radio/TV stations. That editorial took guts. Good for them.
* Meanwhile, Kurt Erickson, who has been a Statehouse reporter for years, comes as close as one can get to endorsing a “Yes” vote…
The last time the question was on the ballot was in 1988, when the call to revisit our government’s rule book was defeated by nearly 2 million votes.
Since then, we’ve watched the disparity between wealthy and poor areas of the state continue to grow when it comes to educating our children.
We’ve seen a governor go to jail. We’ve seen another governor become the focus of federal prosecutors as he’s presided over a government that is deeply insolvent.
We’ve watched the state’s legislative leaders amass grand powers to control what gets voted on - or doesn’t - in the House and Senate.
We’ve seen them disappear behind closed doors to negotiate out-of-balance budgets that are then sprung upon the rank-and-file lawmakers at the last minute, take it or leave it.
We’ve watched competitive races for the Legislature become few and far between because of the way legislative leaders have gerrymandered district maps to assure they keep their power intact.
Those types of issues could be addressed by a constitutional convention.
Go read the whole thing.
* Erickson is now the third Statehouse columnist to write favorably about a “Yes” vote. Scott Reeder endorsed it late last month. And then there’s me. That should tell you something. None of us have any skin in this game. We are honestly advising readers from first-hand experience and practically begging them to listen to our pleas.
* Related…
* Judge orders rewrite of Nov. 4 referendum question
* Illinois Constitutional Convention (2008)
* Does Illinois need a new constitution?
LIVE session coverage...
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 8:33 am:
For all the current blathering about the “hope” for “change,” most people resist change at all costs and would rather stick with the devils they know. And that’s unfortunate.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 8:36 am:
Sam Zell stars as “Citizen Kane.”
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 8:50 am:
It is nice to see others coming to their senses on this. Never doubted you for a second though, Boss.
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 8:52 am:
===Sam Zell stars as “Citizen Kane.”===
“Maybe Wrigley was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn’t have explained anything. I guess Wrigley is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, a missing piece.”
- Bruno Behrend - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 8:53 am:
We on the “Yes” side, (particularly John Bambenek and me) were pretty sure that the press (print in particular) would be on board this time around. It’s nice to be proven correct.
The only thing that the “Yes” side is missing is a few hundred thousand for radio. If some one provides it in time, it will pass.
The “no” side has nothing to offer but fear itself, and the ratification vote at the end of the process washes most of that fear away.
- Amuzing Myself - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:01 am:
The map and the power that map gives to a handful of people to destroy this state is enough for me. As I’ve said here before, I was looking to be convinced by the “No” guys, but after hearing their arguments, there was very little persuasive substance. I’m voting “yes.”
- Bill - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:01 am:
What washes away the bill estimated to be close to one hundred million dollars? The “no” side has common sense to offer. The public is sick of politics and politicians. The last thing we want is another political boondoggle which may amuse reporters and columnists and keep them busy but will accomplish nothing. It might just sell a few Tribunes though. If you are unhappy with the way the state is run vote out current office holders. Don’t mess with our constitution.
- Harry Caray's Glasses - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:08 am:
The No side has political reality not pie in the sky let the same people who elect these jokers elect a new set of jokers. Hey Bruno do you have your Behrend for Delegate signs printed yet?
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:13 am:
The problems with the no side are many.
To address Bill’s FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), how much money is is costing the state’s taxpayers to continue with business as usual? What were the costs of trying to rig the question? Secondly, why was it a good idea to have a con-con in 69-70, but not now? The State constitution is not like the Federal one. It requires some tweaks as shown by the evolution of the behavior of the politicians.
- Union Guy - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:17 am:
It’s crazy to think that anything good can come out of this — who said the only time we are safe is when the legislature is not in session — that’s what we will be saying during a con con
- Rob_N - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:21 am:
Bruno,
Your money’s likely going to have to come from folks outside the state… Unless you know a few wealthy conservatives willing to part with a few hundred K.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:25 am:
Where did this idea come from that says the constitution is “closed” now? The ILGA at any time they wish can make changes FAR easier than they could in a con-con… The difference is that if they did propose changes in the ILGA they would only further entrench their own power. At least a con-con gives an opportunity for change.
The no side and its acceptance of “political reality” only offers the idea that democracy has failed, that we should through up our hands and return to crown rule.
- Rob_N - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:30 am:
PS - “Union Guy” … If you don’t want the Lege to be in session, write a Constitution that mimics the Texas Constitution.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:35 am:
No,John, that is the usual disinformation. The ILGA cannot change the constitution. The people can ammend through a referendum and they have 10 times since 1970 and it didn’t cost anywhere near 100 million dollars. Dollars that could be better spent by the state on number of things. Democracy has not failed. It is alive and well. We will all have a chance on Nov. 4 to elect our representatives. The politial reality is that this meaningless boondoggle will do nothing to solve the perceived problems espoused by single interest groups. If you want change vote for progressive candidates. If you want to ammend the constitution get the ammendment on the ballot. The state should not waste money it doesn’t have on this foolishness and at the same time put our guaranteed basic freedoms at risk.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:40 am:
===The people can ammend through a referendum and they have 10 times since 1970===
How many times since 1990, Bill?
- Union Guy - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:41 am:
Rob — That’s my point — I like my constitution — it would not be safe in a con con
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:44 am:
Why is the con-con estimated to cost $80 million? If the voters chose yes, and delegates served in the public interest with no compensation (maybe a small per diem for their trouble), attorneys agreed to serve pro-bono to research some of the ramifications of the changes (a much more worthy cause than some recent high-profile pro bono work:-) and the ratification was tied in with another statewide general election, I think the whole ball of wax could be done for about 10% of the advertised cost.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:46 am:
Well, Rich, I’d have to check but, since you asked, my guess is none. What’s your point? That the constitution works well for Illinois citizens and there was no demand for change and no outpouring of support for ammendments after 1990?
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:50 am:
A new constitution is worth whatever amount the anti-self government opponents claim it will cost.
Bill?
John Wintrop ghost contacted us and he wants you to return his powdered wig.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:51 am:
Sorry for my constant mispelling of amendment.
- Speaking At Will - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 10:25 am:
== What’s your point? That the constitution works well for Illinois citizens and there was no demand for change and no outpouring of support for ammendments after 1990? ==
LOL! Man…..I’m speechless….
- conned - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 10:51 am:
I don’t think anyone would be surprised that a reporter would want a chance to cover a very controversial event with statewide implications. That’s what reporters live for and Rich loves controversy more than anoyone. Reporters have a close up view of problems in Springfield that we all know exist. The question is will a con con fix these problems.
I also enjoy watching Bruno try and con everyone here. This guy admittedly has recruited over 50 delegates and has an extrememly conservative agenda outlined in his book. He hopes that everyone will not look behind the curtain and only focus on his recall message. He is a prime example of the dangers of con con and the zero accountability of delegates.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 10:54 am:
===I don’t think anyone would be surprised that a reporter would want a chance to cover a very controversial event with statewide implications.===
If you’re insinuating that’s the reason those reporters and myself are writing this stuff about the con-con, I have two words for you…
1) Bite
2) Me
- Captain Flume - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 10:57 am:
Regarding amdendments since 1990: According to the 1970 Illinois Constitution Annotated for Legislators (4th Edition, updated 2005):
” . . .The General Assembly has sent fifteen proposed amendments of the 1970 Constitution
to the voters. They are summarized below [1990-present, adopted only here–CF].
Adopted amendments . . .
1990: Amended Article 9, section 8 again, to subdivide the kinds of real property
having a shorter period for redemption from taxes into two groups—one with a redemption
period of 6 months, and the other with a redemption period of one year.
1992: Added to Article 1 a new section 8.1 on rights of crime victims.
1994: Two amendments were proposed and adopted.
(1) Amended Article 1, section 8 to remove the requirement of face-to-face confrontation
in criminal trials between witnesses and defendants.
(2) Amended Article 4, section 10 to change the intended legislative adjournment date
from June 30 to May 31.
1998: Amended Article 6, section 15 to strengthen the process for discipline of judges
charged with misconduct.”
Amendment initiatives can be made only for Article IV, but must be, according to a Supreme Court ruling be for both “structural and procedural subjects” (Article 14, Section 3 annotation).
- Captain Flume - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:03 am:
Anyway, the way I read it, if special sessions and amendatory vetoes are an issue, the GA can propose amendments that would qulaify those gubernatorial powers. And surely in Illinois, ther must be some lawyers who can write an initiative amendment that would pass court muster to address the manner in which the GA conducts business.
- BandCamp - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:04 am:
=== If you want change vote for progressive candidates. ===
Vote for whomever you want. Without some change in the Constitution, the newly elected legislators will still be led by the old guard.
Bill, quit yelling at the kids running through your front yard.
- Captain Flume - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:13 am:
Also worth noting is that an amendment proposal to limit the amendatory veto powers of the Governor failed in 1974. Maybe not today though?
- Secret Square - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:28 am:
Does anyone really think the GA is going to pass an amendment limiting the gov’s powers in any way, given what’s happened in the districts of the legislators who voted for the recall amendment — e.g. IDOT Traffic Safety and Pontiac Prison? Not as long as this governor is in office, at least.
- Phil Collins - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:35 am:
I agree that, if voters want change, they should vote for progressive candidates. Almost all candidates are progressive, but they have different opinions of progress.
- Secret Square - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:38 am:
It seems to me that a lot of the provisions of the 1970 Constitution were written on the assumption that reasonably sane and competent people would interpret and exercise those powers, and that they would not have to be “childproofed”. That assumption has proven to be false.
It isn’t just the governor who is at fault here. For example, has anyone noticed that the current constitution mandates that pensions be paid but DOESN’T mandate that they be funded? Apparently the people who wrote that clause assumed the GA and governor could be trusted to take care of that — but they haven’t. All three branches of government are to blame here because the Ill. Supreme Court ruled way back in the 70s that it was OK for the state to skip pension fund payments as long as it didn’t endanger anyone’s CURRENT benefits. There are other examples as well. We now know how badly these powers can be abused, and therefore need to take measures to prevent their abuse in the future.
- Captain America - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:52 am:
At the risk of redundancy I repeat a past post: We should all be “mad as heck and refuse to take it anymore.”
Send a message to the political plutocrats, and their friends and families feeding at the public trough, that politics and government as usual are no longer acceptable.
Illinois is ready for reform even if the politicians, unions, and other established interests are not.
We can do better!Vote yes for Con-Con! Let the chips fall where they may.
- Bruno Behrend - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 2:14 pm:
Conned,
Please define “extremely conservative agenda.”
Just in case some one doesn’t know, I tell everyone in the beginning of all of my presentations and debates that I’m a talk show host, and generally perceived as pretty conservative.
For my part, keeping a pension guarantee clause in the Constitution, but also mandating the funding of benefits is hardly an “extreme” position. (and BTW, Secret Sq., I think you are naive. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing in 1970) Neither is fixing the balanced budget clause so that it actually mandates a balanced budget.
Who ever we “recruit” still has to get elected, and last time I checked, that is done by the people of each district.
Next, what ever changes are made to the Constitution have to be ratified by the voters, and I doubt any “extreme” right-wing issues would get passed any Illinois electorate.
My guess is that you’ve read the same tea leaves we all have here in IL. There aren’t enough tax dollars (or future tax dollars) in the state to pay for the army of bureaucratic dross, their end-of-career largess, and EROs that force every one in IL to pay for their living off the tax payers for the last 20-30 years of their lives.
The biggest fear of the “no” coalition is that the gravy train will end. The fact is that has to end in any case.
118 delegates in a convention will fix things faster, and in a better fashion, than the current process and/or people.
Vote “Yes”. Bad ideas won’t get passed ratification.
- No more hidden tax increases - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 3:03 pm:
Bruno–
The biggest tax increase ever was voted in by the “informed” electorate after the 1970 constitution. Home Rule — or “self government” as the conservatives liked to call it then has resulted in Cook County and Chicago having the highest sales tax in the nation. Its never been called a called a tax increase. Fear mongering — you bet — but fool me once …
- Bruno Behrend - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 3:27 pm:
NMHTI,
An accurate point re: home rule, but totally non-persuasive re: the 2008 convention vote.
I’m reminded of the many enjoyable debates against Dan Proft on this issue. Let’s see…
a) the 1970 convention got us a bad constitution, therefore,
b) another convention is a bad idea.
WTF!? Who the hell thinks that way?!
Let’s see, GWB is a bad president, therefore elections are too risky, let’s keep him in office until “better leadership” comes along.
It’s absurd logic on both counts.
The 1970 Convention was scripted in advance by all the powers that be. (Ogilvie, RJDaley, et al.) A 2008 convention is unlikely to be scripted in the same fashion. (not that our book wouldn’t be a great script, IMO) Hence the special interests’ fear of a convention. Anything they can’t script HAS to be “too risky.”
I’m 100% with you re: “Home Rule,” which is NOT “local control” by citizens, but control by difficult-to-defeat local pols.
If you want to repeal/reform Home Rule along citizen driven lines? A convention is the only way you’ll ever get there.
Every citizen in the state should ask themselves what top 3 things they would do to improve Illinois. Ask yourself whether a convention is more or less likely than the current process to get those improvements. The answer points to “Yes” every time.
- No more hidden tax increases - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 5:06 pm:
BB
your thinking is very noble and one that I wish we all shared. Unfortunately, this state threw out the 9th grade civics model of government back before the Cubs won their last world series. Unfortunately, the powers that be, In Kass’ words, the combine - would influence this convention just like they influence everything in this state. If we get a convention — hold onto your wallets — all levels of government in Illinois need revenue.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 5:09 pm:
===would influence this convention just like they influence everything in this state===
So? The machine influenced the last con-con, too. The resulting document wasn’t bad at all for the times, but times have changed.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 5:10 pm:
In other words, some of us aren’t ready to just lay down and die.
Give up if you want. Your perogative. You must be a Cub fan. lol
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 5:11 pm:
One other thing…
You know I can see your IP address, right? lol
- Bruno Behrend - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 7:35 pm:
NMHTI,
Thanks for the compliment.
Unlike Kass, who complains about the so-called “combine,” but won’t offer any ideas to combat or replace it, I haven’t given up yet.
I see a “yes” vote as an opportunity, not a guarantee. Some people make a living “cursing the darkness,” and Kass is better at that than most. (very similar to my conservative curmudgeon friends who think I’m crazy)
I’m jist sayin “let’s light this candle!”
- Cheswick - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 9:13 pm:
== We will all have a chance on Nov. 4 to elect our representatives. ==
Not exactly, with 59 out of 118 state reps running unopposed.
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 8:37 am:
===== We will all have a chance on Nov. 4 to elect our representatives. ==
Not exactly, with 59 out of 118 state reps running unopposed. ====
And 2/3s of our senators are not running at all.