Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in… Jones wants “loophole” closed *** Infighting on pay raises ***
Posted in:
* Another non-reason to vote against the constitutional convention in November…
Former candidate for governor Dawn Clark Netsch cautioned against holding a convention, saying she fears hot-button social issues like abortion or stem cell research would monopolize the debate because special interests are frustrated that the issues are not being debated by the state Legislature.
If the issues aren’t being debated, perhaps they ought to have a hearing at a Con-Con. Where’s the harm in a debate?
* Here are a couple of points that are never really explained in these debates over calling a constitutional convention…
The people - voters - get to vote up or down on the elected degates’ finished product;
Delegates don’t have to write an entirely new Constitution. They could just propose some amendments and ask voters to vote on each one individually.
* From the Illinois Constitution…
The Convention shall prepare such revision of or amendments to the Constitution as it deems necessary. Any proposed revision or amendments approved by a majority of the delegates elected shall be submitted to the electors in such manner as the Convention determines, at an election designated or called by the Convention occurring not less than two nor more than six months after the Convention’s adjournment. […]
The vote on the proposed revision or amendments shall be on a separate ballot. Any proposed revision or amendments shall become effective, as the Convention provides, if approved by a majority of those voting on the question.
The fear-mongering by “reformers” like Dawn Clark Netsch is just reprehensible.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:49 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in… Jones wants “loophole” closed *** Infighting on pay raises ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Personally I am glad our intellectual and reform masters are so willing to protect us hayseeds from ourselves.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:58 pm
Government by and for the people. What a novel idea! Netsch is proving exactly why there should be a con-con. It’s time to take back the government.
Comment by Belle Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:02 pm
It’s the elitist refrain. God forbid that the common people actually decide things!
Comment by Chicago Guy Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:06 pm
Rich,
While I don’t put Dawn in that category, I have maintained for months now that fear-mongering will be the mainstay of the arguments against holding a Con-Con. The interest groups like to work within the system as it is now, and they truly do not want to see a dynamic that threatens business as usual.
A Con-Con is democracy at its purest, more so than the normal legislative process. The people elect the delegates, and the people would have final say on any work product generated at a Con-Con.
Comment by Rep. John Fritchey Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:08 pm
I am a fan of Dawn Clark Netsch but it seems uncharacteristic of her to state this view. Issues that she championed over the years could come to the forefront with Con-Con, such as HB 750 (I know that’s no longer the name) the so-called property tax swap. I hope she was misquoted or at least taken out of context.
Comment by Reading on Walden Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:08 pm
DCN is NOT a straight-shooter…and thus there’s a reason why she did not get elected.
Comment by Crimefighter Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:20 pm
Rich, as you can see, a statement like the one you made about Dawn draws the no-nothings in swarms. You know Dawn is one of the finer people to serve in the GA in the past 25 years, and she deserves better from you and all of us.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:27 pm
Netsch has the conceit of authorship for the current constitution. She wasn’t the only author, of course, but she considers it her baby and seeks to protect it. Understandable, but ultimately irrelevant to the question in November.
Still, to call the actions of a White Sox season ticket-holder reprehensible…
I didn’t know the debates on abortion and stem-cell research had ended. Who won?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:36 pm
===she deserves better from you and all of us===
I disagree. I respect her service and her tenure on the last Con-Con, but she’s been way over the top on this issue. Sorry, but even the sainted DCN should be called out when necessary.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:37 pm
That’s sweet of you to stand up and defend Dawn’s honor Steve. Doesn’t change the fact the Rich is right on this one, so nothwithstanding your claim of her great career, she’s fair game given her pathetic comments. Now go get her a sweater.
Comment by Will Clark Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:38 pm
What do you expect from a DINOSAUR? Corruption pays dividends in Illinois why change.
Comment by Status Quo Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:50 pm
I’m surprised that amendments only need a majority of those voting on the question to pass. That could even be a minority of those who show up to vote (and what are the turnout figures for a constitutional referendum?) if some questions get passed over by voters only interested in a efw hotb-button issues, or who are turned off by a technically complex issue.
That’s not necessarily an argument not to have a Con-Con, but if it happens I hope the list of changes is short, simple and clear.
Comment by Muskrat Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:51 pm
Will we be using the same set of voters that elected Blago twice??
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:56 pm
Missing from most of the rhetoric from the anti-con-con crowd is the fact that ANY proposed changes will go to the voters! While DCN certainly gets respect for her career, continuing to hold onto this position fairly opens her to ‘dinosaur’ criticism. Is there any organized committees FOR a con-con? Or should I just inquire at Pat Quinn’s campaign website?
Comment by Vote Quimby Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:02 pm
Since part of the con-con is a discussion about whether changes are needed, the idea that we should not even engage in a dialogue about the current framework seems odd to me. Hold the con-con to see if we need to fix parts of the constituion (such as the authority to call special sessions)
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:09 pm
Whatever, given the examples she mentions, she is apparently fighting those old feminist wars like abortion. Women activists from that era see a vast conspiracy everywhere to end abortion rights in America, and even the mildest questions about stem cell research being vilified as
just another example of the scary right wing ready to burst out of the closet. Netsch is over the hill. We should ignore her.
The people who don’t want change are either profiting greatly from things as they are (the guv, the legislators, overpaid state civil servants, business cronies and relatives of pols) or they are still living in the 20th century.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:12 pm
Query-Delegates are elected, correct? How does this work? Is it cumulative voting, so as a GOPer in the 47th Ward I have a shot at winning? How many delegates?
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:15 pm
DCN is 100 percent correct. The same reps that sit in Springfield today, the same lobbyists, the same special interests, the same goofy editorial writers and the same token goo-goos would comprise any proposed Con-Con, only the names will change
Comment by The Fox Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:21 pm
===only the names will change===
Most of the members of the last con-con were hacks, but they didn’t do a horrible job at the time.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:22 pm
I thought in some ways they did do a horrible job. For example, in order to reduce the size of the legislature, they not only eliminated seats, which was fine, but they eliminated proportional representation. I thought that was one of the best features of the old constitution. And it encouraged representation for minorities of all kinds: racial, partisan, whatever.
Comment by Excessively rabid Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:37 pm
Delegates will be elected 2 per Senate district. The ILGA has SOME latitude in how this happens, but likely it will be a “pick 2 of the following” kind of race. I would doubt cumulative voting would happen again.
But I’ve repeated this many times… there is no “partisan” stance on gerrymandering, recall, etc. The rank-and-file all generally agree on the reforms that need to take place (though there is debate on the particulars, of course).
As a republican, I’m not worried about a Democrat from the 47th Ward getting elected as long as its a reform-minded delegate. Every reform that the Illinois Citizens Coalition is pushing in our model constitution has wide support among people of all political persuasions.
Total of 118 delegates (59 senate districts x2)
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:38 pm
escessively rabid-
The cutback you are talking about was an amendment that took place long after the 1970 convention. A con-con could resurrect that.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:39 pm
If they didn’t do a horrible job, why do we need a new one? The last constitution lasted 100 years and this one has a shelf life of less than 50? Bottom line is you scratch nearly everyone advocating for a convention, and underneath you find an agenda.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:41 pm
===If they didn’t do a horrible job, why do we need a new one? ===
Good question, but times change. We basically changed the way we govern back then (with the income tax, government grew exponentially) and it had some unintended consequences. Also, there are some issues that should be addressed which simply haven’t been by the General Assembly.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:43 pm
Plus, there were some issues addressed by the last con-con that the courts have ruled were meaningless. The “preponderance” language on school funding, for instance. There are several others.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:45 pm
As a Pro-life Conservative, I am mindful that there are several very, very important issues that ought to be addressed at a Con-Con. There needs to be some changes in some of our election procedures and a serious look at how we select our judges and of course recall. There also needs to be some considerations regarding privacy issues given the advent of the internet etc… since the last Con-Con. Nonetheless, serious people will understand that putting extreme abortion planks in, either for or against, would likely doom passage of the final product. Thus, the final product would not likely have seriously devisive, single interest planks in it unless the delegates wanted to guarantee their efforts would be doomed. ProLifers certainly understand that changing the Illinois Constitution of the subject could not trump the interpretations of the US Supreme Court as to what the US Con guarantees. The most you would get would be some form of parental notification when minors would seek an abortion. No doubt the closer we get, the more doomsday scenarios will be prognosticated. In the end, the only ones who really have anything to fear out of a ConCon are power brokers in one party dominated parts of the state.
Comment by Conservative for the Con-Con Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:47 pm
As a question of clarification … it was mentioned that rather than reworking the entire thing, amendments could be proposed and voted on. Couldn’t the same thing be done without the con-con?
Comment by YNM Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:00 pm
A con-con needs to deal with the mechanica of how decisions are made and carried out. Substantive questions of abortion, gun control, the death penalty can also be handled through referendum, assuming the legislature would allow us mortals to vote on them.
I’m not sure the mechanics are broken. We know this governor’s rule is broken, but he will be gone in two years.
The debate should go on and a decision be made in a month.
Doug Dobmeyer
Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:15 pm
===Couldn’t the same thing be done without the con-con?===
Yes, if a three-fifths majority of both legislative chambers approves it for the ballot. We saw how that worked with recall, however.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:20 pm
YNM only if the general asembly chose to do so. With a con-con the General Assembly is bypassed by letting the citizenry decide.
Given how ammendmnets like recall are being held in rules comittee by one or two senate memebrs, we need somthing other then the GA. The drafters of our constitution saw the need for periodic review and possible change by creating the con-con system. The questions right now is simple should we convene a convention to talk about the constitution? Answer yes then the next question is are any changes needed? A Con-con does not mean or require change or ammendments; it just means we are invoking the vehicle we need to decide if change is needed and what those might be.
For exmple, in 1970 no body discussed how to identify the Gov power over special sessions, such as can he demand a specific time, call the generl assembly in to work on a holy day; force members to be present unles they have a medical excuse etc.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:22 pm
DCN is being silly, plain and simple. I’m against a convention at this time, but that’s hardly a good reason not to hold one.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:45 pm
“Most of the members of the last con-con were hacks”
I assume you mean “hacks”, as in veteran party loyalists, who unsurprisingly maintained the two-party system in Illinois.
To all who support a con-con, consider this: two of the most likely outcomes would be 1)a citizens’ initiative a la California and 2) an easier way in for third parties. Do you want those things?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:49 pm
===two of the most likely outcomes===
How do you know this?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:57 pm
I don’t claim to “know” what would make it in, but these are two of the more popular ideas around the country.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:04 pm
How can we protect a constitutional convention from special interests? We can’t even protect our legislature or executive branch from them…
Comment by Leroy Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:05 pm
How do you become a delegate for Con-Con? I want to sign up.
Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:11 pm
Little e,
You will probably have to pass petitions, get a required # of signatures, withstand challenges from the entrenched politicians in your area and then beat them at the polls.Good Luck. Ill see you at the convention which I’m sure will be held in Chicago.
Comment by Bill Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:36 pm
Ah reporters and do gooders wanting a Con-Con. Good reasons to oppose what would be a mess like we have never seen before.
Comment by Las Vegas Kid Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:41 pm
DCN is a well-known do-gooder and she opposes a con-con. So much for your theory.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:42 pm
The 1970 Con-Con included Netsch, Richard M. Daley, Michael J. Madigan, Jeff Ladd, et al.
Who is to say these folks’ modern-day surrogates will not be the delegates?
It will be, as Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again.
Comment by The Cypress Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 6:49 pm
“She don’t need it”……no she don’t”. Ahhhhh the art of negotiations in the democratically controlled senate. What a hoot!
Comment by downhereforyears Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 8:28 pm
I still say that the machine has so much control over the entire political process that they will control the convention. I don’t see how we’ll get a “two party friendly” constitution when one party currently fails to exist for all practical purposes. Believe me, I would love to be wrong on this one, but these races will be won by organization, as no one outside the system will be spending tons of money to win a convention seat.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:17 pm
Jaded wrote: Bottom line is you scratch nearly everyone advocating for a convention, and underneath you find an agenda.
So what. Yes, I have an agenda. It’s called returning Illinois to citizen control. Rich may have a different agenda, as may John Fritchey & Quinn. At least we want to give the people a chance at a better Constitution.
Like Blago, Jones, Madigan and Daley don’t have an agenda?! Your agenda is better than theirs, as is mine. What is all this nonsense about “not having agendas.”
Silly argument.
Anon asked: To all who support a con-con, consider this: two of the most likely outcomes would be 1)a citizens’ initiative a la California and 2) an easier way in for third parties. Do you want those things?
Yes. It isn’t like the existing 2 parties have done anyone much good. Both are entrenched and generally intellectually bankrupt.
The Fox wrote:The same reps that sit in Springfield today, the same lobbyists, the same special interests, the same goofy editorial writers and the same token goo-goos would comprise any proposed Con-Con, only the names will change
Nonsense. While some of the existing political class WILL get elected, no electorate that just voted 60% for a new Const. is going to put the same people who made the mess in charge of writing a new one.
People who argue as “the Fox” does are selling “conventional wisdom” in a situation where “conventional wisdom” (no pun intended) has been rejected to begin with.
100s of new people will decide to run. Enough of them will win to effect positive change.
If we get a “yes” vote, all the naysayers will be proven wrong. This is worth the risk. As Rich points out, the people have the final say..
on “yes/no”
on Delegates
on ratification
Voting “yes” offers the opportunity for positive change, voting “no” offers nothing at all - save the status quo.
This is a no-brainer, everyone.
Comment by Bruno Friday, May 9, 08 @ 12:17 am
[…] From CapitolFax: * Another non-reason to vote against the constitutional convention in November… Former candidate for governor Dawn Clark Netsch cautioned against holding a convention, saying she fears hot-button social issues like abortion or stem cell research would monopolize the debate because special interests are frustrated that the issues are not being debated by the state Legislature. […]
Pingback by Rich Miller Defends the Con Con Friday, May 9, 08 @ 1:11 pm