Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Do you favor or oppose a constitutional convention for Illinois?

Please explain your position fully and honestly, and without the use of prepared talking points.

I’ll be out of the office for a while, but will deal harshly with vapid, mindless, dishonest copy-and-paste comments (and commenters] when I return.

Thanks.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:39 am

Comments

I just don’t like the idea that the constitution can potentially be re-written every 20 years. The United States Consititution has been fine for 221 years now.

It really opens things up to the specidal interest folks.

Comment by stones Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:44 am
I’m for it in order to get computerized redistricting. It’s unreasonable to expect sitting legislators to willingly give up the opportunity to draw their own districts.

The end of gerrymandering would break the stranglehold incumbents have of choosing their voters. It would make for more diverse constituencies, presumably requiring legislators to be less partisian and more willing to compromise in order to truly represent their districts.

It would also diminish leaderships’ influence over individual legislators in that they would no longer control the map-drawing process.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:49 am
Strongly for. I think Rich has summed it up rather eloquently more than once - Any system that claims to be “democratic” yet allows 4 people to control virtually the entire process (e.g., “The 4 Tops”) is a broken system and needs to be revamped.

Comment by What Planet is he From Again? Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:50 am
I think that the system is broken, but this is the wrong time to try and fix it.

Comment by tominchicago Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:56 am
For con-con.

There are operational problems in the state which stem from weak language in the current constitution. Recall of all public officials should be included. “Planet ” points out that 4 individuals which turns into an alliance of 2 can stymie the will of the entire legislature. I live in a community which is split by multiple legislative districts. Does not work out so well.

To those fretting about the special interests controlling the process, remember that the new constitution must also be voted on by the public.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 11:59 am
For it, but with reservations. “The people will have the last word…”. By way of whom we elect and their virtues (should there be any), it does not absolutely mean they/we are at the mercy of 4 under all circumstances, does it? If there were 4 true leaders who had honest diffences, yet were able to compromise and arrive at decisions generally in the interest of the majority, a con-con wouldn’t be as necessary as it is projected to be by the advocates for same. Will the power of 4 be diluted to the many, and fulfill the statement of Alexander “Big Al” Hamilton: “The masses are asses”, at least as so many are in the legislature. Just wondering.

Comment by You Go Boy Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:01 pm
I am for the constitutional convention because the people of Illinois have very little say in the process of government, and this is the only way to fix it. I say ‘only’ because, clearly, there will be no major improvement to the Constitution through the assembly. Get rid of the cutback amendment? Computerized redistricting? Term limits? Recall? Funding for (education, pensions, environment, law enforcement, etc)? Even if the assembly was stocked with great legislators and informed leaders on both sides, nothing would get done because of the structure of the government. This is the opportunity to fix this.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:06 pm
I am firmly in the “I dunno” camp. I share in the anger/disgust at the way things have been going, on a few top leaders being able to run (or ruin) everything, and a “yes” vote seems to be the only way to show my displeasure with the way things have been going. The amendatory veto provision needs to be changed, recall added, impeachment standards added, more transparacny in the legislative process, maybe term limits for legisatlive leadership positions, and several other changes to our current constitution would be beneficial. My concern, however (and I’m a democrat) is that Illinois is currently such a “blue” state (and may turn even more so with the anticipated election of Obama as President), I’m not sure I want that many democrats fiddling with the constitution. Remember, con con delegates are elected, and if the con con election goes like most, a heavy democratic majority will be tinkering with the constitution. Yes, I know the final product is still subject to voter approval, but it still makes me very nervous. SO. . . I dunno how I’m going to vote. I just don’t know. . .

Comment by Ivote Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:10 pm
Yes, absolutely. Numerous provisions of the current constitution have either been grossly abused (amendatory veto, special sessions) or are no longer adequate to meet the state’s needs (flat tax?) and need adjustment.

Comment by Secret Square Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:11 pm
For, because there are obviously a lot of problems that a con-con could fix - recall, reducing the stranglehold that the leadership has. It could also address structural issues - like redistricting and the Comptroller and Treasurer offices merging into one.

Although I worry that it won’t be done properly - not so much due to special interests, but that so many compromises will be made on the issues that need to be addressed that it will have no teeth, thereby making the entire process a waste of time and money.

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:15 pm
Strongly for a con con.

I echo the points posted by Lefty Lefty.

Comment by Speaking At Will Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:23 pm
The primary directive of ANY government is to keep itself in power. So the right to vote on having a constitutional convention every twenty years seems a democratically prudent endeavor. The amendment process, though, should be used refine and correct deficiencies in the document. If the time and effort were put into pressuring the legislature to address critical issues through the amendment process, that is being expended on creating a wholly new document, we might see the repair of some of the problems and abuses of the current document. Proposed amendments that failed with the voters can be resubmitted, initiatives to bring about legislative changes can be put forth. Illinoisans can make the changes they feel are necessary through a process that is more exacting in focus.

A new constitution won’t be a better one, just a new one.

Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:26 pm
De-empower the oligarchy, term limits, recall of any politician, and the return OUR freedoms should all be considered. This is our Constitution, not theirs. As a reminder: Constitution of the State of Illinois PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors - in order to provide for the health,
safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual;insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois (BTW: the male pronouns don’t refer to ANY of the “Four Tops,” contrary to their own perceived self-importance).

Comment by Let the People clean house! Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:26 pm
For.

None of the opposition’s talking points hold water.

A convention may cost $XX million but how much money is being wasted now through either outright misappropriation or lost opportunity costs?

There’s an outside change the end product may be worse than what we have now, but voters have final say-so in a ratification vote when all is said and done so if it is birdcage liner we can vote it down.

But why be for it?

Wordslinger touches on one reason, and there are several more, all of which don’t really lend themselves to talking points and make my eyes glaze over.

- common sense, truly non-partisan redistricting

- redistribute power to equalize the lege and dilute the ‘four tops’

- rein in the lege overall

- better citizen input on tax structures and other gov’t issues - local and state

- consequences

…That last one is purposefully open-ended

–

Stones, the US Constitution has been changed several times over the past 221 years through amendments.

And the US Constitution is, perhaps by necessity, much more flexible and fluid by virtue of its being a Federal document than any of the 50 state constitutions (in part because the Federal Constitution does leave quite a bit of decision-making to the individual states).

To the point, the Illinois constitution is less than a half-century old in the first place - though our state was founded nearly two centuries ago. The constitutional convention rule was specifically added into the current state constitution to give we the people the opportunity to review how it’s working and demand a change if we are so inclined.

Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:31 pm
For the con con. Frankly, I think the opponents make little sense with their arguments. The only thing they say that I agree with is that our constitution is pretty good, but there are 3 major issues that I think need changing: the flat tax (regressive), governor’s amendatory veto powers need to be eliminated or further curtailed, and I don’t favor recall but I do think that perhaps term limits (3 terms) for the Governor and constitutional officers would be appropriate.

Lastly, I’m for the con con because we need to send a message to our fellow citizens and our officials that we do have the ultimate power to make changes and we’re going to because they haven’t.

Comment by Soy Milk - Formerly Known As Napoleon has left the building Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:34 pm
For it, but it’s like being for a nice game of Russian roulette. We do need to fix some things about the current arrangement, but it’s very scary what else might happen.

Comment by Excessively rabid Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:36 pm
PS: While I was typing several others posted their thoughts, including a number of folks who mentioned term limits.

On paper term limits sound like a great idea, but in practice the states which have them in place have found them to be an onerous impediment to good governance. Essentially, term limits force out the legislature’s “brain trust” every few terms (such as it is). That means the only folks with longevity in under the capitol dome are lobbyists…

That’s not the solution we need.

I could see some modified version of term limits being implemented — “long-view” term limits that allow for more years of service (10, 12, more?); no term limits on individual elections but limits on leadership positions, committee chairmanships and assignments; etc.

Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:37 pm
To be completly honest I do not want to worry about changing the pension laws. Unions al over the state are right to not want to reopen the pension for fear of what could happen to pensions.

Comment by fed up Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:40 pm
Strongly for. We need to put the power back into the peoples hands and prevent the chaos created by a handful of politicians. Their power must be checked and balanced in order to permit the peoples business to continue.

Comment by Justice Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:41 pm
I’m for it. We need to have term limits, recall elections, and binding referendums. Many people, of all parties, support these reforms, but the legislators don’t support them, since these reforms would reduce the power of the legislators and the governor.

Comment by Phil Collins Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:46 pm
Yes,I favor the con-con.Illinois is heading for financial ruin with a massive underfunded pension system.A new constitution needs to eliminate the guarantee of public pensions.Also,term limits on state and local office holders in the state of Illinois should be considered.

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:48 pm
No strong views, but marginally against.
It seems like a lot of money to spend when I doubt anything worth while will be accomplished.

That being said, and despite my vow never to run for any office beyond my own condo board, if it passed I might well run. It would be great to be part of the process.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:51 pm
About 35 or 36 states term limit governors and other executive officers, either by not allowing them to succeed themselves or by permitting them only a certain number of terms in their lifetimes. Plus the POTUS has a two-term limit. I would like Illinois to get on board with a 2 or 3 term limit for constitutional officers.

However, only 15 states have legislative term limits and several others have either repealed them or had them struck down by the courts. They have caused a lot of problems in states like Michigan and Missouri, for the reasons Rob N. states.

So I don’t favor term limits for the GA seats themselves, although a limit of, say, 10 years on how long one person can hold a leadership position like Speaker, Senate Prez, committee chair, etc. sounds reasonable to me.

Comment by Secret Square Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:52 pm
I am totally in support of it. Unless you want 20 more years of nothing getting done (save for the not frequent enough guilty verdicts in federal court of our no-good officials), this is the only thing that can be done.

Those who whine about a variety of potential dangers (and a short while ago I received such a misguided warning from a suburban Republican committeeman that I know) are forgetting that the November 4 vote oly authorizes a Constitutional Convention. If it passes next month, we will than hold elections for delegates in 2009. More than likely, a good many of the delegates (if not a clear majority) will be leaders of our communities, such as former elected officials and legal scholars.

If the delegates can agree on a document, then it goes before the voters, with the same hurdles as would a constitutional amendment. (I suppose it is also possible that the Con-Con delegates could simply decide to present a number of amendments to the the existing Constitution, or rewrite the current document intact, save for several proposed changes.)

A “YES” vote on November 4 merely permits the possibility of making some badly needed changes. A “NO” vote will kill the best chance to reform state government for the rest of our lives. After all, if we can’t get a “YES” vote for this after one governor has been sent to prison and another seems likely to follow him, we will never see reform.

Comment by fedup dem Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 12:55 pm
The entire document does not need to be opened for discussion. The parts that do need to be modified to deal with the changing times can be altered by the people or the General Assembly. Instead of having a constitutional convention, the members of the General Assembly should fight for a change to their internal rules that requires the leaders to call any proposed amendment for a vote if a majority sign a petition requesting a vote on the amendment.

There are things that need to be changed, but they can be done by other means. Computerized redistricting (not available in 70) and the amendatory veto (failed experiment of the convention) can be changed if the people band together and start a petition drive.

Comment by Against Con Con Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:02 pm
By the way, Steve, a con-con CANNOT eliminate the guarantee of public pensions because that is an enforceable contract which the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids any state to break.

What a con-con CAN do, however, is institute a mechanism requring pensions to be consistently and adequately funded. A big part of the problem we have today is that the Ill. Supreme Court ruled back in the early 1970s that the state didn’t have to actually pay into the system every year, so long as everyone currently drawing benefits could still get them. That’s how the state got into the habit of underfunding pensions.

I see no reason, however, why the system could not be changed for persons entering state employment after a certain date; but current benefits already promised to current employees and retirees MUST be paid no matter what the cost to the rest of the state.

Comment by Secret Square Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:03 pm
Moderately for… Not sure about the cost and the potential for the current group of “leaders” to stack it even more in favor for themselves, but really, how much worse can it get for us out here? Right now, the power is way out of balance, and being abused regularly, so one would hope that we could come up with a better system for the State…

Comment by pchappel Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Don’t trust these characters to change or re-write the constitution. Can you imagine allowing the US Constitution being re-written by Tony Rezko, Barney Frank, Stu Levine, Marion Berry and Richard Daley?

Comment by North of I-80 Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:06 pm
I think we could have a better Illinois Constitution.

Illinois should have a graduated income tax.

I would reduce the number of constitutional officers and the number of elected positions.

Here’s how I’d like to do judges.

Initially 1/3 of vacancies would be appointed by gov (approved by legislature), 1/3 elected and 1/3 selected by some sort of merit selection process with a system for ensuring equitable demographic representation.

At elections voters would vote for which system they liked the best. If appointment by gov only gets 10% of the vote then the gov only gets to appoint for 10% of the vacancies in the next cycle. If people don’t like merit selection then they can vote for electing the judges.

It would reduce the number of judges on the ballot and I suspect get us better judges.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:06 pm
Secret,
For public employees sake, I hope that you are right about pensions but unless you are a Supreme Court Justice it is dishonest to express your OPINION as fact.
If I were relying on a pension for retirement I would not want to put it at the mercy of the Bush Supreme Court.
Oh, by the way, I am opposed.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:11 pm
Not sure about the Con Con. I think the biggest argument for it is the line up of people against it. The concentration of power in Illinois government is ridiculous, especially because of how much resides with people who don’t stand for general election from the whole state (i.e. legislative leaders).

That said, computerized redistricting is no panacea. In fact, it’ll only hide the blatantly political decisions in lines of code that are even more incomprehensible to average citizens than the current process. Computers are only as smart as the people who program them.

There are no “objective” standards to use. How do you “objectively” divide downstate counties that have cities like Champaign, Decatur, Bloomington or Peoria? A Democrat would want to keep the cities intact and keep rural areas together, making the cities “doughnut holes.” Republicans would rather split the cities in half and combine the halves with big rural tracts, making for more evenly sized districts but diluting the power of cities and their residents, i.e. Democrats.

You can go through this exercise using any “objective” boundary or criteria you might want to use. In virtually every case, you will favor either the D’s or the R’s. And that doesn’t even begin to address the Voting Rights Act issues of keeping together communities of interest. Is it more important to give blacks or Latinos or Asian Americans a bigger say in the General Assembly or to keep districts compact?

All fascinating stuff that COULD be addressed in a Con Con, but if the deus ex machina is what you’re hoping to solve legislative gridlock, you’ll be sorely disappointed. No matter what protections are written in law (i.e. the Constitution) today, they’ll be hopeless relics of the past by the time you put them into practice 10 years from now after the next U.S. Census.

Comment by DC Critter Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:17 pm
i favor the con con, basically because it is *possible* that it will alter illinois politics as it did in 1970. i’m always amazed at those who argue that the constitution should be set in stone — especially state constitutions. it’s like they don’t understand that the constitution is a social compact that requires the people’s consent (to it) to be an effective instrument of governance. those who worship the constitution don’t want a governing document, but a religious one…

Comment by bored now Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:20 pm
I was initially opposed, because the GA hasn’t yet shown us any delegate selection rules; however, since the voters ultimately get to approve or reject any suggested amendments, I have changed my mind and now support a ConCon. If the GA promulgates bad selection rules, and bad proposals result, the voters can simply reject them. That having been said, I still think that the GA should show us the selection rules NOW.

Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:21 pm
Bill, I think you understand by now that what is expressed on this blog is SUPPOSED to be opinion. It should be based on fact, or a reasonable interpretation of those facts, as I believe my opinion is.

I realize it could, conceiveably, under some unforseen circumstance, turn out to be wrong. That doesn’t make it “dishonest.” This is a blog, not a legal journal.

Comment by Secret Square Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:23 pm
OPPOSED
Providing another arena for the political disfunction in this state is sadistic and a waste of money.

I only ask this of those who support a Con Con would you support a Con Con if we had a Governor who could get the job done?

Comment by Harry Caray's Glasses Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:27 pm
I have been opposed but am now of the opinion that the “peoples voices” can’t be any worse than the “leadership” of Blago, Madigan, Jones, Watson and Cross.

Comment by cardinals fan Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:28 pm
Strongly favor. It’s a great way for the public to be involved without having to serve in office. Public engagement and awareness is vital to reform.

Like Skeeter, I vowed never to get involved again after a stint on the condo board, yet I’m interested in serving as a delegate for the con-con.

Comment by Long-time Lurker Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:30 pm
The writers of the “newer” constitution put in the provision to go back and revisit it every 20 years. Why? What did they perceive would happen within a 20 year period of time that the entire document would need to be revisited/rewritten?

I see a few things that were left out the first time. There should definitely be term limits for the Senate President and Speaker of the House. I don’t have a set number I’d like to see but there should be limits other than for the rest of one’s politicasl life. As for term limits for other political offices, I see the pro and con of that and I could go either way.

This may not be the greatest time to put recall into the constitution because the majority of people are so livid with our current governor; however, it sure would have been nice to have in this document so the people could be heard, the governor would know that he has to suck up to more than just a few politicians to keep impeachment at bay, and perhaps he would actually believe he is accountable to the voters who put him in office, not once but twice.

The districts should be computer drawn and I would hope that would take the politics out of who gets what village, township, or county.

Fix this Special Session BS and Amendatory Veto. Write it so that the governor, whomever he/she is, has no choice but to abide by the onstitution. Perhaps that will stop this running to the courthouse every month to force the governor to follow the constitution which he swore to uphold.

And lastly, I’m hoping for some fairness in real estate taxes/education funding. Let’s write into the constitution how schools should be funded and take some of the load off the homeowners. I don’t like having 65% of my tax money going to a school district when my children are no longer school age. I do understand that as a homeowner, I must pay and that there were seniors paying to help my children go to public schools. However, I would be in favor of a more equitable system. I don’t know what that is. If I did, I’d run to be a delegate for the con-con convention and lobby for my idea.

I don’t understand people who are opposed to a con-con. I suppose I don’t understand politics enough to know what the big deal is to other interest groups other than just the citizens of the state.

Comment by Just My Opinion Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:33 pm
When the last Con Con took place, there was no internet, we all drove gas-guzzlers and doctors made house calls. Since then, we’ve experienced unprecedented technological and social change. That alone warrants giving our constitution a fresh look.

Comment by cool hand Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:39 pm
I’m for it. Time to “change” the politics in Illinois.

Comment by scoot Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:42 pm
For a Con-Con - Maybe we will be able to incorporate conceal-carry into the second amendment and catch up with the other 48 states that allow it. (Only IL and WI are left.)

Comment by Healthcare Worker Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:42 pm
Strongly support Con-Con for a number or reasons:

Illinois government is obviously broken - not functioning adequately.

Illinios politics is incredibly corrupt - top to bottom.

Two consecutive Governors have been/or will be convicted of crimes committed while in office.

Our top leaders have become dictators - we seem to be afflicted with a top down autocracy: Czar Daley, Godfather Jones/Troglydyte Phiilip, and Speaker Machiavelli. Our Governor is more of a madman than a dictator. We need a republic rather than a dictatorship of political elites.

The amendatory veto provision needs to be modified/restricted given Governor Pinnochio’s excesses.

The balanced budget requirement in the current constitution has become a sham in practice. Obviously wiggle room is needed but a complete sham is inappropriate.

We need an executive recall option with a high ballot threshold so that voters have an option against incompetents or sociopaths like Toddler Stroger and Governor Pinnochio,instead of enduring
their inadequacies and failures for full four year terms.

We should have a modestly progressive income tax.

State responsiblity for funding public education requires constitutional clarification/ reinforcement.

Redistricting be more objective in terms of compact and contiguous districts instead of based upon partisanship. Allowance should be made for electing proportional numbers of minority representatives.

Illinois had too many governemntal entities - township governments appear to be largely obsolete and unnecessary, not to mention a variety of other special purpose entities.

Campaign finance reform should be addressed, since Illinois is the Wild West with few meaningful restrictions. Public financing
for some offices may be appropriate

Merit selection of judges seems entirely in order at least in the Chicago metropolitan area, where few can make any inteligent decisions about specific local judicial elections.

Ballot access requirements are excessively restrictive on third party/independent candidates.

I’m not claiming that all my suggestions are politically valid. But Illinois has never been a “good government”state. By addressing some of these problems and issues forthrightly and honestly, I am convinced that collectively we could be do better than we have done in the past.

Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:43 pm
Moderately for. The constitution needs a bit of help. Power needs to be more evenly distributed in the legislative branch. The exec powers need to be trimmed back a bit.

There are many ways to work on these problems, but amending does not lend itself to the type of careful considerations that a con-con would (I hope) engender.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:45 pm
Secret, the federal government can’t stop Illinois from amending its own constitution’s language. Eliminate the pension section, and you lose that “contractual obligation” language I think you’re hanging your hat on.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:46 pm
Strongly in favor. As pointed out above, I think the most telling sign is the coalition of forces that have aligned to defeat a Con Con. Their mantra is to “vote the rascals out” if you want reform, but they’re the largest contributors to the powers that be in Springfield.

Does anyone honestly think that the GA is going to willingly amend the Constitution to enact computerized redistricting, curtail the powers of leadership, or to clarify the Governor’s amendatory veto powers so that he stops acting like a dictator? (Well, maybe that last one)

The system is broken, and it becomes clearer every day. Opponents of the Con Con say that this is solely because of the Gov, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. My response is that the petty personality wars that have created a stranglehold over this state have shown exactly why there needs to be a Constitutional Convention.

Comment by Kevin Fanning Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:50 pm
For.

I think gerrymandering is garbage and there are too many statewide officers. I also think there are off-the-radar problems with local goverment- like too many taxing bodies and my personal pet that the structure of county government is a relic of the 1800s.

Beyond that- I said this to a friend yesterday- I think once a generation we should fight out the basics of how we govern ourselves. People in a democracy shouldn’t be complacent about government.

Comment by Rich O Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:56 pm
Strongly against….this could alter the state pension system greatly. Very doubtful term limits would ever come about. Perhaps if we had a con-con Chicago could just make Blago the supreme Dictaor for life!!

Comment by Illinois Boy Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:57 pm
I will vote yes for the Con-Con. Frome an average citizens viewpoint it appears that there a few tomany people holding all of the power, to many loop holes that can and are manipulated.

Comment by Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 1:58 pm
I am strongly in favor of the ConCon. The current state government is broken. THere needs to be a distribution of power in the legislature. Four people should not be the almighty. I strongly favor recall. If not for anything else but a deterant for elected officials who are corrupt or simply inept.
I think School funding could be looked at.
My final thought is this, we cannot depend on government to take care of themselves, they are too dependent on special interest. I strongly believe in term limits, if it is good enough for the President of the United States, it is good enough for all other offices.

Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:01 pm
Strongly against… The voters elected these bozos and we want to give them morep power? Give me back crown rule.

Comment by anonymous coward Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:03 pm
I’m voting yes.

There’s something pathetic about fear of the people. That’s at the heart of opposition to the constitutional convention — maybe people will make things worse!

There are three clear deficiencies in the constitution: a flat rate mandate for the income tax, a coin-flip redistricting regime and the lack of any right to a state-funded public education. Amendments to solve these three deficiencies have not passed the General Assembly. They may pass a constitutional convention. That’s reason enough to vote yes, in my book.

Comment by Dan Johnson-Weinberger Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:04 pm
It pains me to say this but, no I don’t.

Why,
I sadly the biggest thing to come out of a convention would be a move to jerk over current state workers and former state workers when it comes to retirement benefits.

It would be popular and it would be wrong.

Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:06 pm
RE: Harry’s

My support of the convention is wholly unrelated to who the current governor is. It is about the process of governing, and it is quite broken here in Illinois. As Mr. Miller has so effectively explained, the current governor has demonstrated to us how the constitution currently is ineffective at addressing the current abuses by the state “leadership.” These leaders have control of the process, and they will not let true reform out of committee, let alone put it on the ballot in the form of a constitutional amendment. So we have to do it.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:06 pm
Lefty,
Fair enough however a Con Con is not going to tell the General Assembly what rules they can use in addressing legislation. The idea that a new Con would take that power away from the Senate President and Speaker is politically unrealistic especially considering the role these same players will take in delegate elections.

Comment by Harry Caray's Glasses Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:13 pm
I’m for it to curtail the powers of the governor. I know we can’t conceive of every potential abuse but we can learn from the mistake the past to be able to prevent what has happened in the past. I also support a con-con to change the make-up of the state legislature to make it more amenable to the will of the people who elect them. If that means changing how districts are created then I’m all for it. Those are my basic reasons.

Comment by Levois Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:14 pm
I am pro-con-con. That is a strange phrase to type. I would like to see movement on term limits, recall provisions, limits on public pension sweeteners/spikes, merit selection of circuit court judges and get rid of the offices of Lt. Governor and Comptroller. However, I do feel strongly that current pensions in place to current and retired pensioners should not be diminished. I have my doubts whether a Con Con can fix the school funding concerns, but it is worth a try. One of my mentors served as part the 1970 Constitutional Convention and was a strong advocate of the process. I will cast a YES vote.

Comment by Jake from Elwood Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:14 pm
Healthcare worker-I support concealed carry but don’t think it will be a part of constitution, nor should it be; do think local anti-gun measures stronger than state law should be forbidden.
On the original question, still in the “I dunno” column, but will probably vote for it. The argument that “special interest” groups will make terrible changes is overridden by the list of existing status-quo “special interest” groups that oppose con con, because they DON”T want anything changed.
Some writers here seem to fear a total rewrite of the constitution-I really don’t think that that will happen-the persons elected to the convention will probably be politially connected in some manner or the other-they won’t be inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but they might us a stronger soap what they have.

Comment by Downstate Commissioner Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:15 pm
I’m opposed and I think the commenters in this thread make my point for me. There is no overriding reason to do this except people don’t like Illinois government right now, largely because of the people in charge of it.

That’s a leadership problem, not a governmental structure problem.

Everyone is advocating their own pet changes, income taxes, judges, redistricting, AV amendment (which I do support), etc. What will happen is people are going to get into the convention and start horse trading for their own pet changes.

And imagine the delegate selection process? At the small enough district level, friggin people like Oberweis and Stroger can win because of name ID alone. You think voters don’t pay attention for County Board races, well imagine what will happen with this one.

If there was a specific line of reforms that a coalition agreed to before hand and then proposed a con-con, then I’m in favor. At least people were expressing an opinion on what they want fixed as opposed to throwing up their hands and voicing their displeasure.

And one other mention because I know people like to bring up the political power of leadership. That is a party/political reform problem, not government. Everyone is free to raise their own money (in very large sums I might ad) to their own committees and run their own races.

Independence doesn’t necessarily mean loss of power or effectiveness. Maybe that was true 5 years ago when there was no internet to air your gripes, but anyone can get information flowing now.

Comment by ChiDem Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:19 pm
Carl brings up a very good point about our current system of electing judges and voting on their retainer…. Though I don’t understand his methodology for replacing the current system.

Judges ought to be appointed. Period. Maybe give them term limits too, maybe not. But asking “non-partisan” candidates to run in partisan races is folly and hasn’t worked. All too often we end up with unqualified judges simply because they had an (R) or a (D) after their name.

Good point Carl. Add it to my list of why-for’s.

Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:25 pm
The con-con could eliminate the provision in the state constitution on pensions.Eventually the SEC will be stepping in because a massive underfunded pension system should be shut down because it’s fraud pure and simple.

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:35 pm
For it, but not because of Blagovejich and the 4 tops, or a populist “they have too much power” ethos.

In addition to the structural changes I’d like to see (progressive taxation, elimination of personal property tax replacement tax, and education funding), I think now is the moment to give new leadership in Illinois a chance to shine. There are a lot of young folks just starting to engage in the political system who are smart, have high ideals, and just enough pragmatism to make a difference. The 1969 con-con produced such leaders; I think a con-con now has the same potential.

As for the question of what the drafters of the 1970 constitution may have “missed” that caused them to draft the 20 year provision: the previous 1870 constitution had become unworkable by the early 20th century. Yet, it was nearly impossible to fix because there was no easy mechanism for amending or re-writing the document. Hence, the drafters sought to seek authorization every 20 years.

Like Soy Milk (FKANHLTB), I think the 1970 constitution is a great document. But it’s time to revisit some of it so that it does not become hopelessly outdated.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:45 pm
===jerk over current state workers and former state workers when it comes to retirement benefits.===

Current, maybe. Former, not.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:45 pm
Reason for Con Con - State Governmnet is broken.

Reason against Con Con - We could break it more.

Comment by One of the 35 Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:48 pm
For–if for no other reason than our taxing structure and school funding structure need to be revamped to more adequately reflect today’s economy. As a State employee I don’t want to see my pension benefits disappear, but even without a con-con there is a real possiblity that they will. As much as it pains me to say, the state pension system and funding needs to be revisited as well.

Comment by Crafty Girl Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 2:48 pm
for it! Personally, I think access to health care should be a constitutional right. Plus, we can fix some things in the Constitution that have clearly not worked in the last 20 years. I think it is an exciting opportunity.

Comment by chicago student Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:03 pm
I oppose it for a variety of reasons. 1. I am against term limits. Should Jesse White be unable to run again? Why? From my perspective, he’s done a good job. 2. Recall–seems to be a way of making sure we never actually see unpopular acts of leadership from our elected officials. Also seems to be a way for the wealthy to try to game the system. 3. Amendment by referendum–again, the wealthy and/or nutty interest groups will simply play the game better and then the state is stuck. 4. Pensions. Current and former employees who were promised guaranteed pensions when they started should get them. Promises are meant to be kept. 5. The GOP is on the ropes, I’d like to keep them there.

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:05 pm
For CON CON. Do away with the cutback amendment and go back to proportional voting for the legislature. Restore the seats taken away. This will help us acheive a two party system and get some balance into the process—on both sides of the aisle.

Comment by Reality Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:11 pm
Jake From Elwood made a good point - I’d like to see the position of Lt. Governor eliminated. It’s costly and useless. We should just have an order of succession, no need to designate an official placeholder.

Also, pensions need to be on the agenda. If you’re already in the system as an employee - you should be protected - but future and new hires should not get pensions. All future hires should be in defined contribution systems like every other worker in the civilized world. The pension system is breaking our state.

Comment by Soy Milk - Formerly Known As Napoleon has left the building Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:14 pm
I haven’t really made up my mind. In theory, I think it’s a good idea, but I’m not sold on the idea that the elected delegates wouldn’t just be the same old folks doing the same old stuff. It seems to me that elected officials would have quite an advantage over everyday people in being elected to these positions.

If I thought we could get a progressive income tax out of the deal, I’d vote for it in a heartbeat. Since I really doubt the general electorate will pass a tax referendum, I’m less enthused.

Comment by Undercover Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:27 pm
Soy Milk, I’m surprised that ANYONE is advocating for defined contribution retirement plans after the hits those accounts have taken in the past few weeks. “Because that’s what everyone else has” is a flawed argument. So perhaps we should lower everyone’s wages as well? Seems to me we shouldn’t be so quick to race to the bottom.

Comment by Undercover Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:30 pm
Soy and Jake,

One thing I’d say about having a lite gov is that it prevents one person from essentially wearing two (very powerful) hats once a governor leaves office. This is what happened in New Jersey, when the Senate president (who is the lt. gov in a lot of states, incidentally) stepped in to become governor after McGreavy resigned. Now they’re going to have a lieutenant governor for the first time as a result.

I don’t know if that’s worth keeping the office around, but it’s worth some thought. Imagine, Blagojevich resigning and Emil Jones taking over.

Comment by DC Critter Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:34 pm
Strongly for.
It is our duty as citizens to not only elect politicians, it is our duty to make our governments reflect our beliefs, needs, and concerns - not theirs.

Regardless of your opinion regarding any particular state issue, your voice is not being heard. Like a broken vending machine, some of us get something and some of us get nothing, and no one really understands why because the mechanisms are deliberately hidden.

Our current constitution reflects the beliefs of mid-20th Century government beliefs. A belief in a strong governor, a strong senate majority leader, a strong speaker of the house and that belief is based on obsolete centralized government philosophy popular during that age. People back then believed that a bureaucratic meritocracy can efficiently and fairly do our work.

We now know that this philosophy is dead wrong. Politics necessitates checks and balances in the form of power sharing, resembling more of a citizen-powered government, not bureacratic-powered government. What we currently have is an expired and abused state constitution.

The “vagueness” some claim our constitution has within it reflect it’s obsolescence, not poor writing. We cannot know forty years from now what state issues will demand attention, but we can be sure that state government reflects these citizen’s concerns by ensuring that our state constitution permits them to rewrite it when necessary.

When we empower citizens to mold governments to reflect their needs and address their concerns, we also get support from citizens through the process itself. Today’s justifiable cynicism is addressed as we go through the constitutional convention. A new constitution will result in a better relationship between state and citizen as a result.

Those who do not support a constitutional convention because they do not trust government or politicians today are being short sighted because they have allowed today’s political failures to dictate our tomorrows. These people whom we often distrust will be circumvented. We will not get better government until we start demanding better government - by showing our elected leaders what we want today and tomorrow.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:35 pm
Con con is a pretty extreme step to get a recall provision. And, it could not possibly be completed before Blago is gone. There are certainly changes needed to the constitution, but do we really want to open the whole thing up? Is there any assurance the result will be better?

Comment by Morton Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:35 pm
I’m voting NO to con-con. Many of the pro voices stem from disgust with the pols in Springfield. There is this idea that a con con will enable us to “get rid of the bums.” The truth is these same pols will appoint the delegates and frame the new constitution. Can you imagine how much more power they will give themselves when we give them the pen to write the new constitution. I don’t believe the people will rise up and wrest control from them. After all, the voters elected a man on life support President of the Cook County board. Now we are stuck with his son and the highest sales tax in the country. It is simply too dangerous to give them that much power. If we want to change the constitution the best and safest way is through the amendment process.

Comment by samlaw Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:38 pm
Harry-

I agree but don’t see your point as a reason to not support the convention. Term limits (either for elected reps or for leaders), eliminating the cutback amendment, funding reform, etc. will take care of the “leaders” in a different way.

Plus, we’ll never really know how the convention will turn out until we have it, right?

Comment by Lefty Lefty Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:53 pm
===The truth is these same pols will appoint the delegates ===

What?

There is an election, y’know.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:55 pm
===If we want to change the constitution the best and safest way is through the amendment process. ===

Through the GA? Yeah, that’ll work.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 3:56 pm
lol

Comment by Kevin Fanning Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:03 pm
For it. Big reason is how strongly the anti-people are. They’ve lined up most of the establishment - which makes me think they’re nervous about having an actual democracy in Illinois if this thing gets legs. The scare tactics they put out about what could go wrong are sophmoric. And of course, the pathetic IVI-IPO decided to parrot those same scare points (egads - a con con could lead to a return to jim crow laws and the like). Look, let the process take its course. If the voters don’t like the final product, they can vote no. This system should have at least the semblance of fairness and democracy.

Comment by phocion Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:08 pm
I am in favor of con-con. Can any of us state that we are proud of our state government. In the 21st Century how has it performed?

I believe the expenses of a con-con are being dramatically inflated by those against it and I also believe that the voting public has the right to vote down any provision that comes out of a con-con if they are unhappy with it and I am satisfied with that safeguard.

My state senate district and state representative districts are currently gerrymandered for the benefit of the opposing party. Districts whenever possible should be within counties and not spread across competing counties with competing interests. Computerized redistricting is an idea, so is a return to three member house districts to help guarantee minority representation, not only of parties but by race, gender, etc.

I have no ability to demand a recall. I believe that should be inserted.

Abolish Township Government. I have something called “Moraine Township” that maintains no streets, parks, etc. and basically runs a bus/taxi cab service, food pantry and oversees two filled cemeteries, all functions other governments can take on and operate more efficiently. Other than appearing on my property tax bill and paying salaries that can easily be eliminated, that outdated form of government needs to be abolished.

The current constitution allows the practice of having either 3 people (Governor, Senate President, Speaker of the House) or 5 people (adding Senate and House Minority Leaders) run government. Basically I cannot vote for any of them except the Governor. Bring back representative democracy. End the excessive powers of the legislative leadership and also end their abilities to fund campaigns.

I see no ability to bring any tax reform measures to fruition by avoiding a con-con, either through income tax reform, school funding or property taxes.

Term limits for governor only (similar to the federal model).

Return to three member house districts to allow for more minority party and minority representation. Increase the number of Senate and House Districts to reduce the number of individuals each senator and representative actually represents (which has dramatically increased over the years).

Once a session ends, legislators and constitutional officers serve without pay or expense reimbursement if they continue into “overtime.” Get the job done on time and stop behaving like closeted mushrooms.

Ethics reforms to end revolving doors, donations by contractors and state employees, you know, “birthday parties” where you can donate to your bosses type of thing.

Just a few thoughts.

I’m voting “yes” for con-con.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:19 pm
I’m not convinced that another con con is a great idea. Illinois government is synonymous with the word corruption and just has been for way too long. It just seems so much worse under the democrats right now. Pay to Play, and me and mine first seem to be the way Chicago area pols handle everything.

If you could get ethically inclined people to take up the cause, maybe something good could happen. However, my concern is that it all would get hijacked by the present pols and made even worse. Then we would have a new constitution and just a newer mess.

I’d rather see downstate, say all counties south of I-80 secede from the mess and try to find a better way with a new state. It will never happen with the corruption, greed and egos that we see today.

After saying that I can only think of former Sec. of State Paul Powell and his shoe boxes full of money. He was a Southern Illinois boy and helped turn the state Republican decades ago with his questionable antics.

Maybe it’s all just plain hopeless. . . .

Comment by downstate dem Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:27 pm
No! Too many crazy groups. Lets change it by specific ammendments where there is more control on specific issues.

Comment by The Federalist Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:35 pm
=== Lets change it by specific ammendments where there is more control on specific issues.===

You do realize that those amendments would have to first be approved by the General Assembly, correct?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:47 pm
In favor of a Constitutional Convention, if only to provide the executive, legislative, and judicial branch with an opportunity for a constitutional law refresher course. They seem to need it.

Comment by Black Ivy Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:54 pm
For it.

It is likely not to produce wholesale changes, or extreme positions as some have hinted. As I understand it, the large body of delegates will be one filter (hard to get a majority on anything controversial, unless there is much public sentiment in favor). And the public (voters) will be another filter, being able to vote on any changes provision-by-provision, instead of a straight up/down vote on the revised document as a whole. The greatest fear here is not what will change, but what will not change for the time, effort and $ this will cost.

But if it results in 3 or 4 needed changes that would be unlikely to be brought about by amendment of the current document, it’s worth a shot. My pet changes would be logical redistricting, changes to the amendatory veto process, elimination of Lt Gov and comptrollers offices, and a return to 3-member legislative districts.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:54 pm
Some of these comments make me marginally less in favor of a Con-Con, but I am currently planning to support it.

No to term limits. Redistricting reform will marginally help make reps more accountable to their geographic districts. Beyond that, term limits might make reps _more_ responsive to the “special interests,” as they work to line up their future business/lobbying career after their brief stint in office.

But yes to a graduated income tax and a reform of the judicial selection process. Yes also to some modest changes in future pension laws not affecting current retirees. The days when anyone can retire at 50 are over, unfortunately.

Comment by ZC Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 4:55 pm
FOR
I’m for a Con Con. God help us if we ever get another 8 years with the type of governor we have now. Being able to remove someone like this would be very, very helpful.

Indepencent One

Comment by Independent One Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 5:08 pm
=Eventually the SEC will be stepping in because a massive underfunded pension system should be shut down because it’s fraud pure and simple=

Steve, that is unadulerated BS which incidentally has zip squat nada to do with ConCon. First of all, the SEC has limited jurisdiction over public pension funds. They are primarily regulated by State statute and certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Secondly, State and Federal courts in Illinois and other States have consistently ruled that failure to fund a public pension plan is not an “impairment of benefits” to use the 50 cent word, as long as the fund is able to meet current obligations. Doesn’t seem right, but it’s the L-A-W.

Third, when the funds, big and underfunded as they might be, are subject to hundreds of accounting standards, annual external audits, and fiduciary standards of liability, to just call the entire system “fraud, pure and simple” is instead a case of hanging up the tinfoil, pure and simple.

To the post, AA’s corporate position is Vote No. Pension Envy and market turmoil will spill over into an unwarranted assault on honestly earned, largely pre-funded public pensions.

AA’s personal position is AA’s bidness.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 5:26 pm
I don’t have all the information I need to make a decision. Some against the Con-Con say we wouldn’t like what “they” come up for the new Constitution. Others point out that we pick out who “they” are. I wish there was a “Con Con for Dummies” book explaining it in more detail. Do we vote from a pool of elected officials and those voted in work on the new con? Is there a larger vote that any citizen can be a candidate in?

Also, some say that there might be changes we don’t like while others counter that we can vote against changes. I want more specifics. Do we vote “yes” or “no” on the ENTIRE new constitution, or on each recommended changed portion? There is a huge difference there.

Also, I’d like to see a break down of the $80 million cost people keep talking about. Where does that money go? Representatives get paid above and beyond their current pay if they join the Con Con team?

Comment by jessica Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 5:37 pm
Legislators who are also delegates cannot be paid while the con-con is meeting.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 5:53 pm
This ought to be another question of the day. What kind of changes should be made to state government? I’m seeing a lot of prescriptions to change state gov’t. That’s great but this QOTD is only asking about whether we are for or against perhaps we need a separate one for proposals.

Comment by Levois Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 6:06 pm
I favor the Con-Con. I’ve done a simple risk-benefit analysis.

With a Con-Con, we have a potential benefit for a large improvement in government.

With a Con-Con we have a real risk for worse government.

Without a Con-Con we have a negligible chance of better government in Illinois.

Without a Con-Con we have real risk of government continuing to get worse.

The risks of both choices, it seems to me, are similar. But one choice has a much higher chance of a benefit.

I’ll be voting yes.

Comment by Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 6:16 pm
As a state employee 1 year from retirement, I am against it. The current constitution says something about not being allowed to diminish employee retirement benefits. I’d rather leave it alone for the next 20. However, as a political junkie, I know we must have one. A new one needs to see that there are no more Four Tops, and we need gubernatorial dumpability.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 8:38 pm
Legislators who are delegates do not get paid as legislators…do they get paid as delegates? Just trying to figure out where the $80 mil goes.

Comment by jessica Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 9:07 pm
The GA would have to pass a statute authorizing a con-con, and that statute will provide the framework for electing delegates. The only restrictions are two delegates per legislative (senate) district, and that the delegates must be 21, US citizen, and resident of the district for two years. Presumably, the GA would use the legislation from the 1969 convention as a guide, but there’s no requirement that the same legislation be used.

The convention decides what issues to adress and how to put them on the ballot — which could mean an up or down vote, or a vote by section.

Yes, there are a lot of open questions about details and process. But what the ballot question authorizes is a discussion about these issues. That’s it; and saying, “I need to know X” or “I need to know Y” is a lot like saying “I don’t know for whom to vote for GA until I see all the bills that are introduced.”

The question voters are being asked is whether to initiate a process. There will be a second ratification vote once the process is complete. It seems like that’s adequate protection.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 9:11 pm
TOA, that was a very good analysis. I might just steal it.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 9:37 pm
The 80m goes to administer the special election for delegates, facility, staff and research salaries, etc. It may not be that high. It may be quite a bit less. It’s not written in stone.

And, since it’s likely that the con-con will be meeting at the same time as the GA, it’s unlikely that many legislators will run as delegates. A few would be good, though, just for the institutional knowledge.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 9:40 pm
OPPOSED:

1) You change the constitution when there is something wrong with the constitution. Our constitution is fine. 2) Though there will be delegate elections, the elections will be coordinated by the GA. The delegates will reflect the will of the GA but will have even less accountability. 3)$80 million or more for something useless? I think we’ve already got plenty of that already and a con con won’t change it. 4) Using a con con to screw state employees out of decent pensions (they don’t get social security)is reprensible, not to mention bad public policy. 5)You want change? Elect a new governor and see what a difference it makes when the person in that office isn’t a narcissist.

Comment by Mr. Mann Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 9:42 pm
My, my. You could walk across that cynicism. If you come back, MM, please explain this passage…

===The delegates will reflect the will of the GA but will have even less accountability.===

I can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 9:43 pm
I’m in favor of it.

Current system is like a Windows PC that’s run too long, old memory calls aren’t cleaned up, the hard drive is fragmented, there are a couple of viruses in the system.

Time to reimage and start fresh…

Redux? No, Reboot!

Comment by Frank Sobotka Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:00 am
Mildly in favor.

The state is dysfunctional from an operational stand point and there are certainly any number of places where the constitution could be improved. My suspicion though is that a Con-Con, and the coverage of it, will be dominated by any number of hot button issues that have little to do with the operation of the state. (abortion, gay marriage, guns etc.) The result being that any up or down vote on the new constitution will be framed as a referendum on those issues.

Comment by White Rabbit Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 7:23 am
Favor.

While I feel some of the fear and uncertainty that surrounds opening anything as powerful as our constitution, our state government is not working. The problem may simply be the personalities, as many have suggested. But if our constitution were designed correctly, the state’s work would be accomplished, even in the hands of fools.

Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 8:07 am
At this link is the text of an address given by Samuel Witwer, president of the 1970 Con-Con, in 1975:

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1975/ii7512360.html

Those of you who think the state is too messed up, or too broke, or too divided, or too “anything” to even consider a con-con should read this first.

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:21 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Dark days ahead
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - HGOPs; Froehlich; Mulligan; Mathias; Hoffman; Dunn (use all caps in password)

Last 10 posts:

Open thread (04-29)
Isabel’s morning briefing (04-29)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today's edition (04-29)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (04-29)
Live coverage (04-29)
Reader comments closed for the weekend (04-26)
Isabel’s afternoon briefing (04-26)
Things that make you go 'Hmm' (04-26)
Did Dan Proft’s independent expenditure PAC illegally coordinate with Bailey's campaign? The case will go before the Illinois Elections Board next week (04-26)
PJM's massive fail (04-26)