57 Comments - anon - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:02 am: this is quite interesting, in that the dividing line on support/opposition does NOT seem to be the party aisle (though no vote yet, so we’ll see). it actually looks like a DEBATE for once, and not just a formality of statements to be read into the record. are we sure this is the IL legislature? - Oh C'Mon! - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:05 am: Fritchy is wrong. This legislation does not ‘put the power in the people’s hands.’ It merely suggests that the House urges a convention. A convention will be filled with partisan hacks who will protect political interests - just as it always has. The power of the people has nothing to do with it. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:11 am: It is romantic nonsense to think that a constitutional convention will tackle the difficult issues that the legislature, governor, and electorate (through referenda) have failed to tackle. If you pull a bad pickle out of a pickle barrel, why would you think that the next pickle pulled out will be any different? - Chicago Federales - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:13 am: Hopefully Blago and his ilk will be indicted before the Constitutional Convention is held. If not, they should be BANNED! - Crimefighter - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:23 am: The constitutional convention should adopt a recall provision for elected leaders…then the voters would have a chance to correct a mistake a lot sooner than waiting until Nov. 2010. - game plan - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:26 am: The people at the table are elected to be there from the senate districts. It’s time for more good work to go forward. Thirty years ago we were listening to 8 track tapes, didn’t have PC that even portable, the Viet Nam war had just shortly ended, less people were college educated, factury jobs were available, the Berlin wall was still up, email wasn’t a word, Bill Gates was just quitting college to work on micro computers, the shuttle space program wasn’t available, ABC - CBS - and NBC were the major TV stations at the time, remote control wasn’t available, mobile phones were mounted to the hump in the car and didn’t work well, domestic partners refered to individuals who were of the opposite sex and not married which was taboo back in the day, Little house on the Prairie was the show we watched, Ronald Reagan was the governor of California?, PLEASE. Our lives have changed so significantly from 30 years ago that more must be done. You heard them today, our elected representatives could not get any changes to the constitution out of rules. Something is wrong with this picture. Of course then you have the Governor completely going against the constitution with noone standing up to him when he dissolved the ISBE and appointed people. That’s clearly against the constitution. - Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:48 am: Crimefighter, California’s recall shenanigans were a hugely expensive circus. You’re telling me that with all the debt our state has you’re cool with footing the bill for partisan hackery in future inane recalls? Please. Besides, our lege has the ability to impeach a statewide officer (and, IIRC, appointees such as cabinet officers). There’s your recall option — convince your Rep. and Sen. to initiate impeachment proceedings. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:56 am: Congratulations to Representative Fritchey and the majority of voting members who supported the resolution. The essence of self-government is trusting the people and our constitution has a few serious flaws and several minor flaws that should be addressed. The core of opposition to a constitutional convention is fear: fear of the electorate from making decisions. There is something a bit pathetic about that public policy position — implying that the people are to be trusted to elect the General Assembly but not to elect a constitutional convention and decide whether to ratify any proposed amendments. - PalosParkBob - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:07 am: If you think a ConCon will actually make government more accountable and responsive to the needs of the electorate, think again. First, the same political organizations and fiefdoms that currently control the legislature will choose and elect the delegate slate. The chance getting anyone politically independent elected is slim and none. A ConCon would be a feeding frenzy for every lobbying group that does business here. The politicians pulling the strings would reap a fortune from special interests and lobbyists and the people of Illinois would be trampled like grass. With the current leadership and political climate in Illinois, a ConCon would be a Pandora’s box that would be disastrous for the state. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:19 am: game plan, You could say the same thing about the US Constitution. Heck we didn’t even have cars, TVs, radios, deliverable electricity, telegrams, etc. Yet that constitution still works. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:20 am: PalosParkBob — there are no incumbents in a con-con. You seem to forget that the people have to vote on any proposed amendments. The people can’t be “trampled like grass” if we get to decide whether an amendment is adopted or not. - jwscott72 - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:29 am: I fully support a Con Con. This may be the first step in the right direction for once. Good job! I also wish the mysterious C a happy birthday. I could sure go for a bagel right now! LOL - polly - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:36 am: someone should mention that not only was the resolution adopted, it only passed by one vote (48-47-2) pretty fascinating roll call… go check it out. not that often that you’ll see the Speaker and Bill Black voting one way (YES!) and Barbara Flynn Currie and Tom Cross voting the other (NO). - game plan - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:37 am: PPB - so come up with an idea. and for cermak - this is not the US constitution. The uniqueness of the State Constitution is that it belongs to the State as long as it does not cross the intent of the US constitution. US constitution does not define education as Kentucky does - or the rest of the states. We need recall in this State. What a better way, to PPB point bad leadership, than to have recall available to remove bad leadership. In Congress they have the capacity to amend the Constitution and it’s allowed. If you heard the speakers today, they put the bills in there to cahnge the Ill Constitution and they never come out. Even bi-partisan bills to modify the consitution. Let our young people have a say in their state. - anonymiss - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:39 am: PalosParkBob - What will be a lobbyist feeding frenzy WON’T be the Con-Con, but rather will be the effort to prevent it. some of the biggest special interest dogs out there (NRA, AFL-CIO, etc) realize that they can’t exert the same control over delegates than that they can over legislators and will (and have) come out in strong opposition. - anonymiss - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:42 am: one more thing - bob said, “With the current leadership and political climate in Illinois, a ConCon would be a Pandora’s box that would be disastrous for the state.” - if you’re unhappy with the current leadership and political climate, then you should be in support of a Con-Con. opposition to it is throwing up your hands and saying you’re OK with the status-quo. - muon - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:42 am: To PPB, It may or may not be the case that special interests will benefit. I would note, that the special interests across the spectrum were against the resolution. That would lead me to think that they don’t expect to have the same level of control with a ConCon that they do with the usual system. Pingback Time for a new state constitution? Yes, but that’s why we won’t have one | Peoria Pundits - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:45 am: […] Rich Miller is reporting that the Illinois House has approved a resolution which “Urges the support of the electorate on the question of whether a Constitutional Convention should be called and encourages the electorate’s attention to this initiative.” […] - Squideshi - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 11:56 am: One major problem with a constitutional convention is that the voters must approve one before the General Assembly adopts rules indicating how delegates are to be selected. How can people be expected to vote without first knowing what process will be used? I agree with Dan Johnson-Weinberger that the public should be trusted; but without first knowing the rules, we can’t truly be sure that it will be the public that will actually be deciding these matters. - Reality - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 12:01 pm: We all discussed this last week, too. To Mr. Johnson-Weinberger: Your argument is well-founded and elequent. I see your point about the “core” opposition. However, can you see another, non-core reason for opposing it… i.e. that a new “Con-Con” has the potential to be and will most likely be a vehicle to concentrate even more power in the hands of the current power structure? I am all for giving power to the people and do trust them to make decisions. However, I think if a new convention is called, regardless of the positive intentions, it will be the same players proposing new ways to acquire even more power at our expense. And the people who optimistically voted for it would have been sold a bill of goods as opposed to a bill of rights. I believe we will have less freedom under a new Constitution. And, I forget who said it last week but the ‘70 delegates had a lot of hacks. There is no reason to think the next group would be better; there is evidence to indicate they would be worse. Finally, as with most issues, I believe bloggers, in general, are having more constructive and reasoned discussions about the issues facing our state than many of the legislators. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 12:23 pm: What are these “new ways to acquire even more power at our expense” that you are so worried about, Reality? What “new ways” would earn the support of a majority of the electorate? There’s an odd strain of this argument that somehow the legislators who were elected by the people — none of whom were forced to vote for the incumbents — are not legitimate representatives. Squideshi, what rules for electing a con-con would you want to see? I think the sooner we discuss and debate actual proposals, the sooner we move away from boogeymen. Our state constitution should permit a graduated income tax rate. Our state constitution should requre the state to finance 50% of the cost of public education. Our state constitution should give citizens a right to access all government documents. Our state constitution does not do so today. Those are some reasons why we should embrace a statewide discussion and debate over the structure of our government. That’s healthy. And it’s somewhat sad to reject the debate because you’re scared of the potential outcome — especially for people who don’t particularly like the status quo! That’s the position I don’t understand: (a) I think the status quo is bad and (b) I oppose a statewide debate and discussion on improving our government because the people in power might still be in a position to influence the debate. Well, people who get elected *should* be in a position to influence the debate, and if you don’t like what they do or say, then elect somebody else. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 12:32 pm: As I have commented before, I learned in my time working for government that things CAN be made worse, frequently are, and quite often by sincere, well-intentioned people. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 12:53 pm: Well said, Steve. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 12:54 pm: Or even by the not so well-intentioned folks, like the “Let’s Ban Gay Marriage” folks or the “Let’s End Affirmative Action” folks or the “Let’s Allow Prayer in School” folks. - Crimefighter - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 1:01 pm: Rob_N — Crimefighter, >California’s recall shenanigans were a hugely expensive circus. You’re telling me that with all the debt our state has you’re cool with footing the bill for partisan hackery in future inane recalls? Please. Yeah and Gray Davis got kicked out of office for his reckless and horrible job as governor, effectively ending his political career in disgrace. I’m glad to know at least ONE person is shedding tears for his demise. Gray left a huge mess and he got exactly what he deserved. >Besides, our lege has the ability to impeach a statewide officer (and, IIRC, appointees such as cabinet officers). There’s your recall option — convince your Rep. and Sen. to initiate impeachment proceedings. Yeah right, the congress can be convinced by us voters to throw a governor out of office. You’re living in dreamland. The state congress will NEVER EVER impeach Hot Rod. The powerful will protect each other and nothing will happen, as it always does, because they’re in power and we are all peons. The only way Hot Rod’s coming out is that Patrick Fitzgerald hands down a list of criminal charges forcing the governor to step aside. So I am very much for a recall provision on elected leaders when they abuse their authority and other elected leaders refuse to do anything about it. If we had one maybe George Ryan wouldn’t have had a chance to let all the mass murders off of death row, certainly now with Hot Rod leaving scorched earth where Illinois once stood while he continues to hide in his condo in Chicago. - Huh? - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 1:06 pm: “Many problems started out as solution.” - Eric Sevareid Some people think that a con-con is the solution to all of our current ills. This is one instance that the “Precautionary Principle” ought to be used. - capitol view - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 1:10 pm: There are a few items that need cleaning up, but these can be addressed by amendments to the current state constitution. For example: for the past eight years, there were proposals to merge the Comptroller and the Treasurer’s Offices. The main sticking point was which name to call the successor office — each political party wanted to name it after the one held by their incumbent. How is it, that this merger issue has gone away when both offices are now held by one party? Also, our state constitution says that all citizens over the age of 21 shall be qualified to vote in elections (Article III, Section 1). This obviously needs updating, based on federal action since 1970. The saddest part of our current State Constitution is the wonderful Preamble. Some idealists might say that the preamble states what state government is intended to do, and the rest is just how state government is to be structured to carry out this public policy intent. Unfortunately, the courts have consistently ruled that the Preamble is merely prose, and the constitutional language to be enforced begins with Article I that follows it. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 1:19 pm: Huh; that quote is the best I’ve ever seen the point made. - So Ill - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 1:25 pm: Rich, what can you tell us about rate relief? I thought it was back on the Senate schedule for today? I also keep hearing that a solution might be imminent. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 1:34 pm: “So Ill” they threatened to move the freeze today, but backed down. Negotiations continue. - So Ill - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 1:36 pm: Thanks, Rich. Much appreciated. i knew they were meeting today, but…well, anything else is conjecture. - PalosParkBob - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 2:15 pm: To all asking for a “better idea” to a ConCon, I’d like to inform that constitutions can be ammended without one. This allows “tweaking” without putting the sound, necessary foundations included in the Constitution at risk. It is very hard, as it should be, to ammend the Constitution, but it can be done if a change is so important that a large consensus of the government and voters believe the change is vital and has overwhelming merit. For example, if you want to remove the constitutional protection of public employee pensions, create an ammendment to do so. I doubt it has vital and overwhelming merit to result in approval, however. Want to force the state to fund 50% of K-12 public education in Illinois? You can do it by ammendment. Better yet, you can just elect a legislature and Guv to do it WITHOUT a constitutional change. That hasn’t happened, and its because, when push comes to shove, the people of Illinois really having what little loocal control of school taxation and operations that we currently “enjoy”. By the way, don’t forget that the constitution states that a goal is for the state to have the primary responsibility for funding an EFFICIENT system of public education in Illinois. If you want to debate that public education wouldn’t be adequately funded at double the current state contributions to K-12 education in Illinois were it run efficiently, bring it on(in another thread). Try legislating efficiency into any government and you’re bound to be in for a losing union/patronage battle. The fact is that there is no need to throw out the “baby with the bathwater” by canning the constitution with the ConCon. As far as lobbyist opposition to a ConCon, they probably don’t want to pay for buying the same property twice. They’ve already bought the legislature, why should they want to have to also buy Con Con delgates? All a Concon will do is ensure that a delegate “tyranny of the minority” will force its will on the rest of us for the next 40 years - Just Saying - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 2:23 pm: Huh. Here I thought the “War of the Roses” referred to the English civil war between different factions of the same family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses Leave it to the press to mess up on the rare occasion when Daley makes an apt cultural comparison. - Chicago Federales - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 2:40 pm: Guess Milo won’t be going to Richie’s backyard barbeque this weekend. To busy circling the skies of that big state called Illinois. That’s one place Fitz can’t serve him with da papers. - Southern Ilinois Democrat - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 3:27 pm: When can we dump Emil for a leader that can think for himself? He has been an embarrassment to the Democrats this session and needs a demotion. Can’t the other Senators see that? - So Ill - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 3:27 pm: Rich – But in a special session, ALL lawmakers could consider would be the budget, right? That’d really drive downstaters waiting for rate relief insane. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 3:34 pm: No. You can switch back and forth between special and “normal” sessions. - So Ill - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 3:37 pm: My mistake, thanks. I’m in support of a ConCon just to clear up all the different types of sessions (lol) - Potty Mouth - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 3:39 pm: reason Emil’s caucus is coming back Thursday is their is a Latino national event out of state at the beginning of next week. So the reporter’s theory is in error. - anon - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 3:47 pm: council of state governments in puerto rico - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 3:49 pm: That’s probably closer to the truth. - just wondering? - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 4:18 pm: What about just getting things done here in Illinois and not worrying about attending meetings out side the state? ConCon should limit the days the general assembly has to do their work. - Sango Dem - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 5:36 pm: More money for CTA but no action on the Ameren rate freeze…I guess the Democratic leadership isn’t interested in electing any downstate Democrats anytime in the near future. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 5:38 pm: I’m not afraid of an update to the State Constitution. Sure, things could get worse after a ConCon. But I think it’s also possible certain fundamental and fair changes could be made. Can’t we who read this blog and spend so much time arguing over these issues suggest ways to tweak the constitution to fix some of the problems? There’s a QOTD Rich. Who knows, maybe we could finally answer the school funding question? And address the looming income/property tax questions too. Maybe merit selection of judges? Maybe township and county government reform or modernization? Could we undo the Cutback Amendment, to be specific, by creating a 177 seat unicameral house? Could we really propose fundamental changes like that? A ConCon can do something to fix some problems that the current entrenched interests have proven they cannot. The status quo isn’t getting it done for me. Yes on ConCon. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 5:53 pm: A little late getting back to the blog, but to Yellow Dog Democrat: as a proponent of 750 and a potential recall amendment, both of which would likely generate more enthusiasm with a con-con than with the current General Assembly, why do you insist on working to close off the option that citizens enjoy to advance those two proposals you hold dear? - Big Al - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 6:16 pm: It doesn’t matter how much you shuffle the cards if you keep the same deck. - Craig - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 6:17 pm: Rich, is the Gov. ever going to sign the smoking ban into law??? - Peoria Pete - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 6:47 pm: Someone has to point out that “War of the Roses” was a movie with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner about the ultimate nasty divorce. I assume that’s what was being referred to in the much discussed quote today. - muon - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 6:50 pm: Some suggest that smaller scale amendments can be proposed to handle some of the desired changes that have been discussed. A check of the legislative record shows that these have indeed been proposed, often on multiple occasions. They never come up for a legislative vote, let alone go to the voters. That’s the success for section 2 of Article XIV. Section 3 of that article also provides for narrow amendments. However, these can only affect Article 4 on the Legislature. That leaves section 1, the ConCon, clearly intended as an infrequent but useful mechanism. The delegates are not selected by the GA as has been suggested, but must be elected 2 per Senate district. The ConCon need not produce a constitution, but may create ballot questions that can be as narrow as the ConCon approves by a majority. Those questions, if any, then have to go back to voters. This seems far harder to manipulate than the process of the GA. - Gene Parmesan - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 7:08 pm: Nobody should really be surprised that Rod is bringing in Houlihan to try and expand the 7% legislation. He owes him for that sweet 1% increase he got when his neighbors received increases of 30% or more. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=4619992&ft=sm Oh, and nevermind that pesky ol’ U of I study saying 52% of residents in Cook County actually pay more in taxes as a result of 7%, or that it disproportionally helps wealthier homeowners. - Fake Bill - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 7:10 pm: I liked the video of the softball game. When I heard Matt Jones was the host, I thought Emil got another relative a job. I guess I was wrong on that assumption. Did they take the cost of the uniforms and the hats out of their raises, or they were last years attire. Good to see Rich live and in motion. - Shouldn't be this way - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 9:31 pm: Craig, the smoking bill would cut off a funding source for the Gov since the GRT is dead.n The debate on the House floor today was great. The vote was even better. What bothers me so much is to hear elected officials who have submitted bills for amendments die making the peoples process die along with it. Leadership should allow discourse, a chance to talk and a chance to vote. It is very disheartening when you believe in a process and it isn’t working for the people. We elected the general assembly to bring our voice to each floor. Effectively we are being disenfranchised by the Speaker and the Senate President because these amendments are not being engaged in decent debate. - wndycty - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:01 pm: On a lighter note, things haven’t gotten as bad as they have in Alabama: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/07/lawmaker.scuffle.ap/ -snip- MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) — Simmering tensions in the Alabama Senate boiled over Thursday when a Republican lawmaker punched a Democratic colleague in the head before they were pulled apart. Republican Sen. Charles Bishop said Democratic Sen. Lowell Barron called him a “son of a [expletive].” “I responded to his comment with my right hand,” Bishop said. Alabama Public Television tape captured the punch. -snip- - Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 7, 07 @ 10:57 pm: Crimefighter, We don’t have a Congress for Illinois — we have a state legislature. And if you want to create a circus ripe for politically motivated wasting of taxpayer dollars, let us know your address so we can send you the bill every some Darrell Issa wannabe gets the brilliant idea to start a political witch-hunt … I mean, “recall election”. As for Gray Davis, perhaps you’ve heard of a little company called Enron. They don’t exist anymore, in part because they were discovered to have been unethically and fraudulently manipulating California’s power grid. What was Gray Davis supposed to do? Takeover Enron’s power plants as a state-run operation to keep the juice going and put a stop to Enron-induced brownouts and blackouts? From the sounds of the rest of your message I’m sure you would’ve loved that socialist move. (And Enron execs were pretty supportive of Ahnold, btw. Go figure.) I could care less about Davis — I live in Illinois, not LaLaLand. But at least I try looking up the facts before shooting my mouth off. - Bridget Dooley - Friday, Jun 8, 07 @ 7:56 am: Ricky Hendon rules in that video, lol. I think the press is thinking of that movie from the 80’s, “War of the Roses”, with Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas. - Tim - Friday, Jun 8, 07 @ 8:59 am: Seriously, how useless is Nix? Where the heck did Rod find her? - respectful - Friday, Jun 8, 07 @ 1:49 pm: The first two commenters and several others dismiss a convention as just as bad as the General Assembly. Yet no one would say that about the last convention (’69-70); how can cynics be so certain the next one would be a failure? I think there’s a chance — but no guarantee — it could transcend the Springfield gridlock and adopt some overdue institutional reforms that the legislature refuses to do. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.