Huntley on the Con-Con
Friday, Jun 22, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
Steve Huntley at the Sun-Times has a column today about the upcoming vote on a Constitutional Convention. He has high praise for the drafters of the state’s current Constitution…
Though some of the lofty goals of the reformers would ultimately fail, it’s a measure of the Con-Con’s success that some of the debates that so convulsed the delegates then — such as modernizing state finances, allowing branch banking and abolishing the personal property tax (for most people that was a car tax) — were resolved well enough that few today remember the issues. Others, like ending the election of judges and guaranteeing state responsibility for school funding, did not fare so well and plague Illinois to this day.
And takes a look ahead…
[Lt. Governor] Quinn believes a new Con-Con would attract the same quality of delegates. “I have total confidence in the everyday people of Illinois,” he said, to live up to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson that “it’s healthy for every generation to review its organic document.” [Cook County Commissioner] Suffredin sees a new Con-Con as the best chance for fundamental reforms, such as ending the state’s egregious system of electing judges, which Springfield hasn’t been able to address.
[Chicago attorney Wayne Whalen] acknowledges the train wreck that is government today — gridlock in Springfield although the Democrats run everything and the ongoing soap opera of county government under Todd Stroger — may anger voters into choosing to “ventilate” through a constitutional convention but believes it would be a bad idea. Netsch agrees: “I just don’t know that we would get merit selection [of judges] but we sure would get other things we weren’t looking for.” Like maybe a prohibition of stem cell research.
There are powerful arguments on both sides, but in the end it’s difficult to dismiss worries about the potential for single-issue disciples to damage the good work done in 1970.
Thoughts?
- NIEVA - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 9:35 am:
I believe that the greatest fear our leaders have is that the people might have a say in what goes on in Illinois. If a convention would help bring tax relief,or may a concealed carry law in this state I’m all for it. If it gives the mayor or Rod more power I’m against it!!
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 9:39 am:
Things progressives are likely to see come out of a Constitutional Convention that they weren’t looking for:
1. Ban on gay marriage.
2. Limits on restitution for emotional damages in medical negligence cases.
3. Ban on the right to strike for public employees, especially teachers.
4. End of Constitutional protections against pension reductions.
Things Conservatives are likely to see that they weren’t looking for:
1. Graduated income tax.
2. Binding state mandate for providing 50% of funding for public education.
3. Popular election of the Illinois Commerce Commission.
4. Universal health care as a right.
- bored now - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 9:49 am:
Convention proponents certainly have a viable message by reminding people of the gridlock in Springfield and the craziness that is this overtime session. It emphasizes the fact that politicians won’t change themselves.
Let me add to YDD’s list:
Resign to Run: a constitutional mandate that in order to run for any elective office (any office on the ballot), you must resign other elective offices you hold by the time the office you seek would be sworn in.
- Reddbyrd - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 9:50 am:
Let’s rewrite the Legislative article and adopt the Nebraska model, dump that pension stuff, merge Treasurer & Comptroller…wow they could have some fun
I would guess the 2A/Tinfoil helmet crew (may be the same) fight to a draw against libs/gay rights supports and gun safety advocates.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 10:15 am:
If a constitutional convention was held today, what impact would the ruinous leadership oozing out of Chicago today have on it?
Daley, Stroger, Blagojevich, Mell, Daley, Jones, Madigan, not to mention Troutman and other current or former Chicago Aldermen are giving Chicago a huge black eye. That is not a good thing for the City. Consequentially, that is not a good thing for the State.
If or when a constitutional convention is held, it would probably be a good idea to ensure that the City is well represented. Right now the Illinois Democratic Party is submerged in corruption, and incapable of governing. And we all know there is no Republican Party in Chicago, so we have to depend on the Democrats to clean house before we can see reform and progress in Chicago.
Maybe what we need to ask Mr. Whalen is just how badly can we let things get and still have a good constitutional convention? I’d prefer to have one when we are not floundering in mediocrity and crisis, but perhaps that is impossible since it is chaos and collapse that generates revolutions and demands for change.
Nice insights, YDD.
I could actually live with the list, but I would add term limits to the list. Considering the current administration, we need to have in place some kind of limits as to just how unethical and investigated we can allow our state office holder to become.
This idea that just because someone can be elected justifies their lack of ethics has to end. Political reform is so overdue today.
After Ryan and Blagojevich a constitutional convention would also change how rotted governors can be expelled from office too.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see a demand for term limits thanks to Jones, Madigan, Daley and Blagojevich; the Four Horsemen of Gridlock and Corruption.
- dan - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 10:24 am:
Add term limits and a recall option .
- muon - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 10:39 am:
YDD has a good start on a list of concerns, and I’m sure more will show up as more readers post today. It is interesting that the House Resolution was widely opposed by strong lobby groups from across the political spectrum. I suspect that was in part generated from the fear of one or more items on a list like YDD’s.
VM also raises a concern that Cook/Chicago is in too much of a mess to generate quality attendees. I would point out that the last convention was called after the disaster of the 1968 DNC and many now laud that convention for the product they produced. I agree with VM’s insight that chaos generates the demands for change. In the case of the last Con-Con they got it.
I feel that the worst fears are perhaps unfounded. The constitution requires that any proposed amendment(s)need both a majority of the convention and then a majority of Illinois voters at the election to consider the amendment(s). If the convention shold pass a proposed amendment with too many special interest provisions, then the opponents of each of those provisions will be fighting them at the state election. With too many opponents due to too many such provisions, I would expect that the amendment would fail.
- anon - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 11:12 am:
For decades, I have felt that the two threshold issues in illinois politics were the influence of money in politics — campaign finance, etc. — and Childrens’ issues. Money, because it allowed interest groups to control the process and lock in elected officials serving those groups, and childrens’ issues, because what we do for children shapes the future of our state.
My best hope for a consitutional convention is that it will open up the electoral and legislative process to serve the future of our state.
But I am not optomistic. The same lobbies that dominate state government today will move to do the same to a convention.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 11:42 am:
I must need to clarify:
I don’t doubt the ability of Chicago to send quality conventioneers. What I doubt is the willingness of other conventioneers to listen to them.
A lot of us have had it up to here with Chicago Democrats running Illinois into the ground. For the sake of diversity I recommend that the Illinois Democratic Party consider candidates from outside Chicago in 2010. There are 102 counties in Illinois. How about choosing someone from the other 101 for a change? Maybe they will find another view other than the one they have under Wacker Drive.
- Formerlobbyist - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 12:16 pm:
And Pat Quinn thought that reducing the size of the House of Representatives was a good idea. Elimination of the 3 member districts has lead to excessive partisanship and the concentration of power in the legislative leaders. If Pat is for it, we should be against it.
- steve schnorf - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 2:04 pm:
The Law of Unintended Consequences
- True Observer - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 2:14 pm:
The selection of con con delegates will boil down to:
1 from each state rep district, or
2 from each senate district.
Arguabley, there were statesemen at the 1970 convention.
No such luck this time.
Now there is so much money in state and local government that heavyweights will want to be elected.
Expect to see some prominent office holders seek to be delegates.
- anon - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 2:24 pm:
Vanilla Man, The democratic party DID choose someone from outside of Cook County (Mangeri), however the voters didn’t pick him.
A con-con would be a disaster for everyone. Unfortunately the possible impact of special interest groups - both positive and negative (AKA lobbyists) - outweighs any potenial benefit.
- Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 2:54 pm:
Worries about bad results are based on worries about what amendments a majority of the voters would approve. How bad can a proposal be if a majority of the people support it — and a majority of elected delegates? I think the status quo could use a lot of improvement. Those that oppose a con con are essentially embracing the status quo.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 2:57 pm:
If we lived in a more idealistic state - such as Wisconsin or Indiana - I would feel comfortable. However, what is to make me think that the current crop of leaders will step down by then? Yes, Blago might be voted out or decide not to run, and both Emil and MJM might retire, but what’s the chances of real reformers coming into the fray? If people like Alexi, Dan Hynes, Lisa Madigan, Bill Brady, Christine Radogno, Brad Burzynski, Debbie Halvorson, etc. are in charge, things would be much brighter.
I would like to see such amendments as term limits for all offices, a balanced budget provision, single-payer health care, recall ability, the end of townships, a ban on unfair taxes or fees directed at one group or business field, a regulation on state hiring levels and practices, real campaign finance reform, an end to privately-financed judicial races, an end to gerrymandering legislative and Congressional district and a real level with which to fund pre-K and higher education.
I’m sure a lot of Republicans will think me a heretic for some of those points, but oh well.
- Formerlobbyist - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 3:17 pm:
How bad can any amendments be that a majority of voters approve? POPULISM would reign. Just look at the “advisory referendums’ which pass 80%-20%. Those who think that the public debate has been elevated in Illinois since the initial Con-Con are ignoring reality. The results would be anti-business and severely harm Illinois’ economy.
- steve schnorf - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 3:31 pm:
Dan, this may be a situation where we just prefer the Devil we know. I think I could name some things that could be adopted that would be unintended consequences. Let’s say a ban on school district busing for integration purposes. I’m not too sure you don’t have possible majorities that could support weird things.
- proconcon - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 3:52 pm:
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. How on earth can anybody tell at this point the quality of the delegates to a not-yet-called constitutional convention 3 years from now?
I have thought of running for delegate in the event of a con-con, and at the risk of sounding immodest, I think I would make a useful contribution.
And VanillaMan, all Chicago Democrats are not created equal. There are a lot of us who are sick and tired of the corruption and lying coming out of City Hall and the County Building. I wouldn’t carry so much as a teaspoon of water for the Daley/Stroger/machine crowd.
Are current state legislators barred from serving in a con-con? If not, they should be. If their failure to solve vexing problems in the General Assembly is what leads to a con-con in the first place, why on earth would we want them involved in it?
- Formerlobbyist - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 4:32 pm:
Proconcon: You very well might make a great delegate. But while you criticize the “Daley/Stroger/machine crowd”, don’t forget they have the levers of power and are proven winners. Those that they support would be heavily favored. No one is hyper-ventilating, just a good debate about the advantages and pitfalls of a Constitutional Convention. Similar issue debates go on at the Con-Con.
- Dudley Dooright - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 4:39 pm:
If a Con-Con is called, the subsequent result (if any) will NOT necessarily be a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
If memory serves — one of the truly brilliant moves forty years ago was in presentation to the voters.
First, we got to vote up or down on the basic document.
Then we got to vote individually on draft clauses regarding the contentious issues (in what I affectionately and facetiously term “Want fries with that?” style): “Want merit selection of judges with that?”, etc.
Friends, do not fear the intrepid common-sensical voter. This pick-and-choose method was — and will be — absolutely elegant.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 4:40 pm:
VanillaMan — I’ve got a better idea than term limits — how about a Recall Amendment?
- Anon.. - Friday, Jun 22, 07 @ 8:16 pm:
DJ-Weinberger, i was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it. There are three stages, deciding if we want a con-con, electing memebers, and THEN deciding if we like what they came up with. If it makes it out of the process…tada….democracy.