100 Comments - underdog - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 7:56 am: Rich - I listened to the entire call you posted yesterday - one thing that stuck out to me was during the section when participants talked about the “dangers” of the con-con, someone mentioned “too much discourse”… isn’t that the problem here? too little discourse? Just a thought. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 7:59 am: In my opinion, the “No’s” have a tried and true political message that they ought to be ashamed of. - Gregor - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:02 am: When I see a business group dropping three million as a first step to discredit and prevent a con-con, that screams out to me that they LIKE how things are now, and fear anything upsetting their game. Which is exactly why we should do it. It’s OUR government. Not theirs. - underdog - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:09 am: Someone hit the nail on the head yesterday - it might have been you - seems to me these groups just want to avoid spending the money to influence this con-con so they might as well spend the cash to kill it…it was a testy response if I remember correctly - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:20 am: There’s no way in the world the current redistricting process would be changed under the status quo. Forget term limits, the elimination of gerrymandering and ending the practice of incumbent customized districts, would open up the process more than anything else. Did you catch this in the New Yorker article yesterday? I know redistricting is a government task, but it’s also the rawest form of politics, too. “One day in the spring of 2001, about a year after the loss to Rush, Obama walked into the Stratton Office Building, in Springfield, a shabby nineteen-fifties government workspace for state officials next to the regal state capitol. He went upstairs to a room that Democrats in Springfield called “the inner sanctum.” Only about ten Democratic staffers had access; entry required an elaborate ritual—fingerprint scanners and codes punched into a keypad. The room was large, and unremarkable except for an enormous printer and an array of computers with big double monitors. On the screens that spring day were detailed maps of Chicago, and Obama and a Democratic consultant named John Corrigan sat in front of a terminal to draw Obama a new district.” - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:21 am: ===it might have been you=== Nope. That was my evil twin Pearson. lol - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:22 am: wordslinger, the far more revealing passage was about what happened in that room on Sept. 12, 2001. - Steve - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:24 am: Those who want to change the Illinois Constitution should not lose all hope.In Michigan,the entire business and labor establishment out spent the anti-affirmative action people and still lost at the ballot box.Yes,this is a different situation with different rules but the establishment can be beaten if enough independent people are willing to challenge the system.David Axelrod and gang can’t buy everyone. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:26 am: Underdog has a point. If Con Con is rejected, the interest groups will have spent a few mil $ protecting their interests. If Con Con passes, we’re in for several multi-million $ campaigns by various factions, draining their resources that could otherwise be targeted for narrower legislative initiatives. I’ve got a question. If Con Con passes, and the convention passes a document after much wrangling, do the people have a straight up-and-down “yes” or “no” vote on the entire document, or can they accept or reject it section by section (like an “amendatory veto”)? In the spirit of compromise, here’s my model gun rights amendment if Con Con passes: “The state, needing a well-regulated militia of gun nuts and gangbangers, shall require every citizen south of I-80 and west of IL 47 to own a firearm and to discharge it regularly. However, possession of a firearm inside any municipality of 3,000,000 or more shall be subject to death by hanging or stoning, except that the death penalty is in and of itself cruel and inhuman punishment, in which case a stern warning from the judge and 30 days probation shall be sufficient.” - Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:28 am: I do not want to sound niave, but it still amazes me the number of folks coming out against a con-con or afraid to stand up with one. All a con-con does is invoke a review of our constitution as a first step. If it is as great as the well funded anti-con-con grps argue, then it should pass through the convention without change. As an additional item that needs fixed, there needs to be some mechanism to force a bill to the floor for a vote so it can not be held up by a committee, or the head of the Senate or the house. To many votes on critical points, such as last years veto overrides or the pay raises this year are not being handeled by our elected officials. How can our elected officials do their jobs if you can keep bills from seeing the light of day. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:32 am: ===As an additional item that needs fixed, there needs to be some mechanism to force a bill to the floor for a vote so it can not be held up by a committee=== You might not like the result of that one. My own idea - and it’s just an idea, not a proposal - would be to force the members to elect committee chairmen, rather than allow them to be appointed by the Speaker/President. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:33 am: ===I’ve got a question. If Con Con passes, and the convention passes a document after much wrangling, do the people have a straight up-and-down “yes” or “no” vote on the entire document, or can they accept or reject it section by section (like an “amendatory veto”)?=== Piece by piece. But, in the future, and this goes for everyone, please check the Constitution before asking questions like this. It’s not that long. And it’s easy to find. Just use the google. - underdog - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:40 am: Rich - hence the wiggle-room. lol - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:42 am: =the far more revealing passage was about what happened in that room on Sept. 12, 2001.= Yeah, just another day doing the people’s work. - What planet is he from again? - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:47 am: ===As an additional item that needs fixed, there needs to be some mechanism to force a bill to the floor for a vote so it can not be held up by a committee=== -You might not like the result of that one.- Seems like a pretty reasonable idea to me, running the chamber more democratically instead of autocratically? But (and I ask this without any intention of snark, I don’t know and I’d like to find out) what would happen? - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:50 am: Rich, I did as you suggested. Here’s the link to the IL Constitution section dealing with Con-Con: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con14.htm It still seems fuzzy as to how the changes might be submitted to the voters. “…shall be submitted to the electors in such manner as the Convention determines…” In other words, they could seemingly break down the items piece by piece, lump them all together as one, or anything in between, on the ratification ballot. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:51 am: Rich, thats not a bad idea either. I was thinking of somthing similiar to the anti-fillibuster systems in place. You could force a vote on a bill with majority support. If a majority of the body wants to vote on the issue then there should be some way to make it happen. This way my elected leader has to stand up and be counted as either supporting bringing the bill to a vote (and how they vote) and can not hide behind somone else holding it up in rules or keeping it from a floor vote. I think the topic needs discussed, even if the solution is more along the lines of what you suggest, or somthing else, but it is a point I think needs some consideration. - fedup dem - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:53 am: Nancy Kaczak is showing the entire state how clueless she truely is, and why it was so easy for Rahm emanuel to defat her in the open primary in 2002 for Blago’s congressional seat! - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 8:56 am: Yes, it’s up to the convention to decide what amendments (if any) to submit to the electorate. If the convention decides to come up with a whole new document (extremely unlikely), the convention can do that. If, in the much more likely scenario, the convention decides to offer one of several much-needed amendments to the electorate in a series of separate referenda (that’s what happened in 1970), the convention can do that as well. - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:01 am: I don’t see the “Nos” arguments as being any more intellectually dishonest than the “Yesses” using Rod Blagojevich as an argument. I still feel that the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to a con con. Aside from the tremendous waste of resources there are inherent dangers to opening the whole thing. If there is a con con my prediction is that not much, if anything will change. It might not hurt but it sure won’t help. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:06 am: It is not surprising that those in power who pandered to get there, have no respect for those they feel are capable of being pandered. For too long we have been allowing our politicians to believe that they know more than us. For too long we have been sitting back silently while these fools parade before us fingerpointing and smearing one another’s character. For too long we have been seen by our elected officials as gullible taxpayers capable of being conned. They shed a crocodile tear “for the kids”, or “for the needy”, and then haul us into the cleaners. They have driven business away from the country’s historic hotbed of international business, Chicago Illinois, and have milked us dry. Since the last Con-Con in 1968, we have witnessed a steady decline in this state regarding our place in the global market. Poverty has gone up after billions spent. Chicago is a Botoxed shell of it’s former “big shoulders”, can-do self. It is time to reevaluate what Illinois needs now and in the future regarding this constitution. It is not sacred. It is not whole. It is broken. It is our duty as citizens to do what our grandparents had done before us. It is our civic duty to demand better. Vote Con-Con in 2008! We simply cannot do worse than we have today. - ZC - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:12 am: Don’t they already have one mechanism for moving bills in the Illinois House? It’s called a discharge petition, and it can force a bill out of committee to the floor. My guess is it’s very, very difficult to make work. (I don’t know the record in Springfield - does anyone here? - but discharge petitions have yielded about three major pieces of legislation, in Washington D.C., in the past 60-some-odd years). The major problem with making it too easy to force bills from committee to the floor would be legislative overload. Legislators propose a lot of legislation, and a lot of it is not very good. Off the website just now I counted 6,666 bills in the 2007-08 House (what an appropriate number). Forcing reps to take constant up-down votes on an endless stream of bills they haven’t had time to read (and never could have time to read, in their defense) isn’t going to lead to better governance. But maybe there’s some happier medium. - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:13 am: ==They have driven business away from the country’s historic hotbed of international business, Chicago Illinois== ==Chicago is a Botoxed shell of it’s former “big shoulders”, can-do self.== You must not get up north much! - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:15 am: Somehow, I don’t see what the Illinois Constitution has to do your mythical “global marketplace”. When the con con delegates install a progressive income tax and force the state to shoulder more of a burden through increased taxes of all kinds, will that help? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:16 am: ===It’s called a discharge petition, and it can force a bill out of committee to the floor=== No. It’s called a discharge motion, and the presiding officer has to agree to go to that order of business on the calendar. Rare. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:20 am: Rich said…..” Don’t treat us like children “… This is a tactic that has worked well in the past for the entrenched interests. They will continue to use it until it stops working. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:30 am: ZC I agree that not every bill needs to see the light of day. But there needs to be a better mechanism in which a majority of members can force a bill to a vote. Not the same thing as reuqiring every bill to be voted upon. This means our elected officials can not avoid hot topics like budget veteos and pay raises by hiding behind somone else holding the bill up. We used to have a fillibuster system for blocking bills as well, then we came up with rules that allow for overriding a fillibuster. I am suggesting a similiar system so that certain critical bills can not be held hostage, or the elctorate can blame their elected leaders if they do nothing on crucial bills. - Levois - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:31 am: I don’t know who’s right on how much a con-con would cost, but I wonder if more money might be a more convincing argument to vote yes instead of no. Especially if people’s frustration with state government is high right now! - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:32 am: My question to the “no” coalition would be for them to defend how anyone but themselves benefit from the way our government currently runs itself. That may be an oversimplification, but I think it would be nearly impossible for them to do so. I see an awful lot of money being spent on the state and federal levels - with very little results and bang for our bucks. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:45 am: Rich, given your list, we should add “ordering the tides to recede”. Anyone see any irony in a stronger balanced budget provision and strengthening the preponderance language on school funding? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:46 am: Steve, one would act as a check on the other. I don’t think that any of the suggestions I put forth are along the lines of “ordering the tides to recede.” BTW, are you in Spfld today? Gimme a call if you are. - Captain America - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:52 am: Illinois government has become totally dysfunctional and needs to be overhauled. Our current and past Governor are/were corrupt. Our top legialative leaders are either corrupt, ethically bankrupt, or hopelessly- flawed stwards of the public interest. The collective public interest of the citizens of Illinois has been held hostage to a sociopathic Governor and megalomaniacal legislative leaders. Nothing could convince me not to vote for a con-con. The tops have too much control vis-a-vis rank-and-file legislators on issues like the budget and ethics legislation bottled up at the behest of Senator Jones.It should be possible to ahcieve some happy procedural medium between discipline/control and the ability of ordinary caucus members to influence policy and budget decisions. The budget process is completely irrational, It is “broke” and needs to be fixed. It is definitely necessary to overthrow the status quo for better or worse. I think it is practically impossible for things to be any worse than the current situation prevailing in Springfield the last two years! “Throw the rascals out” even though the “rascals” will be exercising influence if not dominating the new con-con. I have faith in the new generation of Democratic leadership - Lisa, Dan, and Alexi, as well as some of the brighter stars of the legislature,and the common sense of an enlightened citizens, to enact a new constitution, if forced to do so, by an outraged public/electorate I’m not seeking a more lberal or conservative constitution per se, except that I defintely think the income tax system should be modestly progressive, instead of our current flat-rate system. New ground rules seem appropriate - social/culture war issues should not be on the agenda of a constitutional convention - these can continue to be addressed in the legislative/judicial arena. - Las Vegas Kid - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:53 am: Describing the bad things what could happen is just as legitimate as describing the good things that could happen. If you want further delay in addressing the things that matter in this state then vote yes. If you want to stop the bickering then vote the bums out in November. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:59 am: ===If you want to stop the bickering then vote the bums out in November.=== Yeah, that’ll work. Replace one legislator beholden to his/her powerful leader with another legislator beholden to his/her powerful leader. Great idea. Perfect. - South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:07 am: LVK, One problem with “vote the bums out”- the jerrymandered district lines don’t allow competitive races. An amendment to have computer-drawn districts might allow voters to actually have a choice, and not just for the primary. Similarly, something should be done to prevent one legislator (Jones or Madigan) from summarily blocking a certain piece of legislation. At least the governor can have vetoes overturned. What recourse do Senate/House members have if the President/Speaker won’t budge on something? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:08 am: ===even though the “rascals” will be exercising influence if not dominating the new con-con.=== And you know this how? - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:09 am: I attended the debate at the ULC on Friday…the fact is that both sides make a valid argument, but the voters will decide in a political environment that has outraged them…the real power to to anything about this is in the hands of the people as Quinn has stated… - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:13 am: Besides, how much has corruption and pay to play cost the good citizens of the State?…he one area that needs amendment is our horribly unfair flat tax system and a new tax on services which were a much smaller porion of the State economy in ‘70 than it is today…that’s one reason the Chamber has it’s panties in a wad over this…”don’t take any more from my pile” mentality reigns… - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:15 am: Will Barack Obama favor a Con-Con so that Illinois can finally begin implementing that change he talks about all the time, or will he listen to Axelrod who is in charge of his campaign, but anti-Con-Con, and running an anti-change campaign in Illinois? - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:20 am: Rich, the problem with the two concepts is they are mutually exclusive given our state’s current budgetary situation. That is, unless the same con-con is going to impose about $4 billion in new taxes. One of my fears is they would do the former sorts of things and not deal with the latter. To me, those are exactly the sorts of demagogic proposals that would appeal to many among us. See how this sounds to Joe Citizen. “Let’s force the legislature to adopt a real balanced budget. Let’s require the state to pay 51% of the costs of elementary and secondary education, so we can take the burden off local property taxes And, let’s force the wastrels to have a binding referendum on any increased taxes and fees.” Sounds pretty good to me, doesn’t it to you? I am in Springfield, and I will call you. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:22 am: ===Rich, the problem with the two concepts is they are mutually exclusive given our state’s current budgetary situation. That is, unless the same con-con is going to impose about $4 billion in new taxes. One of my fears is they would do the former sorts of things and not deal with the latter.=== I disagree. It would force them to deal with both issues. Also, clarifying could also just mean removing it entirely. Right now, it’s just useless language taking up space. - Las Vegas Kid - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:26 am: Ok Rich then lets eliminate legislative leaders or how about lets put a constitutional requirement that everyone get along. This idea that delegates to a convention will have the political will to adopt the things you are talking about is ludicrous. who has a track record of electing people in these Senate districts? Who? Ah the same leaders that you and I are so frustrated with. Dont give me that power to the people BS you know just as well as I do that you will get political hacks beholden to the same political power base elected as delegates as we have in the GA now. Stop the Hope mongering! - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:28 am: BTW, anyone who thinks we “couldn’t do worse” is delusional or ill-informed. We can always do worse, as well as do better. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:29 am: LVK, we already know the current system isn’t working. The last con-con was dominated by a small handful of reformers, who were vastly outnumbered yet are responsible for most of the decent things about our current constitution. Your comments ignore current events and history at the same time. Bravo. You hit the “Opposite Exacta.” - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:30 am: ===BTW, anyone who thinks we “couldn’t do worse” is delusional or ill-informed=== Name ONE STATE that enacted a new constitution which was far worse than its old one. Just one. If you can’t, then don’t use that argument. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:37 am: Exactly what provision are you scared of losing, Steve? I’m scared of a pension system that is the absolute worst-funded in the nation, a constitutionally-required flat income tax that keeps our state underfunded *and* perpetuates poverty by taxing poor people more than we should as well as a relatively underfunded school system in poor areas of Illinois. So, largely because of our constitutional restrictions on revenue, we’re debating a capital bill that relies on more gambling revenue than Nevada. That’s not good public policy. Removing the restrictions that our constitution imposes — because of the political consensus about the brand new income tax in 1969! — is the smart thing to do. And on redistricting: I think it is literally impossible to do worse than the random system our constitution has now. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:40 am: True to form, I have not seen any comments yet opposing a con-con which don’t rely on obfuscation, fear and/or loathing. Try harder. - Steve - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:48 am: To those whose oppose a con-con:do you really think the SEC is going to allow Illinois to run a massively unfunded public pension system,forever? - Las Vegas Kid - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:57 am: So convienent to turn a blind eye to legitimate arguments.It is VERY CLEAR your eye is on your bottom line not a true airing of the debate that needs to occur. In the word of the McGloghlin report “bye bye” - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 10:59 am: ===It is VERY CLEAR your eye is on your bottom line === Step off, pal. A con-con would cost me money to cover. Goodbye. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:01 am: And this is what I expected. Fear and loathing, and if that doesn’t work, completely made up personal attacks on someone who questions their illogic. We’re gonna have us some fun. Lots of it. What a freaking moron. - anon - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:14 am: The state constitution can be amended. Many of the so-called faults of the current document could be corrected through that process. Why go through re-inventing the document, when the ability to change it currently exists? I would much rather see some real effort put into constitutional amendments than the creation of a whole new document. I can’t see that efforts to amend would be more strenuous than those exerted to create a new constitution. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:15 am: ===I would much rather see some real effort put into constitutional amendments than the creation of a whole new document.=== That’s all well and good, but amendments require three-fifths in both chambers before being put on the ballot. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:16 am: Also, the way the current Constitution is written, it seems like a Con-Con would likely be addressing amendments, not a whole new Constitution. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:18 am: LVK aka “conned,” if you say you’re leaving, don’t try posting with a different screen name. If you’re gonna leave, then leave. Bad form. Self-banned on your first day. How goofy of you. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:20 am: And there were real efforts to amend the constitution. Two of them passed the House this year (recall and redistricting reform). Amendments on the income tax got a floor vote in both the House (42 votes or so) and the Senate (19 votes). There are real efforts to amend the constitution, but they are coming up short. A con-con is a great way to get these amendments before the electorate. - anon - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:22 am: == That’s all well and good, but amendments require three-fifths in both chambers before being put on the ballot.== According to Art, 14, Sec, 3 of the current state constitution at least Article IV can be amended by voter initiative. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:24 am: Yeah, structure of the GA. ===Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV=== That ain’t much. - SteveD - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:24 am: LET THE GA GET SOMETHING DONE - - SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT - - to show they can be trusted to get ConCon underway. Ultimately ConCon will be a ball of compromises, so let them show that legislative compromise is possible before we let them initiate constitutional mcompromises. - anon - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:29 am: It seems much of the argument for a new constitution centers on “structural and procedural” subjects concerning the legislature. Maybe the electorate changing some of those items can gain a better foothold on other legislative action, a snowball effect. I know, I know, my nickname should be Pollyanna. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:32 am: It’s a good start, no doubt, but without also limiting some of the gubernatorial powers and fixing some of the other problems listed above (and some that aren’t) it’s probably too one-sided. - political - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:34 am: No one knows for sure what will happen. It looks like some people want to roll the dice, while others don’t. I think that the pro con con crowd is blind if they don’t see that the legislative leaders will have great influence in electing delegates. I think the odds for change are slim. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:43 am: I was talking to somebody with the AFL-CIO the other day who said they had a list of all the good things that this constitution had provided for working people. That is an argument I’d like to see, rather than the “We’re all gonna die!” arguments that too often appear. And, yes, I do realize that leaders could have an undue influence on the elections. It’s a true concern, but it was dealt with at the last con-con. And, remember, back then Richard J. Daley was in charge of things. A real boss. He was outmaneuvered on several issues. - anon - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:43 am: Maybe I am belaboring, but article IV contains the all the language for veto power and procedure. Certainly limiting amendatory veto power and obligating the vote in both chambers on vetoed legislation within a set time period, could be valid subjects for such amendments. Likewise, changing the language on the passage of bills to allow say 1/10th of members elected, regardless of party, to discharge a bill for a vote. That might help free up the stranglehold and abuse of power that currently seems to have set in. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:44 am: *THEY* do not run a ConCon, *they* will not be delegates to a ConCon. All they do is set an election date, set the pay of the delegates, provide for a building and say when a convention starts. The ILGA can put amendments out, but they can’t even get a budget out. The call for a ConCon exists so voters have the opportunity to act when the legislature is unable or unwilling to do so. That is true here and the only way to reform this state is to fix the constitution that has allowed (and even empowered directly) so few people to have so much power. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:50 am: Rich- As far as the AFL-CIO argument, you have my e-mail, send me your address. Can send you a DVD of a recent debate where they lay out that argument. I was unconvinced because the list was all legislative action (i.e. family leave, minimum wage, workplace safety, etc). Anon- All good suggestions which we push. Political- We are fully aware the legislature (and their special interests) will try to have influence… which is why we are recruiting and training delegate candidates now, going to get them out there to push for the yes vote and help them to build their organizations. But you need to realize the character of a delegate election is different than an ILGA election. For one, delegates will have no money to hand out, no member initiatives, etc. Two, the only issues on the table are constitutional. Will any Senator be voted out or even negatively impacted to a large degree because of their vote on the recall amendment? Not likely. But how someone stands on recall will be front and center in a delegate race. More importantly, if voters are *THAT* upset to vote 60% to have a convention, those same voters will not be so stupid as to send the “same people” (more accurately their proxies) to fix the problem. If you have good reform-minded delegates who run decent campaigns, they’ll have the advantage. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 11:56 am: anon, I need to go look it up, but the state Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of what can and cannot be placed on the ballot. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 12:00 pm: If I recall, the citizen-initiated referenda has to be structual AND procedural… for instance, they disallowed an amendment on term limits because it was not both (both that wasn’t a “superprecedent”). The bottom line is that it has to be written very precisely and the avenue of action is very narrow. - u guy - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 12:23 pm: anyone know some of the organizations who are FOR the Con Con….there’s a long list of those who oppose it, but I haven’t seen the FOR list…are they organized in any way? - SteveD - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 12:47 pm: these might be helpful From the League http://www.lwvil.org/ConCon_UnionLeague.pdf From the Illinois General Assembly http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/ILConstitution.pdf - SteveD - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 12:50 pm: this is totally naive: “*THEY* do not run a ConCon, *they* will not be delegates to a ConCon.” -John Bambenek - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 1:24 pm: Regarding the 1970 Con-Con - reality people! ==A court decision held that elected legislators could also serve as delegates to the convention but they could not receive pay for the latter position, so only a handful of lawmakers also sat in the convention. Convention President Samuel Witwer negotiated hard to create 12 balanced committees that would not break down on partisan lines or be overwhelmed by a single controversial issue. For the most part, he succeeded. == Is There a Con-Con in Illinois’ Future? Those opposed to the Con-Con are exposing themselves as anti-democratic elitists. Stop pretending that citizens are gullible and stupid and stand up for yourselves! If you don’t want the new constitution, say so - but you help no one by refusing to support our right, this once every twenty year right, to call a constitutional convention to address our state’s problems! - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 1:28 pm: Steve- It isn’t naive, it’s the law. A constitutional convention is an independent body, not a subsidiary of the ILGA. The Constitution does not grant any power to the ILGA over a convention other than providing the salaries, setting a budget, giving them a building and setting a start date. The legislative article specifically prohibits legislators from drawing two salaries simultaenously. They cannot serve as delegates. Ethics law appies to the rest of state employees on the same point. Yes, they can run proxies, but they themselves cannot run unless they surrender their full time seat, potentially losing it permanently. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 1:32 pm: ===They cannot serve as delegates. === They can. I think they just can’t get paid on days when the GA is in session. Same with city employees who are legislators. - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 1:40 pm: The same people who are arguing for a con con are the ones whose agenda includes decimating our public education system through some universal voucher scheme, removing public employee pension guarantees, recalling duly elected public officials, changing to a progressive income tax, abolishing the property tax system, computerized apportionment and all kinds of other fringe ideas which will undoubtedly have all kinds of unintended consequences. Do you trust the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted to arbitrate? I don’t. The problems in our state are not the fault of our constitution. Call this fear mongering if you want, but I would rather keep the constitution we have and work through the legislative and executive branches to solve Illinois’ problems. I’ll vote no, and if the referendum passes I’ll have to devote the time and resources to run as a delegate. Will most citizens be able to do that? Obviously not. It won’t be some idealized government by the people. We’ll have the same players listening to the same old arguments. In the meantime, the state will suffer through several years of inaction on everything important as the GA waits for a new Constitution. It will be a boondoggle and a waste of time. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 1:41 pm: ===The same people who are arguing for a con con are the ones whose agenda includes…=== I doubt many, or even any will win seats. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 1:42 pm: To expand a bit, once the process opens up a boatload of people will run. Those thinking about running now are not the ones who will likely be at the convention as delegates. - anon - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 1:51 pm: If a citizens amendment initiative was easy, there would probably be more of them. I know the Supreme Court has shot down a few but it was such an initiative that led to the current configuration of the Senate and House and abolished cumulative voting (for good or not). I am no lawyer but I would think that there are several that could draft language to at least get amendments on a ballot, and probably meet the muster of the Supreme Court. Why, as citizens, would we abdicate the right to try? - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 2:00 pm: Rich, I hope that your are right about that but I doubt it. Will the average citizen be willing to put her real life on hold for several years to participate? And what happens in the meantime? Do we give the legislature an excuse to not do anything to address the real needs and problems of our state until the new con is passed, the referendum is passed, and the new con is interpreted and litigated? We’re talking about legislative inaction until 2012 at the earliest. A unbiased risk-rewards analysis should be done by every voter before they go to the polls in November. I agree with Schnorf. We can be much worse off and probably will be if con con apsses. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 2:06 pm: Bill, we’re talking legislative inaction until January 2011 anyway as long as RRB is running things. So, maybe, if you’re right, and I doubt you are, that’s another year. I think you’re wrong because if a new guv is elected in 2010 there will be some action of some sort in 2011. That’s natural in their first year. So, no difference whatsoever. But, if you tell voters that the GA will do nothing until 2012, that might sell the con-con idea. I’d be careful with that one if I were you. lol - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 2:07 pm: Bill, I don’t follow why there would necessarily be “inaction” while they await the results of con-con. You still have to budget, right? The executive will still have to administer. Who knows, if might even prompt some action on issues to forestall a proposed amendment. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 2:21 pm: The idea that the legislature will simply do nothing for 2 years is somewhat odd. Yes, they still have to write a budget, but they aren’t going to stop writing a bulk of the laws they write now. How is a debate on whether or not to put in recalls going to tie up, say, discussion on distracted driving laws? It isn’t. Sure, some questions may remain up in the air, but it isn’t going to be a general workstop, and if the ILGA says it is, they are lying to you. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 2:26 pm: As I understand it, a Constitutional Convention will allow us to amend the current constitution in a far easier fashion. The chaos in Springfield is the result of too much power and money concentrated in too few hands. We need a return to the old system of 3 representatives (no more than 2 from one political party) in each Senate District. I would also add a few more Senate Districts as the number of constituents each Senator (and each Representative) represents has dramatically increased the past 20 years. More bodies in Springfield would be more expensive but the repeated log jams and personality fighting have a built in cost as well, not only in extra ordinary session costs, but costs to the state as a whole. Overall, I believe this would help dilute the power the current “four tops” and the governor have over the system to the benefit of all. Perhaps that is what all the big dogs who oppose “con-con” truly fear? - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 2:44 pm: ==We need a return to the old system of 3 representatives (no more than 2 from one political party) in each Senate District.== That is the only way Republicans will ever get elected in most districts in Illinois. So will this new cure all constitution prohibit Mike Madigan from being elected, from being elected Speaker, from being Chair of the State Dems, from controlling the fate of most Representatives in most districts? No. Will it prevent Emil Jones from controlling the Senate? No. Will it prevent the governor, whomever it is, from vetoing legislation? Probably not. Just what are we trying to accomplish here? What is the upside of a con con? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 3:04 pm: Bill stop being such a old conservative and join the revolution! ==fringe ideas which will undoubtedly have all kinds of unintended consequences== Most of these ideas are not fringe. Recall? Voter intiatives? Tax reform? Reforming or abolishing the Death Penalty? Defining eminent domain and home rule debt limits? Open and transparent governments? What is so fringe about this? And talk about unintended consequences. It is the current unintended consequences of our current constitution that requires a new constitution. Everything you have been demanding from our government regarding your social views has given us immense unintended consequences. You are in no position to suddenly worry about that! You seem to honestly believe that our currently elected officials are somehow more enlightened with reality than the millions of Illinois citizens suffering under their unintended consequences? Your view of government seems absolutely Hamiltonian, with a twist of Cotton Mathers thrown in. Face it. Anti-Con-Con folks enjoy having their points of view shoved down Illinoian’s throats annually. As long as Illinois is a one party state and it is their party, they are more than happy to denounce democracy, right? They are afraid that their views won’t win on the ballot, right? If you treat voters with respect, they will get respect in return - and support. But it seems more obvious the longer this issue is being discussed, that the Anti-Con-Con’s have no respect for those who elected them to office. The fear they are peddling is their own fear against the most educated and intelligent Illinois voter base in history. - South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 3:16 pm: ======What is the upside of a con con? ======== Bill, For me, I think you hit some of them on the head at 1:40 (I took the liberty of editing a few of them): 1) Reforming public education system to encourage competition 2) removing public employee pension guarantees 3) recalling duly elected public officials 4) changing to a progressive income tax that decouples individual and corporate tax rates 5) computerized apportionment 6) and all kinds of other fringe ideas, like decentralization of legislative leader power Note that for a few of these (1-4), a Constitution that permits these items does not compel these items. However, the current Constitution does not permit these things to exist. - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 3:32 pm: ==the most educated and intelligent Illinois voter base in history== You mean the voter base that elected governor Blagojevich? - decaturvoter - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 3:45 pm: If you like the status quo in state government vote “no”. The AFL-CIo likes its influence with the GA. The township folks fear what might happen to all these many governmental districts in the state. The Illinois governmental system is broke. Public leaders will not compromise like the founding fathers. The cutback amendment gave too much power to leadership. It is time to look at alternatives outside the system since those in the system do not want to fix the problems. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 4:10 pm: LOL….twice! - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 4:13 pm: Bill If Obama can vote “present” 130 times, and feign intelligence, Illinois voters can do it twice; once in 2002, and once in 2006! - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 4:28 pm: The voters didn’t write in Blagojevich you know. Voters can only choose based on what name is on the ballot. First you go through a primary system which is hardly representative of the average voter… - DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 6:22 pm: What really rankles me is the image of members of the last “con-con”, specifically Dawn Clark Netsch, saying we don’t need another convention. It seems she fashions herself as the Thomas Jefferson of Illinois, and no one who comes after her is fit to touch the hem of her garment. What baloney! They even let Richie Daley be a delegate to the last con-con, and he’s never been confused with James Madison. Let the people decide, as Dawn and Richie themselves said several decades ago. Too bad they didn’t really mean it. The amount of money put into stopping the con-con is all the evidence you need that it is a good idea. - muon - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 6:23 pm: Anon 11:14 am echoed a line used by con-con opponents: ==The state constitution can be amended. Many of the so-called faults of the current document could be corrected through that process. Why go through re-inventing the document, when the ability to change it currently exists? I would much rather see some real effort put into constitutional amendments than the creation of a whole new document.== History shows that that process has broken down. From 1972 through 1998 there were a regular series of questions posed by the legislature. Some passed and some failed. For the last 10 years, no questions have been submitted to the voters. - Bookworm - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 7:37 pm: A con-con could also rewrite Article IV (Legislature) to address the issue of rules review, specifically granting authority to JCAR or a similar body to suspend or prohibit administrative rules, or merely to act in an advisory capacity. Clearing up the nagging question of JCAR’s constitutionality and its effect on rules review would in my opinion be worth the price of a con-con just by itself. It would save the GA and agency heads much grief and lots of time in court in the future:) - Union Guy - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:28 pm: Ok. Say we have a convention. What makes anyone think the issues that the proponents are using to approve a con-con will make it through a convention and to the voters? I am not sure that the process to amend the constitution during a Con Con will end up much different than trying to pass an Const. Amendment through the GA. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:48 pm: Dan, I’m not saying for even a second that there aren’t things I would like to see changed in our state constitution. You mention some of them. I’m simply saying that I believe the risks outweigh the upside. Many of our legislators understand the problems we face, they’re simply afraid to solve them. VM, you seem to think that the process of running the last con-con was good. Why, then, did it produce a document you find so flawed, and why would another con-con (which we don’t know yet will be well-run) produce a better one? - muon - Tuesday, Jul 15, 08 @ 9:52 pm: UG, The members to the convention will at least have a goal to produce one or more questions for the public consideration. Also, a vote is only required in the one body, not the two required for GA amendments. - Union Guy - Wednesday, Jul 16, 08 @ 5:35 am: muon, that is true - but that is because we know the current rules. A conventition would have its own set of rules. My point is that just because we have convention — that does not mean the people are going to be able to vote on issues such as recall, term limits or a progressive income tax. Pingback United for Power and Justice Presents: 5 Whoppers - Wednesday, Jul 16, 08 @ 9:23 am: […] Good Writing by Rich Miller at The Capitol Fax Blog […] - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 16, 08 @ 10:46 am: ==VM, you seem to think that the process of running the last con-con was good. Why, then, did it produce a document you find so flawed, and why would another con-con (which we don’t know yet will be well-run) produce a better one? == I wasn’t flawed. Like a 1970 Ford Galaxie 500, it may still be usable, but it is time for a change! Every constitutional convention was partly driven by a need to reflect modern life at the time it was written. By creating a new constitution, we are not claiming the old one was flawed, just outdated to the point where we need to completely redo it. Your argument is sophmoric and silly. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.