36 Comments - The Doc - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:14 am: Amen, Rich. “A successful constitutional convention requires political cooperation, strong leadership and a growing consensus about what’s good for Illinois.” Betcha that Mikva et al would use this tag line as reasoning against a con-con, should such conditions ever exist in Illinois. Blather such as the vagaries promulgated by Mikva make me think that a 20-year time lapse between conventions is too long. - The Doc - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:16 am: Amen, Rich. “A successful constitutional convention requires political cooperation, strong leadership and a growing consensus about what’s good for Illinois.” Betcha that Mikva et al would use this tag line as reasoning against a con-con, should such conditions ever exist in Illinois. And thanks for showing such little faith in voters and those legislators seeking true reform in state government. Blather such as the vagaries promulgated by Mikva make me think that a 20-year time lapse between conventions is too long. - VanillaMan - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:19 am: 1) Special interests are not driving the push for a con-con. Special interests are wholly unified against a con-con. Correct. When special interests are happy, we should be concerned. 2) I’m an agnostic on recall, but could he possibly talk out of both sides of his mouth any more? No. Lawyers are comfortable with any side of any argument. It is within their nature and intellect to not make decisions, but to endlessly argue the facts. They turn almost every discussion into a Rubic’s Cube, because they enjoy doing this and they entertain themselves by doing so. 3) If “change” is purely the province of candidate elections, then why did the Constitution’s drafters allow voters the right to decide whether to call another convention? We have two ways to effect political change in Illinois: Elections and (every 20 years) a con-con. Correct. We are doing our civic duty by calling a Constitutional Convention and by participating in it. It is our generational responsibility to keep the Illinois constitution current when necessary. We have to review it. 4) Illinois isn’t ready for a constituional convention? Could Mikva sound any more like one of those old-timey “Illinois ain’t ready for change” ward heelers? Mikva’s generation had their shot. The current Illinois constitution is his baby. It would be like watching your replacement at work change how you did everything. You’d feel as though you didn’t do the job correctly, and a little insulted. Mikva is a judge. Participating in the Illinois constitutional covention in 1970 was a civic highlight of his career. It is now our turn. - Rufus - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:22 am: Rich, I agree with your well thought out points. The question I have is how and who are the people selected to serve on the con-con. If it is the present group of politicians, perhaps Mikva has a point… perhaps - Team Sleep - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:27 am: It’s apparent that most special interest groups, companies and our “leaders” think we can’t handle our voting responsibilities and demand for a con-con. That being said, maybe it’s even more apparent that voters keep putting the same knuckleheads into office and allowing them to think about voters as they do. Or maybe I’m being too cynical. I’ve love to be a con-con delegate, although my pocket book is a bit too light to make a run and advertise. - Plutocrat03 - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:28 am: Mikva’s comments are either a result of hubris or support for a benefactor. Regardless of the reasons, his opposition to the concon soils his reputation. If anything, the unilateral actions of our Governor and States Senator Emil Jones, demand a con con. Billions of dollars are being collected, but are filtered through a select series of beneficiaries who perform a few kernels of service to the citizens. This is not a slam against the hard working state employees, but their political and union masters. - Team Sleep - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:29 am: And to point #2, I would argue judges MUST be included in any recall provision of a new state constitution. They are elected and retained by vote. That means they should be subjected to the same rules as other elected officials. - Disgusted - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:39 am: Illinois ain’t ready for reform! - Madison County Watcher - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:41 am: True: Special interests are against the convention. True: When (or if) the dynamics change and there is a convention, the focus will change from stopping a convention to controlling a convention. True: The same people who have elected this dysfunctional General Assembly will be electing constitutional delegates. What will be stopping or guiding a convention away from becoming a smaller subplot of dysfunction in the backdrop of a dysfunctional General Assembly? - Excessively rabid - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:43 am: How about more on what goals would you like to see achieved by a concon? No point in having one just for the heck of it. I would most like to see the legislative branch revamped. Ideas: either get rid of the Senate and go unicameral like Nebraska, or go back to having the districts geographically based. No reason to have two houses apportioned on the same basis; it’s like, second prize is two of them. Get a different method for drawing legislative boundaries to eliminate the current partisan spoils system and the gerrymandering that goes with it. Apply this to drawing Congressional districts as well. Finally I would go back to proportional representation/cumulative voting as we had in the prior constitution. This is a better way to get representation for minorities of all kinds, including political. - fan of capfax - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 10:48 am: When will general advertising for the run for con-con delegates begin, I wonder? This needs to be discussed at a local level and the discussion needs to begin immediately. The folks that are selected should be held to select standards, not just anyone. I’d love to see the Illinois State Constitution of 1970 printed in all the IL papers. That said, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the CapFax to organize and support suggested candidates/bloggers? Rich, Vanilla Man and Team Sleep seem like great delegate candidates. You all represent me, the little guy. - Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 11:00 am: Ditto what Rufus said. And I agree, Mikva is the wrong guy to take advice on the need to change the current constitution. Still, the only real meat and potatoes I can see as an actual improvements on the current con are recall and computerized redistricting; fiddling with the basics could send us all into a square dance in which the caller marches us off a cliff. - cermak_rd - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 11:23 am: I respect Abner Mikva a great deal. He has had a long career of public service. I agree with his point: “A successful constitutional convention requires political cooperation, strong leadership and a growing consensus about what’s good for Illinois.” We, as Illinoisians, really don’t have a consensus about what’s good for Illinois. Heck, the people on this blog don’t even have a consensus for what’s good for IL. I haven’t seen anything that might be popular with a large segment of the populace that can’t be added to the existing constitution by amendment. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 11:24 am: ===I haven’t seen anything that might be popular with a large segment of the populace that can’t be added to the existing constitution by amendment.=== I haven’t seen one of those ;that can pass both chambers of the General Assembly. That’s why a con-con is needed. - wordslinger - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 11:25 am: I get the idea that Mikva just signed his name to something someone on the anti-coalition wrote. His heart doesn’t seem in it. Does anyone really think that in 2008 the voters of Blue Illinois are going to approve a constitution that limits civil rights? Let’s face it, Mikva’s carrying water for the powers that be — the special interests he talks about — all of whom have invested millions over the years in the current system. You can get the Four Tops, who have to fear recall and redistricting more than anything, told them to belly up to the bar. Kind of sad really, for an old Independent. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 11:26 am: ===His heart doesn’t seem in it.=== I doubt that. He’s out there debating this in public and giving speeches. - wordslinger - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 11:31 am: Rich, I didn’t know that. Is he on his own dime? Or is he a paid “consultant” to the group? - rudy - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 11:49 am: My understanding is that concon delegates would file petitions in early 2009 and would be elected from state Senate districts, probably in an April 2009 election with a runoff in June. Likely topics for debate would include recall, term limits, compensation review board elimination, clarify state responsibility for school funding, clarify governor’s amendatory veto power. The ballot question as to whether or not to call a con-con should be a straight yes or no. The committee appointed by the legislature added language to the ballot question to the effect of: “In 1988, voters rejected a con-con 75-25%”. This is an improper attempt to influence voters to vote no. If they just wanted to be informative rather than unfair, why not add that in 1968 voters voted in favor of a con-con? - GOP'er - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:03 pm: I would certainly agree that “Special interests are not driving the push for a con-con.” But if by some stroke of lightning “yes” passed in November, the special interests would certainly get busy to control the field at any convention. It’s all moot anyway. The question will fail in November. I would predict by a large margin - just like last time. The “no” forces are organized, the “yes” people aren’t. I’m just waiting for the scare ads to start running on tv. The pro-con-con side will never match the con-con-con blitz. The “pros” seem to want a con-con to solve all our problems, but they are never willing to do the work necessary. It’s all circular. - Bob Druktanis - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:20 pm: Can amendments to the current Illinois Constitution require term-limits of 2 for Senators and 3 for Representatives; removal of pensions for elected offices; limitation of medical benefits to term in office? - Amuzing Myself - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:28 pm: With several friends working for the opponents of a ConCon, I’m predisposed to vote against it. However, I’m still waiting for a really GOOD reason to vote against it. I’ve yet to hear one. Lots of fluff and scare tactics, but in my opinion, none of them hold water. A side note: I’d be interested to see what 118 people with no fear of re-election campaigns could come up with for the good of the state. I agree with the poster that said something about redistricting. That’s as good a reason to me as any to do it. I seriously doubt any “crazy” initiatives would come out of a convention AND be ratified by the voters. In any case, what a horrible thought?! Letting voters decide. They were good enough forty years ago, but I guess we’ve all just gotten dumber and dumber if you believe the fearmongering of the opposition. - tominchicago - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:32 pm: Well, we don’t want no constitutional convention that nobody sent. - political mess - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:43 pm: Rich, In point number one, Mikva is saying that special interests would dominate or at least attempt to dominate the convention if there is one. He’s 100 percent right about that. What he’s saying about Illinois not being ready is compared to the last con con. They held meetings across the state and discussed the issues. There was some consensus about what direction the state needs to go on. There has been no preparation this time and people don’t seem to agree on any issue right now. That’s why I think a con con would take alot longer than everyone thinks and why the odds are higher that nothing will come out of it. Also, people with no fear of re-election also have no accountability. They will be free to change their minds or go against the wishes of the majority of voters in the district they were elected from because they won’t run again. The level of hype for a con con on this blog reaches new heights all the time. There’s this rose-colored belief that it will be a perfect process. That all of the problems we have now will not affect a con con at all. Wishful thinking…. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:45 pm: ===They will be free to change their minds or go against the wishes of the majority of voters in the district they were elected from because they won’t run again.=== Once again, an “anti” neglects to mention that the VOTERS have the final say by voting up or down on the finished product. - Down South - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:55 pm: The push for a con-con is coming from the lack of trust and public discontent of the elected. It gives the populust polls like Lt. Gov.(thanks for down sizeing look what that gave us)something to rail about. So the con-con is driven out of fear by special intrest. When the state chamber, labor and manufactures agree on something we need to listen or watchout. - Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 12:58 pm: “Once again, an “anti” neglects to mention that the VOTERS have the final say by voting up or down on the finished product.” True, but how many voters are constitutional lawyers? The voters will be swayed to a large degree by the spin put on it by those with the money and organization to do so. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 1:01 pm: If the framers had the confidence in the people to give them the right to vote on changes to the constitution, then so should you. - Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 1:07 pm: Rich, The framers also gave us the right to vote for our elected representatives, and they chose Blago, Stroger, Daley … many, over and over again. They also chose George W. (conspiracy theories aside) for a second term, despite all logic and common sense being against it. Also, argument is self-defeating when combined with your stance in favor of a recall provision. Just a little food for thought. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 1:15 pm: 1) I’m an agnostic on recall. 2) What you’re suggesting is a dictatorship. Great spin. Stick with that. Elitism is always the best way, I’m sure. - cermak_rd - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 2:01 pm: Snidely, No, I’m pretty sure IL voters did not elect W to a second term. I seem to remember those votes going to the candidate running against him. We are, however, guilty of the others. And that’s largely a matter of opinion. Daley is a good city administrator, and if corrupt, he’s not too corrupt for most people’s palate. Old man Stroger was the same way. Blago? Well that’s a matter of opinion. A lot of people like him (or at least consider him less bad) because he has not raised the income tax. I think, where there might be a disconnect is in the current trend of engineering retirements such that primaries can be skipped, thus handing the seat to the choice of the party, which usually comes down to a choice of the departing incumbent. This is due to both the rules and the fact that districts are so heavily gerrymandered that in most districts the general election is a given. However, even that does not match your examples. Daley elected by all the people of Chicago, hardly a gerrymandered district. Stroger–all of Cook County, again not exactly gerrymandered. Blago? The entire state of IL! - Robo - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 2:37 pm: I echo comments by cermak_rd and Madison County Watcher.For the interest groups (like the IMA, AFL-CIO and the League of Women Voters) it’s more a matter of the “devil they know”. They fear, as we all should, that under the guise of popular efforts like recall, term limits etc. there will be a whole lot of really bad language As for,===I haven’t seen one of those ;that can pass both chambers of the General Assembly=== Voters have had a chance to vote on 18 amendments since 1970 and approved 11(one as recent as 1998).The list is at the address below… http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conampro.htm - siriusly - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 3:34 pm: Great topic Rich, Mikva the LOWV and all the other very powerful special interest groups who oppose the Con Con are using bogus scare tactics. The mere fact that this proposal is on the ballot as a result of the “very successful 1970 con con” shows you the double speak from the Netch-Mikva crowd. Secondly, the con con delegates are elected by the voters, anything the con con recommends will be put back to the voters. Our flat tax is regressive, that is one of the major reasons for our state’s 10 year+ fiscal crisis. Changing that requires a con con. - Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 4:18 pm: - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 1:15 pm: 1) I’m an agnostic on recall. 2) What you’re suggesting is a dictatorship. Great spin. Stick with that. Elitism is always the best way, I’m sure. Dictatorship? Rich, that’s a little harsh. I was only responding to your assertion that I should trust the voters to vote the right way on a complex issue upon which much PR and political organization spin will be directed toward misinforming the voters. My Stroger-Blago-Daley comments were meant as examples of voters voting against their own interests. I NEVER said, nor would I EVER advocate in favor of, a dictatorship. At least, not unless it were offered to ME. - Amuzing Myself - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 4:27 pm: While reading this string, I noticed the anti-ad over on the right with this quote: “By the time a convention is held and the laws are enacted, it will be 2012. We can’t wait that long for school funding reform.” I find this argument, like many on the anti side, laughable … arguments that make it difficult for me to vote “no” even though I would normally tend that way. The ConCon in 1968 chose to leave school funding decisions to the Legislature. Now, forty years later, there’s no progress in fixing the problem, but we’re supposed to vote against a new ConCon because the Legislature is suddenly going to do something in the next four years it has proven it CANNOT do over the last forty?!!!!! Please?! This is really the best they can do?! - wordslinger - Friday, Sep 12, 08 @ 4:29 pm: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Churchill - Robo - Monday, Sep 15, 08 @ 9:39 am: Just catching up from the weekend. The 1970 con con was convened to address some major deficiencies in the 1870 constitution, like a heavy weighting toward downstate/rural representation, fundamental human rights, municipal home rule and taxation. Many of these changes were precipitated by federal court rulings. We shouldn’t let our disgust with the personalities and their abuse of power drive us toward a wholesale changes in the constitution. Mike Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.