* Remember that strange line that a bipartisan legislative committee inserted into the ballot question about a constitutional convention?…
By law, Illinois is required every 20 years to ask voters if they want to hold a constitutional convention.
Because 1988 was the last such vote, our elected officials had to put the question on the ballot in November.
But instead of posing the question in a neutral fashion, as required by law, they inserted this sentence: “In 1988 the electors rejected the call for a constitutional convention, with 75 percent voting against calling a convention and 25 percent voting in favor.” […]
“It’s a factual statement, but you can use the facts to sway an argument, and obviously that fact is included to make voters think this must be a crackpot idea if voters rejected it in such an overwhelming fashion 20 years ago,” said state Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), who supports a constitutional convention and was one of eight members of a joint House and Senate committee that came up with the language for the Nov. 4 referendum. [emphasis added]
* Lt. Governor Pat Quinn filed a motion with Secretary of State Jesse White to remove the clearly offensive, “leading the jury” language.
Quinn got his reponse: No…
On behalf of Secretary of State Jesse White, please be advised that your petition is hereby denied. The Secretary of State’s submission of the question was in accordance with House Joint Resolution No. 0137. Further, the submission of the question was in accordance with Secretary White’s constitutional authority and state statute. Accordingly, the certification of the ballot question will not be revoked.
* Quinn’s response…
The Lt. Governor is disappointed by the Secretary’s decision. He continues to believe that a clear and direct question is the right way to go from a constitutional and legal perspective, but also from the standpoint of basic fairness.
He is considering how to proceed from here.
There will be a press conference on Monday in the blue room in the capitol before special session (exact time TBD) where he will announce his next steps.
* Related…
* Will constitutional convention spur state to change?
- VanillaMan - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:52 am:
I am very disappointed with Jesse. This is a biased ridiculouly worded ballot statement designed to generate a specific voter response to defeat the constitutional convention.
Haitian-styled government arrives in Illinois.
- Collar faithless - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:56 am:
I totally agree this VanillaMan. So many places to clean up government - I cannot wait for the day when I can say in public - Hello Governor Quinn.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:02 pm:
And it isn’t just this kind of crap. We have to be concerned when we vote in primaries because we don’t have open primaries. We have to be concerned if we want to propose something for our ballots because each party is loaded with lawyers to strip enough signatures from petitions to prevent it.
We have a governor who plays so dirty with state employees, a lot of them wonder if they can voice any opinion that differs from his talking points without getting canned.
Haitian-style government, indeed!
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:04 pm:
I think computer redistricting would have a profound effect on state government. No tailor-made incumbent protection plans.
- Michel - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:08 pm:
You people are fools…Quinn is all flashy press conference no substance. What happened to that con amendment on tax hikes with claypool? I say, stick to the free laptop giveaways Quinn
- bluedog demo - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:20 pm:
The CON-CON is a NO-NO crowd point out all of these worst case scenarios that may or may not happen. Why didn’t they happen in 1970 ? Am going to be a contrarian and vote FOR the Convention. Maybe if it is close the do-nothings on both sides of the isle will get the message !
- Squideshi - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
“We have to be concerned when we vote in primaries because we don’t have open primaries.”
Political parties are private, voluntary membership associations. So-called “open” primaries violate the associational rights guaranteed to political parties’ and their members by the constitution. If you want to participate in a primary election, which is an INTERNAL process through which some political parties choose their standard bearer, then either join a party that allows you to participate or start your own new political party with better rules. The state has no right to emasculate political parties by forcing them to accept party raiding and crossover voting.
- Ahem - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
As our governor pointed out, we elected him to lead us. If we don’t want to follow him we can just…shut up I suppose.
- siriusly - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:29 pm:
Say what you want about Quinn (and I often do), but he is 100 percent correct on this one. The language didn’t belong in there.
The fix is in against the Con-Con, which is why I’m for it!
- Eddy - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:42 pm:
Lt Gov should have said something during the committee process, not 47 days before the election. “The fix is in against Con-Con, which is why I’m for it”??? this statement doesn’t make any sense. It’s on the ballot for voters. What fix? It’s called the political process in a democracy. Proponents and opponents have the right to voice thier opinion. This isn’t a monarchy or a dictatorship. Citizens have the right to voice their opinion, if they choose to.
Changing the state constitution is a big deal not to be taken lightly. You don’t do it to get rid of politicians. That is done at the voting booth. Get out and vote, and hopefully you’ll vote NO on the question of CON CON.
- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:08 pm:
What if the ballot asked the question “Is Illinois better off now than it was 20 years ago?” Let’s reflect back to 1988: personal income tax rate was only 2% and the sales tax rate was only 5%. Individual taxes were less than a quarter of the state’s revenues. Back to reality: a ‘temporary’ income tax hike is still with us, we’re paying over 10% sales tax in Cook County. Personal taxes are now almost a third of state revenues. (Sources available upon request.)
What do we have to show for this investment? A state in fiscal and physical ruin, convicted officials, the laughingstock of the nation.
What did that ballot question say again?
- Fan of the Game - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:12 pm:
PAT: Please change the language, Secretary White.
JESSE: Bite me, Pat.
- fedup dem - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:20 pm:
Jesse White has proven once and for all that he is still a political hack out of Goerge Dunne’s old 42nd Ward Machine. I would suspect that on Monday Quinn and others will be going to court to force a change. They will likely succeed, which means extra costs foistered upon state taxpayers thanks to the political antics of Jesse White and his friends.
- Quinn come lately - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:36 pm:
What a showboat. Can someone tell me what the difference is between Quinn and Rod when it comes to governing by press conference? Please Quinn run for Governor - get beat - and crawl back to the hole of political opportunism and insignificance.
- Question for you - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 2:17 pm:
Why didn’t Lt Gov Quinn put an objection in on this when it was in committee? Doesn’t he have a staff that is their job to look out for things like that? When will he and blog learn you NEVER get things done by holding a press conference. You REALLY need to do some action. I will BET that he launches a Petition Drive to Save Con-Con on Monday. He has a petition for everything else…
- Yes2ConCon - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 2:32 pm:
I think we can improve the system a lot by somehow eliminating the shell bill. The action of reading a bill with no substance three times in one chamber then two times in another chamber only to amend in a huge amount of legislation defeats the purpose of fair and reasonable debate. It also hides the intent of the bill from the public.
I would also like to somehow restrict the speaker and the president’s power in solely deciding what should be called to the floor for a vote.
- Quinn come lately - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 3:08 pm:
Hey “Yes2ConCon”, you do not need a Con Con to accomplish that, what you need are some legislators with backbone to change the rules in their chamber. If legislators will not change it, what makes you think Con Con delegates that are elected by the same political powerhouses will?
- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 4:03 pm:
There may be another page not on the link, but I didn’t see Blago’s name anywhere on the memo’s cc: list…..
- why does everyone forget - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 7:54 pm:
This was drafted by a committee of 8 members, 4 for a con-con and 4 opposed to it. It wasn’t just a group of people who wanted to make sure people go again con con.
It’s a factual statement and everyone needs to stop making such a big deal over nothing.
- Hey Michel - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 8:37 pm:
Michel asked about the Quinn/Claypool Taxpayer Legislation. Michel incorrectly calls the proposal a con amend - it was a statute. Two statutes actually.
HB6679 would give county voters the right to set tax and spending policy by petition and initiative.
HB 6680 would have required the Todd Stroger “highest in the nation” Sales Tax hike to be subject to backdoor referendum so the voters could “veto” the Stroger tax grab.
Both of these bills have yet to get a hearing though, which seems to be yet another good argument for con con ………
- Squideshi - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 9:16 pm:
“I think we can improve the system a lot by somehow eliminating the shell bill. The action of reading a bill with no substance three times in one chamber then two times in another chamber only to amend in a huge amount of legislation defeats the purpose of fair and reasonable debate. It also hides the intent of the bill from the public.”
There WAS an effort to do exactly that. Visit the website of the Illinois Democracy Project for more information.
“I would also like to somehow restrict the speaker and the president’s power in solely deciding what should be called to the floor for a vote.”
Here here. I am with you on that.