* As Democrats and their allies push a “Fair Tax” plan this week, Illinois Issues takes a look back at the Con-Con as part of an interesting explainer piece about why the state has a flat income tax and not a graduated one…

During the debate over the state’s Constitution there were those who backed versions of a revenue article that did not prohibit a graduated tax. However, the issue was not the subject of strong advocacy from the groups that would seem likely supporters. “Chicago Democrats could have provided for a graduated income tax by voting as a bloc,” wrote Fishbane and Fisher. But they did not. “Permitting graduated income tax was not, however, a matter vital to organizational maintenance or enhancement.” In other words, adamant support of a graduated income tax would not have helped the Democrats politically.

Some Democratic did not want to risk backing a different and potentially unpopular tax concept. * But they also wanted to make sure enough money would be available for education and social programs as the state moved away from taxing personal property other than real estate. “Democrats in the Constitutional Convention had a vital stake in the adequacy of state government revenue. They had to ensure a reasonably flexible income tax without appearing to stand strongly in favor of it,” Fishbane and Fisher wrote.

Meanwhile, Republicans argued that voters would not accept a Constitution with a graduated tax rate. David Davis, a downstate Republican delegate, said a graduated income tax would be “absolutely repugnant” to the people in his area.

While many education and labor groups supported a graduated tax, according to Fishbane and Fisher, they did little to lobby delegates for it. “Although major elements of organized labor were opposed to adoption of the new constitution, in part on the grounds that it prohibited a graduated income tax, labor made no significant effort to influence the convention’s decision on the matter.” The 40 delegates endorsed by the AFL-CIO “split almost evenly” on the issue.

* In other constitutional amendment news, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform has looked into what could happen if a remap reform amendment clears the General Assembly and the remap reformers continue pressing on with their own proposal and then both measures wind up in front of voters this November…

If two proposals for redistricting reform end up on the ballot, this simple legislative language could clarify the process for all. It is not uncommon for two redistricting reform proposals to be on the same ballot – it happened in both California and Florida when they set out to give Independent Redistricting Commissions the responsibility of setting General Assembly districts. In California, the language below was included in both amendments. We believe that a similar provision would be very beneficial in any Illinois redistricting reform proposal.

SECTION 5. Competing, regulatory alternative.

A. In the event that another measure (“competing measure”) appears on the same ballot as this act that seeks to adopt or impose provisions or requirements that differ in any regard to, or supplement, the provisions or requirements contained in this act, the voters hereby expressly declare their intent that if both the competing measure and this act receive a majority of votes cast, and this act receives a greater number of votes than the competing measure, this act shall prevail in its entirety over the competing measure without regard to whether specific provisions of each measure directly conflict with each other.

B. In the event that both the competing measure and this act receive a majority of votes cast, and the competing measure receives a greater number of votes than this act, this act shall be deemed complementary to the competing measure. To this end, and to the maximum extent permitted by law, the provisions of this act shall be fully adopted except to the extent that specific provisions contained in each measure are deemed to be in direct conflict with each other on a “provision-by-provision” basis pursuant to Yoshisato v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 978.

…Adding… The criss-cross game is in full swing…