Question of the day
Wednesday, Aug 9, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Last night…
* From Gov. Pritzker’s press conference today…
Q: Last night, voters in Ohio rejected a measure which would have made it more difficult for them to amend the constitution. You sent a tweet that it is a massive win for democracy. However, Ohio makes it a lot easier than Illinois does for citizens [scrambled audio about passing constitutional questions]. Would you support a change to the Illinois Constitution to make it more easy for Illinois citizens to make similar changes like they currently do in Ohio [simple majority]?
Pritzker: What went on in Ohio, leading up to the vote last night was solely an effort to stop pro-choice forces from passing an amendment to their constitution, that’s all it was about. That’s all it was about. It was masquerading as we need to make it harder or, you know, raise the bar for putting an amendment into our Constitution. But it only grew out of the fact that they had already put together the petitions to get it on the ballot, to change the constitution to make Ohio a pro-choice state. So entirely, that’s what that was about. And I’m proud to have supported the Vote No, that’s the side that supported choice. And it was a resounding victory, as you saw in 2022 in so many places around the country, a resounding victory for those of us who are pro-choice and for the people who live in those states who just want to preserve their reproductive freedom. So I was pleased with the outcome.
You’re asking about whether Illinois should change. We have a 60 percent threshold here. We’ve had amendments pass and fail in Illinois. And I think I wouldn’t change what we’re doing here in Illinois.
But I’m just saying what you saw last night was really about choice. That’s all it was. And you also heard Republicans who are backing that, saying last night that they intend to bring their referendum back, to make it hard for people to change the constitution. Maybe they will. But by that time, Ohio would have put into its constitution a restoration of a woman’s right to choose.
Please pardon all transcription errors.
The Illinois Constitution allows the General Assembly, with three-fifth majorities, to put constitutional amendments on the ballot. Those questions must be approved “by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election.”
* The Question: Should Illinois lower its constitutional amendment threshold to simple majorities of those who vote on the question? Make sure to explain your answer. We’re not going to tackle the legislative aspect of this today. So please just stick to the question at hand. Thanks.
- fs - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:29 pm:
No. It should be tougher to amend the Constitution than it is to pass a regular bill. While it might sound good when you have a majority….What feeds you today might bite you tomorrow. Protecting certain rights against potential tyranny from a small majority is kind of the whole point of enshrining rights in the Constitution.
- Jibba - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:30 pm:
I’m not a fan of citizen led constitutional amendments, so 60% is fine with me. I just don’t like changing the rules to create an outcome.
- Google Is Your Friend - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:31 pm:
No. I believe simple majorities are too swingy based on turnout, feelings of voters at a particular time, etc. Just look at how bad and confusing governance is in California, which admittedly has quite lax standards for getting initiatives and amendments on the ballot. If it was a simple majority for something like a statute (which we don’t have statewide in Illinois), I would favor that, but we only have the amendment process. Putting something in the constitution should have a certain seriousness and wider breadth of support from the public, in my view. Could we argue over 55%, 60%, 65%, or some other number? Certainly, but I believe it should be more than a simple majority for constitutional amendments.
- Perrid - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:34 pm:
I don’t like the legislature changing the rules last minute to keep specific changes in place, but in general it seems to me that it SHOULD be more difficult to change the Constitution. A society should be pretty sure it wants to alter the bedrock of the civilization they’ve made (you might say that’s dramatic, fine, but a constitution is the highest law in the land, the core principles everyone’s agreed to, however you want to describe it).
- Benjamin - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:36 pm:
Yes. I’m not really sure what the complexities of the current rule bring to the table. The fact that other states seem to get by fine with a simple majority–Ohio allows for majority rule with amendments, and still most proposed amendments have failed–suggests that the Illinois rules are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t need solving.
- Demos - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:38 pm:
Keep the threshold, but make it easier for citizens to get a question on the ballot in the first place.
- jim - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:41 pm:
of course not. 50 percent is for legislation, a change in the state’s government document that will last probably forever must have broad-based pubic support, unless you want to vote on the same amendment every year.
- Joe Schmoe - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:46 pm:
I don’t agree with many of Pritzker’s opinions, but I do agree that the Constitution is not something that should be changed on a whim.
- Proud Papa Bear - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:52 pm:
No. The State Constitution is far too important to amend with a simple majority. An amendment needs to be something that’s overwhelmingly supported, not just something that’s slightly more popular today.
- West Sider - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:58 pm:
The goal in Ohio was to make citizen driven constitutional reform practicality impossible. There were additional requirements regarding petition signatures from every county in order to make the ballot, as well. Illinois is doing just fine.
- John Lopez - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:58 pm:
No. The current outright threshold of 60% voting in favor on the question is appropriate, and the backdoor approval of 50%+1 of all ballots cast protects democracy.
We saw the backdoor approval come into play with Amendment 1 last fall, where it failed to have 60% to win approval outright, but the backdoor approval ensured passage.
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 1:59 pm:
no leave it as it is. especially because we have option of voting on a new constitutional convention at least every 20 years
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 2:01 pm:
I think 50%+1 is fine for state Constitutional Amendments. First, they have to be proposed and pass both houses with 3/5 so the fear of amendment cycling is way overblown here. Second, we already have a simple majority for those voting in the election. The reality is that with the drop off to the amendments it’s often 3/5 as a practical number. I just don’t see the need for the super majority from the voting population when you already have it for the legislature. If we aren’t going to do Con-Cons, we should make amendments easier to pass even if it’s just a little easier.
- Lurker - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 2:03 pm:
Make it 95% so the GOP has some say in something in this State. /s
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 2:03 pm:
—-Just look at how bad and confusing governance is in California,
But those don’t require 3/5 of the legislature to approve it first. We already have a fairly solid way to avoid amendment cycling. I’m generally not a fan of initiatives for laws, but when we move to amendments, there’s just no evidence that we would be in danger of cycling.
- ChicagoBars - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 2:04 pm:
Nope, and definitely not before redistricting is delegated to a independent commission (which it probably never will be). 50% + 1 to amend constitution and hyper partisan redistricting would just be a disaster.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 2:37 pm:
I would not change it. The consitution is a fundamental document whose change, depending on what it is, can make people have to move out of the state to keep their rights. It ought to require pretty solid, broad support for any change.
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 3:13 pm:
No, and I HATE gerrymandering and what the Illinois SCOTUS did to kill the referrendum (or more precisely, how they refused to rule on all grounds of the challenge, saving a rubber bullet and creating an ambiguity meant - yes meant - to discourage future attempts). The Ohio GOP doesn’t care about 50% or 60% - if they did, they’d have made the effective date after the abortion referrendum. In fact, if the abortion referrendum passes, they would likely fight the same 60% initiative as now it would stand in their way.
- The Captain - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 3:20 pm:
I don’t have a strong opinion on what the threshold should be (50%, 60%, 66%, etc.), but I don’t care for having two different metrics for deciding if the measure passed or not. I’d rather have a single measurement, rather than the two, and I favor the simpler version of those voting on the question, rather than the more complicated version of those voting in the election, that also includes adding undervotes into the calculation.
- Dunwich Snorer - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 3:38 pm:
No. If it’s too easy to change the constitution, you end up with something like the Texas constitution, which now runs over some 200 pages.
- anon2 - Wednesday, Aug 9, 23 @ 5:11 pm:
The legislature won’t reform itself, so keepiing the high barrier to amending the constitution protects the status quo. Gerrymandering won’t be outlawed. Neither will the revolving door between the legislature and lobbying. Neither will electing judges in the county of Cook.