* My Sun-Times column this week was written in direct response to a Sun-Times editorial this past Tuesday which formally endorsed a “No” vote on the constitutional convention referendum. The Sun-Times has always been very accomodating whenever I’ve wanted to openly disagree with the official viewpoint on their own editorial page, so I give them major props for green-lighting this piece, which actually quotes their own flawed reasoning…

“No Negro or mulatto shall migrate to or settle in this state after the adoption of the constitution.”

If you think Illinois politics is bizarre, nasty and brutish now, it ain’t got nothing on the past.

That above passage was approved by the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1862.

That’s right.

Illinois.

The Land of Lincoln.

1862.

The Civil War.

Amazingly enough, the proposed ban on “negroes” and “mulattoes” was drafted just weeks before President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

The 1862 constitutional convention was dominated by radical southern Illinoisans, widely reviled as “Copperheads,” who sympathized with the Confederacy to the point of advocating secession from the Union.

Times were tense and very tough in Illinois at that time. The war wasn’t going well. Most of the state’s banks had collapsed. The Mississippi River was closed to barge traffic, so farmers couldn’t easily export their crops. Family legend has it that one of my own ancestors was deployed to deep southern Illinois to help quell an armed revolt.

Republican Gov. Richard Yates, a Lincoln ally, called for troops to patrol Springfield during the convention. Gov. Yates believed that the hated Copperheads might use the convention to mount an insurrection and seize control of state government.

Thankfully, the grave injustice and permanent stain on our state’s history was avoided when Illinois voters rejected that vile “Copperhead Constitution” during a statewide referendum.

Eight years later, a new constitutional convention was convened and Illinois voters eventually approved one of the most progressive constitutions in the nation. For the first time anywhere, the railroads were subjected to state regulation. The 1870 constitution is now seen as the birth of the modern regulatory society. Several of the convention delegates, most of them young reformers, ended up running for the General Assembly and swept the horribly corrupt old guard out of office.

Then, in 1920, Illinois took another shot at a new Constitution. The United States Constitution had been amended seven years earlier to allow Congress to impose an income tax. Illinois convention delegates followed suit by proposing a new income tax for Illinois. But voters overwhelmingly rejected the constitution during a 1922 referendum, 900,000 votes to 200,000.

It wasn’t until 1972 that Illinois voters finally approved a new Constitution, which was considered a model of progressivity at the time. As with the previously successful convention, the page seemed to turn on Illinois politics as several delegates used their newfound reputations as modern reformers to springboard to elective office.

There are two points to this story.

Illinois voters are given a chance to call a constitutional convention every 20 years. This year is the year. And after 18 years of covering Illinois politics, I’ve come to the firm conclusion that a constitutional convention should be approved. Changes simply must be made.

But earlier this week the Sun-Times editorialized against convening a convention.

“The dangerous wild card in all this, however, is not so much what a convention might fail to do, but what it might do. Once the Constitution is thrown open, anything goes. A woman’s right to choose an abortion could be curtailed. Same-sex marriage could be permitted or prohibited.”

That misses a crucial point.

Any proposed constitution must be submitted to voters for final approval. And after looking at the history of far stranger times, I trust the voters to make the right decision.

Also, both successful conventions sparked a new beginning in Illinois politics. The old guard was replaced by the young, fresh reformers who populated the constitutional convention. We need to turn that page again.

So, please, vote “Yes” on the constitutional convention this November.

* Meanwhile, retired public employees, particularly teachers, are being bombarded with goofy spamlike e-mails which trash the con-con and demand a “No” vote. Here’s the latest one I’ve seen…

CON-CON is the Constitutional Convention vote that will take place on the Nov. 4th Ballot.

One of the changes that the CON-CON will provide is the taxing of pensions in the State of Illinois .

To all my retired friends and those that will retire in the future, get the word out to vote NO!!!!! For those of us that get municipal pensions, our Social Security is already cut, thank you Dan Rostenkowski.

Do not let the State tax our pensions.

Tell all your Illinois friends that on Nov. 4th vote NO to CON-CON.

Let’s get the word out.

Thanks for you help.

Notice that the core message is that pension income “will” be taxed if a convention is convened. Ridiculous.

* Here’s another chain e-mail going around…

Another even bigger concern for teachers is that if Con-Con is passed our pension can be cut drastically or totally eliminated. They can vote to no longer fund it or to erase any of the monies owed us because it would be a really easy way to help balance the budget without voter approval. They would have free reign to do whatever they want with our retirement.

Any changes can be made to our constitution through the process of making and passing amendments and getting voter approval. With Con-Con they can just make the changes without voter approval.

That is a complete, utter lie in every respect.

Pension payments to current retirees can NOT be cut not matter what happens at a constitutional convention because the current constitution guarantees the payments as a contract. Therefore, that contract is and will always be binding on the state.

That other part about a convention making changes without voter approval is probably the most disgusting lie I’ve seen to date. As I’ve said I don’t know how many times: Voters get final approval on everything.

Riling up senior citizens with lies like this is absolutely unforgivable. The perpetrators ought to be ashamed of themselves. And I’m going to start calling them out in public by name and include their full contact information if this doesn’t stop right now.

* Speaking of misleading claims, a group of con-con supporters is touting a relatively new poll that supposedly shows huge support for the upcoming referendum…

Overall, 58 percent of the 1,000 likely Illinois voters surveyed by Rasmussen Reports currently favor a Con-Con. That’s just short of the 60 percent mark that would be required to vote “yes” in order to initiate the convention process. The poll found that 21 percent are opposed to the idea, with 21 percent undecided.

That’s just not true.

I was recently given the full poll results on condition that I not publish them. But if the supporters are going to mislead the public and hide the actual results, then I have no choice but to call them out here. This is the actual result…

2* Do you support or oppose an Illinois Constitutional Convention?

37% Support
31% Oppose
33% Not sure

* The pollster then asked a question about legislative job performance, a right-track/wrong-track question, asked if they are satisfied with education funding, and then posed nine “push” questions designed specifically to sway voter opinion in favor of the con-con vote. Here’s just one of them…

13* If you knew that those opposed to calling a constitutional convention have donated more than $10 million to Governor Blagojevich and the Springfield politicians since 2002, would you be more likely or less likely to support a constitutional convention?

Only after those nine push questions were asked did 58 percent say they’d support a con-con.

The point here is that there is no way on God’s green Earth that the proponents will have the money to effectively “burn” those nine points into voters’ minds by election day. No way.

This is a sorry turn of events.