Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* As I wrote in my syndicated newspaper column this week…

If you want recall added to the Illinois Constitution, your best bet is to vote in favor of calling a constitutional convention this November.

* Burt Constable’s column today had these quotes from Dawn Clark Netsch…

“Probably the single thing that may influence voters the most is that they are so turned off by the dysfunctional state government,” Netsch says.

But voting for a constitution convention could open the door for groups with special interests in gay rights, taxes, guns, stem cell research, abortion, freedoms and other single issues they aim to expand or restrict. While stressing that she is striving to keep an open mind, Netsch admits she doesn’t think we need a constitutional convention.

“There is nothing in the constitution that has created these problem or has prevented us from reaching settlements,” Netsch says. “It’s still a good document, even though all of us would like to change one or two items.”

* Question: Regardless of what you think about a con-con, what are the strongest arguments to use with voters to convince them to vote in favor of calling a convention this November?

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 9:48 am

Comments

Voting yes for a convention gives you the *opportunity* for change… voting *no*, at best, gives you the status quo.

As for the Constitution being “sufficient”… it requires balanced budgets, we don’t have them because the language is deficient. The constitution gives the governor the amendatory veto, which we now see is something he shouldn’t have. Recalls need to be added to a constitution to work, and I agree with Rich, a convention is where we can get one. Jones and Madigan have unprecedented power to unilaterally kill a bill, the ILGA needs to be reformed to prevent this. And I can go on with the problems that the constitution creates that can only be fixed in the constitution itself.

Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 9:52 am
“Tired of pay to play in Springfield? Tired of partisan politics? — In November, vote for a constitutional convention to help end the corruption in Springfield.”

Thats the message I would advertise with, reguardless of whether its true or not.

Comment by Moderate Repub Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:01 am
Changing the face of government in Springfield.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:02 am
If you don’t think lawmakers wasted enough time and money with the overtime sessions last year, vote “yes” for con-con this year. Just imagine how contentious and expensive it could be.

Comment by Frank Booth Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:04 am
Frank-

Even the most liberal estimate of how much a convention costs places it at around .1% of the current annual state budget.

Bear in mind, it will be practically impossible for any legislator (and probably every full-time office holder) to keep their elected office and be a delegate to a convention.

And the scope of activity in a convention is much smaller than what the ILGA deals with. There are no jobs to hand out, no pork projects and no legislative favors.

Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:05 am
Rod Blagojevich

Comment by True Comparison Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:07 am
- True Comparison - Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:07 am:

Rod Blagojevich

AMEN!

Comment by Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:11 am
“I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” So….that said, regardless of the wording of new Amendments, there will always be a way around them. I’m not so sure it is a good idea but let me see how to position it: We need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the likes of our Governor, our Speaker, and our Majority Leader. We need a Constitutional Amendment so we can revisit the issues of Gun Control (and eliminate it) Gay Marriage (and permit it) and limiting comb overs to 3-inches.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:12 am
“I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” So….that said, regardless of the wording of new Amendments, there will always be a way around them. I’m not so sure it is a good idea but let me see how to position it: We need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the likes of our Governor, our Speaker, and our Majority Leader. We need a Constitutional Amendment so we can revisit the issues of Gun Control (and eliminate it) Gay Marriage (and permit it) and limiting comb overs to 3-inches.

Comment by justi Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:13 am
The “ways around it” are codified in the current constitution with the various “void were prohibited by law” clauses in the current document.

The constitution requires a balanced budget, but because “balanced budget” is defined by the ILGA debt can be income. The fix is defining it in the constitution where there is no room for interpretation.

There are real fixes we can put into this constitution. It will not fix everything, nor is that the point. The point of a constitution is to establish fundamental rights and the structure and powers of government. No one has found a “way out of” having three branches of government yet, for instance.

It’s not all hopeless.

Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:24 am
“A new broom cleans best”

Although I’m not sure any broom is up to the task.

– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com

Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:27 am
Tax restructuring (progressive income tax).

Hard property tax caps, with referendum options for capital projects and school funding.

Unified higher ed governing board.

Independent redistricing committees, a la Iowa and California.

Balanced budget under Generally Accepting Accounting Procedures.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:28 am
“I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” So….that said, regardless of the wording of new Amendments, there may well be a way around them, given the way the legal system has been ingeniously manipulated. I’m not so sure it is a good idea but let me see how to position it: We need to call a Constitutional Convention so we can get rid of the likes of our Governor, our Speaker, and our House Leader, and so we can limit comb over’s to three inches. We need to call a convention so we can change anything we, as a majority, can do to benefit us and our perceived ideas of what is right and best for us. In short, this is a box that needs to be opened very carefully, with great thought and debate. What springs out of that box may be very, very difficult to control, given our track record for doing things right. We can’t agree on a budget and now we are going to somehow magically come together and agree on Constitutional Amendments? This somehow reminds me of a Guns and Roses song….something to the tune of going down in a blaze of glory.

Comment by Justice Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:30 am
Man….sorry about that. My com went haywire trying to absorb the effect of holding a Constitutional Convention with the geniuses we have in office. Good grief!! But hey, it will certainly make life very interesting!!

Comment by Justice Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:38 am
The purpose of the convetion is just to open up an exmaination of the Constitution and a real dialogue over whetehr we need any changes or reforms. Without the convention we do not have even the dialogue or opportunity to make repairs. A convention does not have to mean there will be change, it just poresents the opportunity for real dialogue and the possibility of change.

As for topics that need serious discussion: the power to call special sessions needs tweaked; whether line item vetos should be allowed by the Gov; The guarnatee of COLA’s for certain well paid govt employees, like judges, who are treated unequally to other govt employees; Recall provisions; resotre the States soveriegn immunity (the legisalture has consented to ADA and family leave suits by Govt workers; 99.9% of these are baseless suits playing the jury lottery); prohibit sale of State property/buildings without a super majority; prohibit any leases’s or contracts for a period in excess of 4 years (term of any elected official); Prohibit executive from incuring debt/financial liability without legislative approval;

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:42 am
Pat Quinn said it well on TV last night… the power belongs to the people, not the officeholders.

Limit the games the executive branch can play with budgeted items.

The way things are, the governor can starve programs that are in place and create new un-legislated expenditures on his say so.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:47 am
The best reason would be to set limits on how long the legislative ‘leaders’ can hold their positions. this is supposed to be a representative democracy and my rep. is not Madigan or Jones. We need to find a way to wrestle the absolute power away from the 4 tops and put back to the entire body of the legislatoors.

Comment by PlayK8 Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:52 am
I totally agree, PlayK8.

Comment by LathamPlace Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:58 am
#1 The need for non-partisan redistricting.

The need for a progressive income tax.

Too much power in the governor (amendatory veto)
Too much power in Speaker and Senate Pres.

Need term limits for executives and for legislative leadership positions.

I do not think a recall would be necessary if the power were more evenly distributed, esp. within the legislative bodies.

Non-partisan redistricting would, by itself, reduce some of the power of the legislative leaders.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:59 am
In Chicago I would advertise that a con-con could address the issues that affect the whole tax situation in Chicago/Cook County. Then the education funding issue that could be addressed in the state constitution. What I would really like to see in that document is an end to the public school monopoly. We can also address state pensions in this document, it shouldn’t merely be the state who provides pensions for government employees in the state. Also if people aren’t satisfied with their level of representation in the state legislature this is another issue that can be addressed as well.

I would sell it as a way of making changes to the disfunction that is Illinois.

Comment by Levois Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 11:09 am
Mr. Bambenek,
.1 percent of a $30 billion budget ain’t a buck fifty.
And who do you think becomes delegates to these conventions? Political puritans? Ivory towered big thinkers with nothing but the general welfare of the populus on their agendas? You have to run for the post. Just imagine the fight between the Blago delegate slate and the Madigan delegate slate.
And true, there are no jobs to hand out, but having a role in setting statewide tax policy just might bring out the special interests.

In summary, con-con in this environment will make last year’s overtime look like a T-ball game.

Comment by Frank Booth Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 11:34 am
Because sometimes you do have to burn down the barn to get rid of the rats.

Comment by Enemy of the State Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 11:39 am
Frank,

Of all the arguments against a convention, the “cost” is by far the weakest, and therefore silly.

What are the paltry millions compared to $106 BILLION in unfunded liabilities? John is correct. It’s pennies in comparison. The whole thing can be paid for from member initiatives.

As for the “T-ball” comment, a convention is the ONLY thing that changes the dysfunctional dynamic of Illinois’ political class.

Those who say the current political class will control the convention apparently lack the imagination to realize how easy it will be to run against the people who screwed up this state.

No electorate that votes 60% to change a Constitution is going turn the convention over to the people who screwed it up.

Start preparing to run for delegate now, all you independents. You will probably be the ones at the convention.

Of course, each block will get a few of their folks in, but even a block of 20-40 independent newbies will have significant sway.

There is no intellectually sound argument against a convention, some come close, but when weighed against the looming train wreck, they all fall short.

Voting “yes” will be the last, best opportunity to fix Illinois in a generation.

Comment by Bruno Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 11:54 am
John Bambenek and Playk8 are absolutely right. We need to extract the absolute power to kill important legislation from the Speaker and Senate president and return it to the body. This has been done in other states like Massachussets and needs to be done here.

I know there’s a risk, but our system (not just the individuals, but the system itself) is broken. We need a Con-Con to restore the balance.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 11:55 am
===Of course, each block will get a few of their folks in, but even a block of 20-40 independent newbies will have significant sway.====

It was the independent bloc at the last convention that held sway. There were only about a dozen or so of them. So, the hack argument doesn’t work.

Also, remember that the citizenry gets to vote on the final product up or down…

===Any proposed revision or amendments shall become effective, as the Convention provides, if approved by a majority of those voting on the question.===

That’s a major check on the delegates’ power and will tend to force compromises that are politically palatable. All the scare mongering about what the delegates could produce is bunk. All of it.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 12:07 pm
I might have a solution for all….
Is it possible for a county to secede from a state? I think most of us down staters wouldn’t mind kicking cook county out at this point, and it seems the 3 stooges leading this feasco of a state government really don’t want much to do with any other part of the state….

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 12:16 pm
Great point Rich. But you can bet that fear mongering is exactly what the opponents are going to rely on. I have been very open about my support for a Con Con, but as Bruno stated, while there are some interesting arguments against holding one, at the end of the day, they don’t come close to outweighing the arguments in favor of it.

Comment by Rep. John Fritchey Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 12:36 pm
And won’t it be a glorious use of taxpayer money when the goo-goos spend months dreaming up the perfect Illinois only to find the voters really don’t want to pay more in taxes and vote the whole thing down.

This rush to throw up arms and say, “Nope, I don’t want to try anymore. Everything’s too broken. Can’t possibly be fixed” I find disturbing, if for no other reason than I don’t think the outcome of a con-con will be any more statisfying or different.

Fritchey didn’t have to vote to skip pension payments to balance the budget — but he did. You think con-con’s going to give invertebrate lawmakers a spine.

Sorry, I don’t believe in political evolution.

Comment by Frank Booth Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 12:49 pm
John Bambenek wrote:

Frank-

Even the most liberal estimate of how much a convention costs places it at around .1% of the current annual state budget.

Uh, that is not very reassuring. The Illinois Budget is $49 Billion. So 0.1% of that would be $49 Million. Is the Con-Con worth spending $49 Million or are the numbers wrong?

I wasn’t real excited about the prospects of a Con-Con, and now I’m REALLY not.

Comment by Trafficmatt Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 12:54 pm
The last post makes my argument. The last IL budget with George Ryan was 49 Billion. This years will be in excess of 60 Billion. A recall will only let the ignorant voter base off the hook. If he commits a crime impeach him, otherwise live with our mistakes.

Second, on gun control, do the math. The way the delegates will be selected the pro-gun control districts will run the convention. Our gun control legislation will not go away, it will become constitutional.

Third, when you completly screw up your job based on poor performance, you lose your job. You don’t get to hand pick a bunch of bafoons to go and change the rules to mask your incompetence. Our elected officials have failed us, not our law. Get rid of the elected officials not the law.

Does anyone with those, “had enough, vote democrat” bumper stickers find it ironic that we didn’t even really consider a recall with George Ryan, and now with a democrat in office it recall being used to forward a constitutional convention?

Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 1:16 pm
I said “the most liberal estimate” not an accurate one. I really don’t see how putting 118 people in a room for 6 months and have them debate costs that much.

Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 1:19 pm
Our estimate is that the cost could be approximately 9-10 million, not a small number, but far lower than a lot of the numbers being thrown about.

Comment by Rep. John Fritchey Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 1:26 pm
And I would generally agree with a on-its-face look at Rep. Fritchey’s numbers.

Re: Gun Control. The US Supreme Court is about to dramatically change the course of gun control laws and every indication is that they are going to liberalize the controls, not tighten. Remember that Illinois Constitution also has to pass US Constitutional muster. If, for example, a gun control amendment is passed, a federal court can step in and whack it.

Not only do the voters have to approve the work, it is possible the voters can approve each individual amendment made to the constitution SEPERATELY.

Lastly, as far as getting rid of our elected officials… our districts are absurdly gerrymandered to make races uncompetitive. Our election code is designed to keep third parties and independents off the ballot and the federal courts have declared it unconsitutional repeatedly.

The constitutional convention call was put into our constitution to give citizens the power to act when the legislature has failed to. They’ve failed, you agree, now let us act.

Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 1:38 pm
“Regardless of what you think about a con-con, what are the strongest arguments to use with voters to convince them to vote in favor of calling a convention this November?”

ooooo! Nice finesse! That’s one way to get a pro-con-con thread. Can’t you & John hire a PR firm to come up with the reasons?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 1:51 pm
“Tired of pay to play in Springfield? Tired of partisan politics? — In November, throw the bums out.”

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 1:57 pm
Question for tomorrow: when does a blog cross the line from journalism to advocacy?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 2:01 pm
WOW banned for life three comments in a row for the price of one.

Comment by Levois Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 2:53 pm
$10M won’t cover the bar tabs for the 1st week

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 3:23 pm
The only way we will ever get: School Funding Reform, A real Campaign Finance/ ethics package, and as Rich noted Recall of elected officals to the people of Illinois.

Basically all the things the legislature should be doing!

Comment by prairiestatedem Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 3:41 pm
I hope the first thing they amend is to change the terms of state reps from 2 years to 4, and from senators for 4 to 6.

Running for re-election every 2 and 4 years can get expensive, both moneywise and timewise.

Comment by Johnny USA Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 3:52 pm
Term limits for allthe career politicians, so we can get them off the payroll, ghost and overwise. My my my how are state government has seriously forgotten whom the represent. Most only represent the ones with the biggest wallets not the avg. citizen. Yes open it up get recall and term limits, enough with the scare tactics i.e. gays and guns… there will not be same sex marriges nor will the government come take our guns. That scage tactis only work with the voters who have there head in the sand…Bring on the VOTE!!!!

Comment by dumb ol' country boy Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 4:54 pm
The strongest argument? Five words would sum it up quite nicely: Rod Blagojevich and Emil Jones.
Why include Emil Jones? Because he has always served as Rod’s “Enabler”.

Comment by Beowulf Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 5:04 pm
As wonky as it may be to find warm and fuzzy comfort in federalism, I do. And in the saggy-pants quagmire that is now Illinois state government, federalism is downright hot.

Since the U.S. Constitution provides a floor, a baseline we cannot fall below, we are free to fail. Even if we do manage to get something wrong, remedies are available and likely to be career making. A constitutional convention might be worth it just for the process heroes it might seed.

While the minimum is set, the upper limit is not. We could create a right to privacy. We could scuttle the flat tax. We could add a recall provision. We could rewrite Art. III, §3 so that “reform” in relation to “election” was something more useful than a punch line.

Low downside risks with great upside potential means we can risk this. The con con should be a go go.

Comment by Suzanne Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 5:12 pm
I was against the Con Con until I read BannedForLife. Now me thinks it a wonderful idea.

Comment by downhereforyears Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 6:20 pm
I say go for it, we’ve got nothing to lose — if the convention devolves into a fiasco and a bad document comes out, it can be voted down. The most controversial provisions can also be voted on separately (wasn’t that done in 1970 too?)
I’d like to see Article IV (Legislature) rewritten to include rules review (so that there’s no longer any question about JCAR’s legitimacy, or so that an acceptable replacement for the JCAR process can be instituted) and to spell out exactly what constitutes grounds for impeachment.

Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 11:22 pm
Since the Legislative process can be rewritten by public referendum, perhaps the people should decide to give themselves more power to initiate legislation, then focus on citizens making specific needed reforms.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 9, 08 @ 8:23 am