Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: White Sox open thread! *** UPDATED x2 - Guv gets giddy, Meeks changes plans***
Next Post: The fine print on the Midway lease; Plus: State casino woes worsen
Posted in:
* There’s an important court hearing today on the General Assembly’s ridiculous inclusion of language in the constitutional amendment referendum reminding voters that the question lost badly twenty years ago…
State officials chose to include that factoid in the ballot question and now the Chicago Bar Association questions its legality while pro-rewrite groups are crying foul, claiming the wording stacks the deck against them. […]
The Chicago Bar Association claims that the explanation on the ballot and several other aspects are unconstitutional and, if not fixed, could result in the entire process having to be done again.
* Here’s the statement which will be presented to voters…
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 of calling a convention.
* The Tribune editorial board, which is so far neutral on the referendum itself, is rightly outraged…
The connivers must have been so proud. So sure no one would notice their mischief. Yes, the Illinois Constitution does give those pesky citizens the right to demand a constitutional convention every 20 years—with the next vote scheduled for the Nov. 4 general election. Could be bad for this state’s arrogant political class in a year when voters are so furious over failed leadership. You can almost hear the insiders who concocted this year’s referendum murmur the secret, sacred words to one another: “Let’s rig the question!”
And they did. Peek inside this fiasco and it’s obvious that the folks who benefit mightily from the way the current constitution distributes power are desperate to keep things just as they are.
This exercise in chicanery is scheduled to get scrutiny Wednesday afternoon from Cook County Circuit Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. The Chicago Bar Association, among other plaintiffs, is asking him to block what would be a cheesy injustice to the voters of this state. We hope the judge doesn’t let the people who plotted this scheme get away with it. It appears that he can order a correction of ballots—or delay the convention referendum until a subsequent election. There may be other remedies.
* But GOP State Sen. Dale Righter is not impressed...
(S)tate Senator Dale Righter defends how the referendum is worded. He says the lawyers taking the matter to court are, quote, “looking for something to do.”
* Meanwhile, I told you late yesterday afternoon that Cook County Assessor Houlihan supports the con-con question. From Houlihan’s press release…
Opponents of the convention talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they want you to be afraid it will be hijacked by out-of-touch, irresponsible extremists. On the other hand, they say it would be controlled by the same powerful leaders who run things now. But the reality is, the 1969-1970 convention launched a new generation of political leaders, reviving the state’s political culture with an influx of new, fresh, young talent.
Reasoned opponents agree that education funding is a constitutional issue, but argue that a constitutional convention would be a disaster. But Illinois has had four different constitutions in its history. With each new constitution, the state has flourished.
To those people and groups who oppose a constitutional convention, I pose a few simple questions: What are you afraid of? Why does democracy terrify you? What is it about a fresh constitutional convention that frightens you? As Thomas Jefferson said, “We are a people capable of self-government, and worthy of it.”
Let us put our confidence in the people of Illinois and support this call for a constitutional convention.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: White Sox open thread! *** UPDATED x2 - Guv gets giddy, Meeks changes plans***
Next Post: The fine print on the Midway lease; Plus: State casino woes worsen
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==Why does democracy terrify you?==
Two terms of Blago!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:32 am
General Assembly’s ridiculous inclusion
So the GA did this, and not the SOS’s office?
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:37 am
The more time and ink spilled over the wording of the question, the need for a constitutional convention becomes more apparent.
It is to the anti-con cons benefit to change the question to reflect a neutral statement than it is to continue fighting over it.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:40 am
PC, that is correct, but just a committee. What I want to know is who was on the committee (Was there eight of them?) and what their positions are on a con-con.
Comment by BandCamp Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:40 am
OK, Houli,
Let’s look at that “New” generation of leaders.
Daley II, Madigan, you, Singer the sellout, Shakman, who went on to make a living out of being a loser. What a list of all stars!
Despite all of them, delegates came up with a suprisingly good document. Leave it alone.
We are not afraid of anything. We just don’t want the state to waste all that money for nothing.
Now get back to fleecing the taxpayers and keep your big nose out of the people’s business.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:46 am
I could care less about wording and no legal beagle should make a dime off of this. The simple question regarding the “Con-Con” is yes or no. I say YES and that is how I will vote.
Comment by Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:47 am
Nice to see the Chicago Bar Association get involved in public questions for once. The wording is as ham-handed an attempt to sway voters as it is irrelevant to the question.
I don’t know Houlihan — what’s his story on this? He seems to be fighting with Madigan, is that part of this?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:48 am
Whether a voter is pro or not on the constitutional convention, the wording about the last vote on a con-con should be a seen as the state trying to manipulate an outcome. Voters on both sides of the question should be outraged. I get the creepy feeling that this state is nothing more than a veiled (or perhaps not-so-veiled) autocracy where the governor feels free to make laws on his and the General Assembly can hijack the democratic process by being subject soley to the whims of leaders who are elected to office only by a few thousand people in their districts, and then elected to leadership by a groveling flock of geese.
Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:49 am
Houlihan for President.
Comment by Speaking At Will Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:56 am
“Houlihan for President”– You obviously don’t pay property taxes in Cook County.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:59 am
Prediction: The language doesn’t change. Judge Nathaniel Howse is an insider’s insider.
Comment by Jake from Elwood Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:59 am
BILL
You are “SPOT ON” when it comes to Houlihan. He is a disaster!!!!
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:35 am
WORD
Houlihan has screwed up the assessment in Cook.To get cover he turns to Springfield to change the way assessments should be done. When Springfield turns their back on his proposed legislation , Houlihan aligns himself with Blago to give Madigan a hard time.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:39 am
I’m afraid I can’t express my true feelings of total digust towards those opposing the Con-Con vote, lest I be permanently banished from this site.
Comment by fedup dem Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:43 am
Bandcamp,
I Co-Chaired the Committee (and I have been a very vocal supporter of Con-Con). The other members of the committee were Lang, Durkin, Lindner, Raoul, Harmon, Righter, and Althoff.
I brought up my objection to this specific language on more than one occasion, and was unable to get it removed from the final version.
I believed then, as I do know, that the historical language is as skewed as it is unnecessary, and makes an already difficult battle that much harder.
I will also tell you that at every panel discussion in which I’ve participated, the more information that people hear, the more likely they are to support Con-Con.
Comment by Rep. John Fritchey Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:46 am
===Despite all of them, delegates came up with a suprisingly good document.===
Bill, you’re subterfuging one of the primary reasons against voting for a con-con. Voter disenchantment is a powerful political force. That’s why your beloved boss is politically impotent.
Comment by The Doc Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:49 am
I know hindsight is 20/20…
I would assume any hearings you held were open to the public. What was the turnout like and was there any general or specific input in your hearings from pro/con groups/individuals?
You get where I am going with this…you obviously saw the inherent slant of inserting the language. Didn’t anyone else?
Comment by BandCamp Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 11:07 am
I think it is impossible for us collectively to do worse than we have been doing at all levels of Illinois politics and government.
Much has been made about the complete failure of our national leadership recently. Illinois must be a bellwether of this leadership failure.
We’ve been having this crisis of leadership in Illinois the last decade. It’s worsened in recent years.
I’m an optimist. We can do better. Let the old guard Democrats and Republicans know that politics and government as usual isn’t good eneough any more!
As Johnny paycheck might say - Take the current Illinois Constitution and shove it. Likewise with the failed and arrogant leadership of Governor Pinocchio, Godfather Jones, Speaker Machiavelli, and Toddler Stroger.
Send them a message.Vote yes on Con-Con
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 11:13 am
==We just don’t want the state to waste all that money for nothing.==
Since when did you ever care about wasting money, Bill? We’ve been listening to your crazed rants for a few years and you never shared with us any care about the vast oceans of our money wasted on your favorite social programs.
Reading your concerns about the supposed $80 million to be spent to revive our state is like watching an 800 pound man ask a child if they are “really going to eat that McNugget?”
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 11:26 am
Members of my family are put off by the possible cost of a con-con. I argue vehemently with them that the cost of the current way of doing business is too much to bear. $78 million is a pittance when one considers how much our current government “structure” costs us.
The wording is terrible. It sounds like a partisan-style push poll. Though scary, I find myself agreeing with Lt. Gov. Quinn a lot these days - both on this matter, the con-con wording and ethics reform.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 11:29 am
VM, that last quote was hilarious.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 11:30 am
VanMan,
Money for social programs that improve citizens’ quality of life is not a waste. Money sent on needless and useless political theater, however amusing it would be, which will accomplish nothing is a waste.
Team,
I see that your estimate is a couple million less than usual. What gov’t boondoggle has ever come in at or under estimate? None. 78 million would be getting off cheap. My guess is it would cost more like $178 million.
It is funny that the same people who whine about how much the governor’s plane cost and how much we spend on per diems don’t mind wasting millions on concon.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 11:44 am
The document’s fine. It’s the people, i.e. the voters that put these “people” in office in the first place and its the voters (all of us really)that are to blame. The constitution can be changed without opening up the entire document to change or mischief.
Comment by Huckleberry Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 1:42 pm
===It’s the people, i.e. the voters that put these “people” in office===
As I tried to explain this week, politicians choose their voters, not the other way around.
Empty rhetoric that ignores reality.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 1:46 pm
Well, on that point I agree but then how would a con con change that, aside from changing the way in which we draw the map, which I don’t think would be any better if done by the same hands that currently govern.
Comment by Huckleberry Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 2:01 pm
Please go read this week’s syndicated column. We went over all this yesterday.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 2:03 pm
$20 mil, $78 mil, $80 mil, $178 mil…a bargain a just about any price.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 2:51 pm
The constitution has been ammended 10 times since 1970. One of those times was when Lt. Governor to be and resident space cadet,Pat Quinn, took advantage of the public’s rage over a pay increase to cut the House by 1/3 thereby ceding to the Speaker unprecedented power. That is a good example of why we should not screw around with the whole constitution in answer to a specific outrage.
If the public really demands an ammendment it can be done at any time through referendum. We don’t have to wait 20 years to change the constitution and we don’t have to have a boondoggle to get it done.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 3:04 pm
Bill, how many times has the constitution been amended since 1990?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 3:05 pm
OH! OH!
Pick me, pick me!
I know! I know!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 3:21 pm
Bill?
You got your billions to waste.
So return our McNugget - tubby!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 3:26 pm
Rich, QOTD idea. “Rewrite to do right the con-con ballot question.”
My proposal: This proposal deals with a call for a state constitutional convention. If you believe the 1970 Illinois Constitution is not working the way it was intended and needs to be revised to prevent the abuse of power that has been growing like a cancer in Springfield, vote “YES” on the question of calling a constitutional convention. If you believe that the state paying it’s bills 2-3 months or more late and pension funds $50 BILLION in debt is a good thing, vote “NO” on the calling of a constitutional convention.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 3:27 pm
Well, as one of the few here who attended/observed the 1969-70 Convention, and who served in State government under the 1870 and 1970 Constitutions, and who has litigated several provisions of the 1970 one, I think the following: (1) a 2009 Convention would be a lot of fun and very educational, (2) a new Constitution is highly unlikely to be adopted by the voters no matter how well done (particularly because single-issue social and tax constituencies will inevitably either be terminally disappointed or if successful in the convention will sink the boat before it leaves the harbor); (3) the business community is understandably scared to death of a revision of the Revenue Article which can only hurt business interests (which is understandable but a bit silly as the courts ignore the constitutional restrictions anyway), (4) a 2009 Convention fight over judicial selection (100% predictable) might be different than in 1969 but merit selection in any form is not gonna sell downstate even now, (5) the ONLY feasible major structural changes that MIGHT get adopted would be to return the House to 3-member districts with cumulative voting and to impose serious constraints on redistricting, but that will only happen if incumbent legislators are disqualified from being Delegates and if (like 1969) the delegate elections are non-partisan. So after all that, I think its a close call whether there is enough chance of actually accomplishing anything to justify a Convention. But if Illinois calls a 7th Convention for next year, I might just run. A few adults would sure help. And there are now some decent restaurants in SPI.
DDD
Comment by DavidDaDem Thursday, Oct 2, 08 @ 12:58 am