Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Again with the “Present” votes?
Posted in:
* 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.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 9:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Again with the “Present” votes?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Filled in my absentee ballot yesterday and voted No. Nationally we don’t rewrite the constitution when things get stupid, and this seems to add more silliness on top of the other stuff happening down there in springfield.
Also hearing Durbin run around the state blaming his own party for the mess here, and Washington for the mess there despite the fact he’s been a leader in both places for a generation, is a major groin punch for an old school GOP committeeman.
I hope november 6, we get a party chairman that can at least give us someone to fight for.
Comment by shore Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:02 am
==use the convention to mount an insurrection and seize control of state government==
I’m clipping this out to use in my next email blast. Nice article Rich…nice to know sleazy politics can infest any issue. Maybe watching the stock market will cheer me up….YIKES!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:03 am
If the current pension arrangement is a contract then might the constitution address those who worked for state government or any government in the state after the adoption of a new pension arrangement?
Comment by Levois Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:15 am
Rich
Thank you for taking such a strong stand on the ridiculous spam like e-mails that are going around concerning a con con. I was forwarded several of those same e-mails yesterday and was disgusted.
At one point I replied back to the entire e-mail list that had been blasted these misleading e-mails and asked them to please consider the facts about a con-con, and to understand that peoples pensions are not at risk. After sending that e-mail, I was met with a reply by a state police zone commander saying that I had used state e-mail inappropriatly, and that a criminal investigation could commence if I did not cease.
I had used state e-mail inappropriatly? I was simply answering an e-mail that was full of mis information, and had no idea that the e-mail list contained state workers addresses.
Perhaps I should not have replied to the e-mail at all, but it sincerly infuriate me to see people circulate half truths about something so important. Vote YES on a Con Con.
Comment by Speaking At Will Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:17 am
That state police commander should be investigated for harassment.
Comment by Greg Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:19 am
Don’t fear the people? More cowbell, Rich.
Comment by Truth Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:20 am
Our system is broken-nationally as well as here in Illinois and we need citizen participation to fix it. Those who advance the no position on a Constitutional Convention are the defenders of the status quo. Their fear mongering about pensions, tax laws, and choice is probably going to doom any chance of reform. When the League of Women Voters is afraid of democracy you know the system is broken.
On a positive note, after reading your column in the Sun Times and everything else going on, I’ve had “Throwing Stones” by the good ole Grateful Dead stuck in my head. So at least the soundtrack is good!
Comment by Patrick Casey Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:22 am
Once again I’d like to encourage everyone to read what Samuel W. Witwer, president of the 1970 con-con, had to say about that effort five years later:
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1975/ii7512360.html
He points out that the 1970 constitution, not to mention the U.S. Constitution, were drafted during very troubled and turbulent times when everything seemed to be falling apart.
A lot of Illinois residents who were alive at the time may not remember the Con-Con because their attention was on much more serious stuff like Vietnam, Cambodia, Kent State, etc. There WAS a period in the spring of 1970 when it looked like campuses all over the nation were going to explode.
If you’re worried about corrupt Chicago Democrats running this convention, well, they pretty much ran the last one and we still managed to get a pretty good document, which does, however, need some tweaking.
If Illinoisians could find it in them to have a con-con during the Civil War, during the reign of a REALLY corrupt governor like Len Small (who makes Ryan, and maybe even Blago, look like Boy Scouts — ask Rich) and during the civil unrest of the 60s and early 70s, surely we can do it now.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:23 am
Don’t fear the people
Better yet - Fear the Current Illinois Senators and Congressman.
Comment by Wacker Drive Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:28 am
Good news on the poll. A con con in this environment would be a disaster. Retirees have every right to be worried - about their health care. This state has given them its word to provide some level of health care for them. Do you really think a con con would reinforce that commitment given the mistrust of government and the acidic tone of the debate? Logic may actually prevail in this referendum. VOTE NO!
Comment by Harry Caray's Glasses Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:29 am
And don’t forget, voters DID have the sense to reject the crappy 1862 and 1920 constitutions. Actually, the 1920 constitution may not have been all that bad but it did have some serious flaws, and voters had to take or leave the whole document. But the next convention learned from that mistake and separated out the most controversial provisions. I would think a new con-con would do the same.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:37 am
I just looked at my sample ballot here in Cook County. Only the highly motivated, pro or con, are going to slog through all those judges to get to the question.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:38 am
OK - remember you said it.
“I trust the voters to make the right decision.”
I agree with you. But it looks like the decisions that will be made next month may not be the ones we prefer.
So where are the rebels? What happened to the generation dedicated to changing America? They started retiring, that’s what. Boomers are not sacrificers, as their parents were. They were always the “Me” generation. They got theirs, and frankly don’t care about the others. The Jones generation is doing what it always has, shadowing the Boomers. They have always seen less, and are afraid that change will give them even less than the scraps they’ve been living on. The “X-ers” and younger generations got their Illinois college education and have migrated towards dynamic cities and states to raise businesses and families. Illinois isn’t zooming into the global economy but smart citizens are. Chicago is more regional than ever. Not nationally important like in the past, and certainly not globally important in any financial or economic definition.
The average Illinoian is older than the average citizen in boom states in the southern and western US. We just might have reached a point where Illinoians, like some Titanic passengers, believe that it is better to be comfy in a sinking ship, than risk the cold Atlantic for a better future.
But even in those moments when a state turns it’s back on the future, and focus only on the short-term Band-Aid approaches to governmental issues, it is “right” on that Election Day.
Illinois may just not be ready at this time to move into the future. It shouldn’t be a surprise to those of us who have been watching our state government slowly stagnate and the global economy barely raising our state economy. It isn’t a surprise to those of us who have been watching government priorities focus on redividing and fighting over our economic pie because they don’t have a clue on how to increase it.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:41 am
Rich states–
“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”—
I understand what you are saying, but several things come to mind for me. First, a tiny slight break for the wording on ‘the voters’. If the emails are going out to union members their use of ‘voters’ could mean the voting ratification process current issues with pensions go thru. Likely not but as this was the target of the email, I can’t automatically say they meant the citizens voters as a whole.
Second, the repeatedly stressed point that ‘voters’ get the final say is not overly comforting to the union member retirees/retirees to be. There is a whole lot of citizens that believe for example that state workers get out landish mega bucks for retirement not to mention the sterotype of the worker is lazy, overpaid, stupid and undeserving. So being that ‘we’ voters get final say may not have a calming, reassuring measure on union members.
3rd, key word ‘current retirees’. Many are a stones toss from being there, and it does worry them to not yet be ‘current’ and perhaps have pensions messed with. Having just sat through bargaining with Rod trying his darnest to mess with workers pensions, this ‘open up the consituation’ is scary to many and I’m not sure just telling them not to worry, will be enough to reassure them that what they’ve worked 30 plus years for will be left alone.
C 31 AFSCME put up a story on their site yesterday afternoon that puts out some serious issues that will upset and scare members. While I’m sure many members know and believe changes need to be done on the consitution, I’m not sure anyone has been able to reassure them their concerns will have any protection of being wiped away. I, myself have been struggling with the issue and reading all the pro/con stories and bloggers opinions I’m still up in the air what to do with my one little vote.
Comment by Princess Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:51 am
probably worth noting that nothing in the Illinois CONSTITUTION prevents pensions from being taxed now. That is an issue of STATE STATUTE.
Ironically, many of the largest opponents of a Constitutional Convention have backed legislation to fully fund education and state pensions by TAXING PENSIONS above certain income thresholds.
Comment by Con-Con Double Talk Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:08 am
VanillaMan is too accurate.
Comment by Cal Skinner Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:10 am
===reassure them that what they’ve worked 30 plus years for will be left alone.===
Pension benefits already earned cannot be taken away.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:17 am
=== Pension benefits already earned cannot be taken away. ===
Right on the money. But, it is fair game to explain that FUTURE benefits may be curtailed or eliminated, as can those with respect to new hires.
They need to get off the scare tactics and present the bonafide arguments against a con-con. To me, the strongest is that, much to the contrary of the “perfect world” scenario envisioned by many proponents, the convention will not be stacked with your next door neighbors. Were that the case, we could all just as easily elect our neighbors to the legislature over the next election cycle or two. It just seems like an illogical argument to me.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:35 am
== Chicago is more regional than ever. Not nationally important like in the past, and certainly not globally important in any financial or economic definition.==
In July, Forbes ranked Chicago the fifth most economically powerful city in the world, behind London, Honk Kong, Tokyo and New York.
The events of the last few weeks aside, the world financial press from The Economist to fDI to Financial Times and more have been quite bullish on Chicago. The Economist did a special report in 2006 entitled “Chicago: A Success Story,” that’s highly informative.
You can find them all quickly on google or there are links at WorldBusinessChicago.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 12:14 pm
So Chicago is more economically powerful than L.A. (entertainment industry), San Francisco (financial, tech), Houston (oil, NASA), or Seattle (tech)? You’d never know it from reading THIS blog
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 1:11 pm
A few years back, Moody’s Investors Service rated Chicago as the most diverse economy of any major U.S. metro, meaning that it’s economic components most closely mirrored that of the national economy as a whole. Not a one-trick pony, in other words.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 1:23 pm
I think the Chicago Region is well- positioned for long-term economic growth in the 21st Century - an abundant clean water supply, a diverse economy, world class universities seem to gurantee our future. What we need to do is improve our public education in Chicago and reform the illinois political system somehow.
Based upon Rich’s report regarding the recent Con-Con poll we may have to postpone the political revolution.
Comment by Captain America Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 2:02 pm
The con-con is a necessity. Opponents falsely claim that we don’t need it because citizens can vote out the scalawags who currently run this state. That’s pure B.S. It’s hard to vote out unqualified politicians when they’re the only one on the ballot, which happens far too often. In Cook County, Republicans didn’t even bother to run candidates in many races in the last primary. The Democrats mostly ran one candidate for each position. So guess who’s going to win in November? Even if someone wanted to run against them, the scalawags have gerrymandered the districts so their chosen candidates cannot lose. Then when they get in office, they think they’ve been elected king and proceed to disregard their oath to uphold the law (Tom Dart, Irkel, King Richie II, Emil Jones and Unindicted Official A-Rod immediately come to mind). Don’t even get me started on the convoluted way they get to choose their own salaries. Citizens look on increduously, knowing we can’t recall them and they’re not likely to be impeached by their own guys. Citizens need the power to recall. The power to draw districts should be removed from the legislative branch and handed to either the executive or judicial branches. The salaries of elected officials should be decided by the citizens in referenda. This B.S. in Springfield, Cook County and Chicago has to stop before Illinois loses what little credibility it has left in the eyes of the rest of the country and the world. There aren’t too many “world-class” cities being run by dictators. We have one chance to clean this up. Otherwise we’ll have to put up with the mess for at least another 20 years. Personally, I can’t wait that long.
Comment by The Mad Hatter Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 3:09 pm
Captain A-
Not to mention being the crossroads of the nation, where thousands of connecting flights land and take off each week, while sitting in holding patterns and taxiways waiting for the mess to clear; where it takes 2 days to get a freight car thru the rail jungle; and where Lake Michigan forces motorists thru a gauntlet of packed expressways and tollways.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 3:56 pm
===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.===
Awfully O’Reilly-like, Rich! You need a show too. “The Rich Factor” or perhaps “Miller Time”?
Comment by Still a Cubs guy Saturday, Oct 11, 08 @ 9:24 pm
I guss that what bothers me is that both Rich and Carol Marin are both individuals whose opinion I respect. On this issue, both Carol and Rich are diametrically opposed in their opinions on this issue. Darn it! I hate it when that happens!
So, in order to give me (and perhaps others) some peace of mind when it comes time for me to cast my vote, could Rich and Carol go out to a bar and have a beer and a glass of wine and arrive at some type of consensus on this issue?
It is “a comfort issue” for me and others. Rich gets to buy the first round of drinks.
Comment by Crispy Sunday, Oct 12, 08 @ 10:47 am