Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

Supporters of a constitutional convention referendum are considering whether to sue over what they say was an unfair election. […]

Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said he and other referendum supporters would meet Wednesday to decide whether to file a lawsuit.

“We didn’t have much of a chance,” he said. “The point is every election should be fair and equal. I think that’s a principle worth fighting for.”

Quinn wouldn’t elaborate on the specifics of the potential lawsuit.

* The Question: Should they sue or just walk away? Explain.

* Related…

* Illinois con-con a no-go

* Voters give loud ‘no’ to ‘con-con’

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:48 am

Comments

Drop it. That margin is really large.

Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:51 am
The ballot language and the ham-handed court imposed “solution” to it were obviously handled poorly, however the margin here is so wide they can’t make a reasonable case that it would have made any difference.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:52 am
Judges just don’t invalidate elections, so, I don’t see the point. Then again, I’m still drunk and don’t have a law degree, so I won’t make any further comment.

There’s no liquor left in the suite, so I did my job.

Comment by Tom B. Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:53 am
Walk away. Just let it go. Instead if beating a dead horse, try other avenues of getting things changed, including constitutional amendments and changes in leadership.

Comment by AJ Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:54 am
Let it go. I voted for the con-con but a majority voted against it. The folks that were against it did a better job of campaigning for their cause the we who wanted it did. Don’t let any lawyers make money on this. Go to work in GA get some amendments passed and do a better job campaigning in 20 years.

Comment by Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:56 am
Walk away. The margin was too big to be explained away by the ballot wording. I don’t want judges ordering new elections just because I don’t like the result. And I voted yes and filed an affadavit with the bar association.

That’s baseball — sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:56 am
Rich is right, just have to power through this. Cracked open a beer. It actually tastes really good right now.

Comment by Tom B. Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:57 am
Sure why not. I’m not happy about the direction of the state. Why not fight for an another opportunity for a con-con and not have to wait 20 years.

Comment by Levois Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:00 am
I don’t like the idea of suing, who woud be sued? What if the ballot had said, Barack Obama, no black man has ever been elected president? I believe it did make a difference on the way people voted. If no re-vote, then yes, sue.

Comment by rachel Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:00 am
A lawsuit probably won’t change anything in 2010. The agents of disinformation have too much money and too much interest in keeping the system as manipulable as it is now.

Comment by doubtful Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:03 am
I voted in favor of a con-con. But it’s time to drop it. The same people who propagated the fear mongering and baseless arguments that resulted in the lopsided vote aren’t going away. It’s time to find another way.

Comment by The Doc Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:03 am
The margin is so big that no one could reasonably argue that if not for the unfair language, the proposition would have passed. Drop it.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:08 am
I ditto The Doc– all that would result is more confusion and more money and energy wasted. So let’s get to work in Illinois—who wants to be the legislator to sponsor a redistricting bill that would force realistic ‘compact and contiguous’ districts? I’m sure it will resonate with voters who are ready for change… Anyone?? Bueller?

Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:10 am
You know, with 67% voting no, I bet misleading language FOR the con-con would not have been enough to put it over.

Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:13 am
So are we to allow such mishandlings of ballot initiatives be a matter of course?

Comment by Fan of the Game Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:15 am
Sue, baby, sue!

Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:16 am
Few people outside the inside understand the abuse allowed by the current constitution. Even fewer would like to see a debate on the pros and cons of the current document that a convention would reveal. Working toward amendments that address the issues of amendatory veto power, the state’s responsibility for public education funding, and the amendatory process itself will take a supreme effort. But, hey, if Obama can get elected POTUS, anything is possible.

Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:19 am
…The pro Con-Con allies couldn’t get organized enough to launch a viable campaign favoring their positions but they can get organized to launch a lawsuit?

I agree that the language on the ballot question was incredibly convoluted and the hackneyed “flier” solution was predictably ineffective…

But it’s time to move on.

Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:22 am
Drop the whole subject, the margin was too great.

Comment by Speaking At Will Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:24 am
Litigation woulld be a waste of time,energy, and money.

It’s doubtful that a revote would change the result given the coalition and resources available to oppose Con-Con.

Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:25 am
Unfortunately, I don’t see the people of Illinois as being that likely to approve the Con-Con, particularly since they couldn’t crack 35%. The only reason to sue is if you think you can actually win a special election on the question; otherwise it amounts to a waste of time & resources for all sides (and potentially the taxpayers).

The only solution seems to be to allow the politics of Springfield to take their supposed “natural” course. The coming Democratic Melee for the Senate Presidency will be integral to breaking up much of the gridlock, and (undoubtedly) entertaining to see unfold. I think I could speak for many Illinoisans in saying that God Forbid it be another staunch Blagojevich ally.

Comment by Baines 4 Prez Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:26 am
The theme of this year’s election results should be: “Change, we don’t really believe in it.”

The only change that occured across the nation was electing a Democrat to succeed an extremely unpopular Republican incumbent.

In almost every other contest, yesterday was a triumph of the status quo — most incumbents in Illinois and it appears in many other states as well, won handily. Voters here decided they didn’t want to take the risk of changing the constitution. Democrats picked up a few seats in congress, but hardly a blowout. Even at the local level in Springfield, voters couldn’t even bring themselves to cut the size of the county board (although most voters probably have no idea who their county board member is).

Americans, it seems, like their change to be in small doses and predominantly symbolic.

Comment by Old Elephant Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:27 am
If Quinn “walked away” from the controversy how would he get press for his next campaign? This guy is an entrenched incumbent that never met a government payroll he wasn’t interested in getting on. Nobody in Illinois is closer to Blago than Quinn.

Comment by Doggone Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:27 am
I’m wondering how much of the vote was effected by undecideds who didn’t vote either way on the Con-Con. My gut tells me that if non-votes would not have been counted as “no” votes then the margin would have been tighter.

Therefore - I think it is worth looking into whether in the courts or in the general assembley to change this regulation that states explicitly that a non-vote is equal to a no vote. That doesn’t mean we should change the outcome of yesterday’s vote - just something that needs to be changed in the future.

Comment by HoBoSkillet Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:29 am
Sue the pants off. Let the people of Illinois know that they got this election wrong.

Comment by School is fun Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:32 am
Taking it to court could cost the taxpayers $80 million. Edgar had the kill shot.

Comment by ConNot Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:34 am
Pat
You have cost the counties a lot of additional money with the court order handouts to voters. Not counting the additional ad costings.
Pat , you are forcing unfunded mandates on the tax payers with this show of stupid ideas.
Just keep cool Pat. You will be Governor soon as Blago will be the next one to go.

Comment by county clerk Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:34 am
Also, there is no guarantee a lawsuit will be successful, or if harm is proved that the cure rises to a new election. As I stated before, there were several ballots in jurisdictions that apparently had the question worded correctly. If the margin of defeat was not materially affected by the counties where there was a defect in the wording or the notice, it’s hard to see anything good coming of this.

“You got to know when to hold ‘em
Know when to fold ‘em
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.”

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:44 am
If you cheat, and I’m not sure the wording, which was agreed to by a committee, was cheating, it only helps around the margins. In this case, the spread is just too big to be attributed to the language of the question.

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:45 am
I think it is over. While I do agree that the ballot language and the SOS mailer was completely flawed and improper, I think that had less of an impact on the voters than the actual debate on the issue. I talked to many people about it trying to get them to vote yes and most of them said to me “I heard Jim Edgar talking about it” or “$80 million?”

The opponents won the day, maybe with a little help with the SOS, but it wasn’t close so no reason to try and litigate. If it was even less than a 10 point margin, I’d consider it but no. It’s over.

Now we just need to pick a new Governor, that’s the only way to change our state.

Comment by Paul Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:46 am
Actually no additional suit needs to be filed, the first suit is still open. While a revote probably isn’t in the cards (and I’m not sure I’d support it) SOME consequences for the catastrophic screwup needs to be had. A judge has to order county clerks TWICE to comply and some still flipped the bird. Some of the stories are just downright scary. There ought to be an investigation of how the SBE secretly inserted known false and unconstitutional “notice language” in the dark of night and got it out the door so fast there was no opportunity to fight it.

Comment by John Bambenek Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:54 am
Capt. Fax & ConCon con Posse:
You got creamed. Drop it.
Even with the “endorsement” from Blagoof you could not get the ball down the field.

Face it. If you can’t beat BlinkyJim Edgar you must throw in the towel.

Let me suggest the next crusade focus on merging the Cubs with the Sox so that we can quit wasting time on this failed World Series nonsense.

Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:04 pm
Loser Jim Oberwise PLEASE GO AWAY (forever) oh and con/ con backers too see you in 20 years

Comment by THE CARDINAL Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:10 pm
I voted for it, but I think this one is over. Invest the energy in getting an impeachment going.

Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:10 pm
No advice, but I can say that my polling place didn’t hand out the addendum and of the dozen or so precincts I was in yesterday, I didn’t see the being handed out anywhere.

That being said, the margin was huge and the handout wouldn’t have affected it much, if at all.

Comment by Gadfly Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:13 pm
Walk away.

The noise was made.

There are ways to make changes w/o a con-con. Focus on those ways.

Next year is going to be really fun to watch. I imagine it was also be a year ripe for some of the changes proponents of the con-con wanted to make. Go for it!

Comment by BandCamp Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:15 pm
If the result had been closer, perhaps a convincing argument could be made that enough people were improperly influenced to warrant a new referendum in the Spring. But since the outcome was 2:1, that argument will fall on deaf ears. Supporters of Constitutional changes should go back to trying to convince the legislature their grievances are worthwhile and warrant an amendment.

Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:18 pm
Pursue the suit. Just for the fun of it.

The thing that really irritates me about this is how the anti con-con people used fear mongering and ballot language manipulation to defeat something that probably would have failed on it’s own. Going forward with the lawsuit would extend their discomfort for a few more months, appropriate punishment for their lack of faith in the electorate.

If the pro con-con people truly want to make effective use of their time, they will write up a few amendments to make the changes they seek and work to get them on the ballot in 2010.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:21 pm
As disappointed as I am about the failure of the con-con to pass, the wide margin by which “no” won signals that it’s time to move on. The question I have for no voters, though: how do you propose to fix our state government?

Comment by ben Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:24 pm
The ballot language snafu, the handout, and the shaded (many people missed the item) “question” on the ballot - HARDLY a straight forward airing of the once in twenty years question. The question should be put before the voters clearly and fairly. Sue the bums! The thing was rigged. And MSI Blinky edgar was at the helm.

Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:30 pm
Forget the lawsuit. It failed because a case was not made to the voters strongly enough why the concon was needed. So - start a movement to get ONE change made. I suggest computerized redistricting. Circulate petitions, raise money, and start putting some heat on the powers to do something. If it fails, then it’s an argument why we need a concon.

Comment by Excessively rabid Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:31 pm
Quinn doesn’t have anything else to do, certainly nothing in the way of a real job. why not sue? get ‘em some ink!

Comment by enrico depressario Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:48 pm
Rob_N,

Launching a lawsuit is much easier than a broad-based political campaign. Winning such a lawsuit is likely easier (though hardly easy) than winning against a well-funded coalition with no money.

I’m only somewhat persuaded by the “wide-margin” argument. While I might concede that a straight language ballot wouldn’t have yielded “yes” vote in this instance, why should the entities, the people, and the process they corrupted be allowed to get away with it?

Here is the simple question(s). Did the citizens of Illinois deserve a fair election on this issue?

Did they get one?

Comment by Bruno Behrend Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:48 pm
>The question I have for no voters, though: how do you propose to fix our state government?

Through normal, generally accepted and established channels, including elections.

Lesson learned: Illinois voters really don’t want change. (Ironic, non?)

Comment by Leroy Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:50 pm
I doubt that even with proper ballot language the referendum would have passed - too much money, and Edgar’s effective closer against it. That being said, a nice juicy lawsuit would shame the proponents and powers that be. It would have a lasting impression in the minds of the voters. And they ultimately can throw at least some of the bums out. Or the public outcry can make it so politically painful that these types of shenanigans will be avoided in the future.

Comment by phocion Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:24 pm
The Con Con lost because the citizens of Illinois saw thru the false promises of conducting one. Quinn should drop it and move on to his next referendum du jour and I guess Bruno will have to find something else to run for. How about state Rep. if you really want to change Spfld run for an office.

Comment by Obamas Puppy Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:27 pm
Over 4 million people figured out how to vote on this question. Almost 3 million of them voted “No.” The people clearly spoke. You don’t have to agree with them, but respect their collective voice. Identify the clerks who didn’t comply and camapign against them. Vote out the legislators who wrote the ballot language if you want. If you respect the majority of voters on the issue, you won’t let your egos and bitterness get in the way of that.

Comment by move on Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:28 pm
a nice juicy lawsuit would shame the proponents and powers that be.

OTOH, a “nice juicy lawsuit” might have the effect of a gnat buzzing around someone’s head, til it got swatted away. But it would be a good billable.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:33 pm
I was pro, but it wasn’t even close, and proponents needed 60%, so it’s time to move on. Even if it had passed, there were a series of 3 seemingly impossible future hurdles to surmount:(selecting “different thinking” delegates, brokering agreement on the floor, voter ratification of proposed amendments). Obama’s candidacy competed with con-con, in that reform-minded voters had him to champion, distracting them from the possibility of changing the state constitution. Proponents probably needed a single compelling issue with wide support that could only be accomplished by con-con, rather than a large menu of possibilities that cut everywhichway, in order to carry the con-con referendum. Recall could have been that issue–the non-binding recall referendum carried more than 60% in Cook County– but it was presented in an overly large and unwieldy package.

Comment by curly Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:38 pm
I voted yes, now I think it’s time to move on. Life is too short for litigation. I think a broad based campaign around education is in order.

Comment by Blue Moon Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:46 pm
A lawsuit is totally ridiculous the margin was huge and even if a lawsuit over turned the election results or ordered a new election all it would do is cost the tax payers more and get the same results. Either Pat Quinn is obsessed or he trying to keep his name out to run for office in 2010

Comment by RMW Stanford Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:53 pm
Quinn should return to his plebiscite roots and draw up a new referendum worded the way he wants it and petition the people to get it on the ballot at the next statewide vote.

This assumes such an effort can legally force a convention. Surely the lawyers can come up with some trick of wording to achieve that.

I voted against the convention only because it seemed like an irrational time to do something seriously rational.

But hey, what else has Pat to do for the remainder of his term?

Comment by Anon sequitor Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:57 pm
==But hey, what else has Pat to do for the remainder of his term?==
Measure the Executive Mansion for new drapes…

Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 2:19 pm
Ah do believe that de ansa was rather, no REALLY clear. Sorry, Rich.

Comment by Sal Says Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 2:21 pm
Very disappointing outcome, but it is time to let it go. Not a slim enough margin to make a difference.

Comment by Jake from Elwood Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 3:22 pm
I voted for con-con, but Quinn should drop it. He has done much to redeem his reputation and made many new friends over the last several years. He seemed to change his past routine of being the referenda guy. If he is smart, he won’t distract himself with a lawsuit, and will focus on 2010 and where he fits in. A run for Governor, S.O.S., what?

Comment by Niles Township Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 3:53 pm
No. I think one of the things forgotten or overlooked on this issue would have made the likely outcome quite clear. We rail against the “special interests”, but they are us.

We can call them special interests, but when the farmers, teachers, manufacturers, small business owners, retail merchants, state employee unions, gun owners etc. etc., are all against this, just who did we think that left to be for it.

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 5:25 pm
You’re only partly right, Steve. Special interests are a much more focused, even radical version of “us.” Individuals have dozens, hundreds of different interests, but the groups we pay dues to have only one. For instance, look at the political makeup of doctors, and match that up to AMA contributions. Not all that close. Unions hated Reagan, but union members voted for him in droves. Etc.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 5:37 pm
The margin is large, but I believe that is because they did a bang-up job of hiding the question in a location that made it look like a sample question. After hammering on my wife to vote “yes” several times, she blurted out later that evening that she just realized she didn’t remember seeing the question on her ballot. Thus, she essentially voted “NO” without realizing it. Ditto with a woman that I work with. I’ll bet this was fairly common.

Between the language on the ballot, not distributing the correction as mandated by the courts, and the attempt to hide the question on the ballot, the way they treated the whole issue is a complete load of crap.

Comment by BigDog Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 5:41 pm
“Forget it, Jake, its Chinatown.”

I don’t think a lawsuit does any good. I would however be interested in floating an amendment to shorten the 20-year interregnum by perhaps a decade.

Now that the potential pressure release valve of the con-con process is denied, steam should build for an accelerated impeachment vote as soon as indictments present. Also, some progress could go ahead on the other alternative of a recall amendment.

Myself, I get nervous about recall provisions because they allow shadow governments with lots of cash to tilt the system thru manipulations of the media, and thus circumvent the voter’s will as well as threaten duly electeds any time the status quo gets threatened.

We saw this with the con-con vote and the millions spent by the lobbyists to deceive the voters on the merits. If you have to fight an expensive recall campaign thrown up by monied enemies, your effectiveness as a legislator becomes crippled, win or lose. Recall for Blago sounds great. But then you’ve left a loaded gun on the table to be used by those special interests any time they want, on any future governor, speaker, majority leader, etc.

I think it actually represses our franchise to have it in these times.

Comment by J. Giddes Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 6:50 pm
I assume pat quinn would sue if the con-con passed also since the wording on the ballot went both ways. NOT!!!!!!!!! quit acting like a child who cant get his candy

Comment by foster brooks Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 7:01 pm
Only heard a couple of calls on talk radio Tuesday, but if that was any indication it seems that on some ballots the Con-Con area was not positioned very well and some voters may have overlooked it altogether. The NO vote could have been even higher.

Comment by Master of the Oblivious Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 7:05 pm
If we were to lose the lawsuit, would we then file an appeal to reverse the decision to reverse the votes to reverse the votes? Sounds a little perverse.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:19 pm
On the 2028 ballot, I wonder if there will be a reference to the Con-con referendum that was “defeated 65% to 35% in 2008″

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 10:41 pm
Hey Steve Schnorf–

My dad was a farmer and a member of Farm Bureau–you have to join Farm Bureau to get Country Companies Insurance; you don’t necessarily have to be a farmer to be a member in that organization–and his general attitude was that anything Farm Bureau was for he would oppose because he had no doubt he was getting screwed by Farm Bureau at some point when they decided to endorse whatever they are/were endorsing.

Here in Champaign County the Farm Bureau endorsed the countywide sales tax for schools, and that tax was voted down.

At some point over the last few days Kevin Fanning referred to the groups opposing the con-con as an “unholy trinity”, and I second Mr. Fanning’s comment.

Perhaps you would like to give additional thought to your opposition to the con-con, or just straight up admit your reasons for opposing it. And hey, if it involves taxation of a state pension, you’re allowed to say that…

Comment by Lynn S Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 11:20 pm
== On the 2028 ballot, I wonder if there will be a reference to the Con-con referendum that was “defeated 65% to 35% in 2008″ ==

Rod Blagojevich will still be Governor then, so the language will probably be there.

Comment by Captain Flume Thursday, Nov 6, 08 @ 8:26 am
The loss Tuesday proves that the current constitution is flawed. The writers expected a possibility that when things go wrong in Illinois, voters will choose a convention to address them.

That failed as we can see. Can anyone say that things are going well in Illinois? Under what conditions did the constitution’s writers feel needed to exist, if not the ones we face now?

This constitution is broken and needs to be replaced. Even it’s self-destruct button is broken!

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 6, 08 @ 9:10 am
LS, I believe my pension or at least some portion of it should be taxed, and I’ve openly said so for years, so that was far from a consideration in my opposition to con-con. I also believe that sales tax should be applied to many services, property taxes for schools should be reduced, and the state should pay a higher share of education costs.

What I don’t believe is that a con-con was a good way to deal with those issues. If I could circumscribe the sections to be dealt with, I would support con-con in a second. My problem is there are people that feel just as strongly that guns should be banned, homosexuality is a mortal sin and a moral shortcoming, term limits are a good idea, etc, and that bothers me. I am probably more moderate that the state population as a whole, and therefore believe I had more to lose than I had to gain.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Nov 6, 08 @ 9:58 am