Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in… Part 2… Obama calls Jones
Posted in:
* 12:00 Noon - Senate GOP Leader Frank Watson calls for Attorney General Lisa Madigan to get off the sidelines and provide some guidance. From a press release…
Illinois Democrats need to take responsibility for jeopardizing the enactment of “pay-to-play” reforms, according to Senate Republican Leader Frank Watson, and join Republicans in getting the anti-corruption laws on the books. Watson is seeking a formal opinion from Attorney General Lisa Madigan to speed the constitutional questions that now surround the issue. […]
Just another week remains in what many legal and constitutional experts consider the deadline for action by the Illinois Senate. Democrat Senate President Emil Jones has refused to convene the Senate within 15 calendar days of the House of Representatives’ vote to enact House Bill 824, as required by the Constitution.
“A formal opinion from the state’s top legal officer should carry some weight with Senator Jones and Democrat Senators,” Sen. Watson said. The Attorney General has indicated in media reports that failing to act with 15 days “invites lawsuits” that put the ethics reforms at risk.
“We’d like to see that in a formal opinion, that makes the record clear,” Watson said. In his letter to the Attorney General, Watson included specific instances where the Senate has in the last month received the necessary paperwork from the House of Representatives and acted upon it promptly, in accordance with the Constitution and past practices of the chamber. “The record has already been established,” Watson said.
* In other breaking news, AFSCME won a similar lawsuit before, so it is trying again today. From a press release…
AFSCME, PRISON WORKERS, ELECTED OFFICIALS FILE SUIT TO STOP PONTIAC CLOSURE
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 filed suit this morning in Livingston County, seeking a court order to prevent Governor Rod Blagojevich from carrying out his threat to close the maximum-security Pontiac Correctional Center. […]
In its filing, AFSCME argues that the governor and his Department of Corrections have no authority to close the Pontiac prison, which is fully funded in the current state budget passed by the Illinois General Assembly and signed into law by Blagojevich.
“The General Assembly passed a budget and the governor signed it into law. We’re asking the court to ensure the governor follows that law, which directs the state to operate Pontiac,” AFSCME director Bayer said. […]
The complaint notes that closing the facility would result in the loss of some 600 jobs—causing irreparable harm to employees and their families—while making the dangerously overcrowded Illinois prison system even less safe. […]
AFSCME prevailed with a similar complaint in 2002 when it won a court order barring then-Governor George Ryan’s planned closure of the Vienna Correctional Center.
“AFSCME took legal action to make certain that George Ryan respected the budget process, followed the will of the General Assembly, and couldn’t just close a facility on a whim,” Bayer said. “We’re going to hold Rod Blagojevich to the same standard. He’s not above the law.”
Today’s action by the union comes a day after the state legislature’s bipartisan Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability voted 9-0 to reject the Pontiac closure plan. COGFA will release a full written report detailing its recommendation by Sept. 24.
The governor’s office hadn’t yet seen the lawsuit so couldn’t comment.
* Meanwhile, I told subscribers a bit about this yesterday…
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is calling on Secretary of State Jesse White to redraft the language of this year’s Con-Con ballot question because it is “biased” and therefore “illegal,” his legal adviser said yesterday.
Quinn, a vocal proponent of convening a constitutional convention in 2010, filed an administrative petition with White yesterday, requesting that he strike a sentence from the ballot that recounts the outcome of the 1988 election (the last time the electorate had the opportunity to call for a Con-Con).
The bolded sentences in the SoS’s language is what Quinn wants removed…
This proposal deals with a call for a state constitutional convention. The last such convention was held in 1969-70, and a new Constitution was adopted in 1970. The 1970 Illinois Constitution requires that the question of calling a convention be placed before the voters every 20 years. In 1988 the electors rejected the call for a constitutional convention, with 75% voting against calling a convention and 25% voting in favor of calling a convention. If you believe that the 1970 Illinois Constitution needs to be revised through the convention process, vote “YES” on the question of calling a constitutional convention. If you believe that calling a constitutional convention is not necessary, or that change can be accomplished through other means, vote “NO” on the calling of a constitutional convention.
From Quinn’s office…
“We think that that statement there is … a subtle way of suggesting that supporting Con-Con is a fringe position,” said Sean Vinck, Quinn’s legislative counsel. “We just want a real simple question: ‘Are you for or against Con-Con.’”
*** UPDATE 4:41 pm *** From Quinn’s spokesman…
(T)he entire “explanation of proposed call” paragraph is illegal because the election code does not authorize it. My concern is that our argument is being unfairly caricatured as simply an attempt to remove “one sentence”. We think the issue is much more profound.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:00 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in… Part 2… Obama calls Jones
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
In the AFSCME press release headline it says that elected officials joined the suit but the excerpts that you posted don’t say who. Does it say?
Comment by Scooby Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:09 pm
@Scooby: Sen. Rutherford, Rep. Cultra, Rep. Sommer, Pontiac mayor Scott McCoy.
Comment by Anders Lindall Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:16 pm
I agree with Quinn. Insert that language and no one will even think of voting for con-con!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:22 pm
You know, I got my copy of the Con Con Q yesterday in the mail. I thought it was very balanced and even.
That part didn’t stand out at me, and I think if you read the whole thing, it is not in any way biased.
I think the Lt. Gov protests too much. And it’s not like the state has extra bucks for printing and mailing a second round….
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:23 pm
I’m against a con-con myself, but I have to agree with Quinn.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:23 pm
Thanks Anders.
Comment by Scooby Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:37 pm
The con-con explanation is biased.
If you want to include the historical information that the question was rejected. in ‘88 the you must include the information that the 1970 version was the result of a positive vote in 1968.
Much better to state the proposition and also note that the result will be subject to voter approval.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:37 pm
While I don’t find the additional language necessary, I don’t find it that much of an issue either. So 75% of the voting population was happier with the way things were 20 years ago, so what? In a way the current language strongly reminds us that maybe we are not so happy now and do we really want to wait 20 more years to be asked again. Leave it in or take it out, I don’t think what voters did 20 years ago is going to influence what they voters today may or may not do.
Side note: Stay strong Pontiac, there’s a lot of us fellow union members pulling for you.
Comment by Princess Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:37 pm
==“We think that that statement there is … a subtle way of suggesting that supporting Con-Con is a fringe position,” said Sean Vinck, Quinn’s legislative counsel.==
He’s too kind. It’s not subtle at all. Since it’s completely irrelevant, you can only assume that it was included to encourage negative votes.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:39 pm
When will Lt Gov Quinn realize that the only way that he gets his name in the news is by coming out against something? He did some good work with the veterans and military but now he really needs to get a grip on reality and come up with some REAL solutions to problems and not just keep saying it is wrong. Come up with a REAL solution to the states problems and just not keep blaming others.
Comment by A Question Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:39 pm
My man Quinn is right on with this complaint. Some blame Quinn for a few of our problems based on the previous con con, but regardless, he and I are both for another one. We cannot let this opportunity to fix a gravely broken system go past without even TRYING to make it work better.
The sentence Quinn wants removed subtly suggests that there is no point trying to effect a change.
Comment by Gregor Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:43 pm
Regarding Con-Con baloot question, the sentence “The last such convention was held in 1969-70, and a new Constitution was adopted in 1970.” also introduces a bias and should be removed. If Quinn’s sentence removal request is based on the idea that that sentence suggests “fringe”, then this other sentence suggests timeliness and history during years of societal change, neither of which provide unbiased guidance to the voter on the question.
Comment by Bob Dylan Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:48 pm
Yeah, Quinn is right, but this part should be struck as well:
“or that change can be accomplished through other means”
Why not:
“the solution to all our problems is to vote Rod Blagojevich out of office” ??
LOL
Here’s what it should say:
“This proposal deals with a call for a state constitutional convention. The last such convention was held in 1969-70, and a new Constitution was adopted in 1970. The 1970 Illinois Constitution requires that the question of calling a convention be placed before the voters every 20 years. If you believe that the Illinois Constitution needs to be amended through the convention process, vote “YES” on the question of calling a constitutional convention. If you believe that the Illinois Constitution does not need to be amended through the convention process, vote “NO” on the question of calling a constitutional convention.
Rich, how about a QOTD on rewording the language, SNARK encouraged?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:50 pm
As usual our beloved Lt Gov discovers that there is language in law that does not meet his political goals. So instead of trying to influence this thru the legislative process he finds yet another reason to grandstand hold a press conference and tell us what is best. Wake up and provide leadership when it matters and when you can make a difference. Check the record he did not file a slip on the resolution.
Comment by Quinn come lately Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Hey Sean,
Supporting ConCon is a fringe position just like almost everything else Quinn is involved with. I guess that you’ll just have to wait until election day to see how much out of the mainstream your boss really is.
By the way, can’t anybody in Springfield do anything anymore without it ending up in court. We should probably just disband the legislature and let the judges decide everything in the first place.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:04 pm
If voters are so immune to reality and unable to vote yes on Con-Con because of that sentence, then we shouldn’t have it. If they are that easy to influence on a fundamental redrawing of the document that forms the basis for all state laws, don’t let them do it for crying out loud. They’re obviously not pissed off enough and not focused enough on what or who they should be pissed off at.
As for the Guv Light, way to whip out the “sue to get my way” card. You don’t look, you know, like you are whining or anything.
Comment by Tom B. Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:33 pm
It is my recollection that the Ryan administration then simply closed a different prison.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:41 pm
==By the way, can’t anybody in Springfield do anything anymore without it ending up in court. We should probably just disband the legislature and let the judges decide everything in the first place. ==
I thought running to the courts to resolve political disputes was the first (and second and third)resort of G-Rod. I especially loved his most recent filing: “Whereas, the Speaker of the House pushed me at recess, and when I told him to stop, he just laughed . . .”
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:46 pm
It is my recollection that the Ryan administration then simply closed a different prison.
Your recollection is not quite accurate. Subsequent to the union’s court order barring the Ryan Administration from illegally closing Vienna in contravention of FY02 legislative appropriations, the GA passed and the governor signed an FY03 budget that did not include funding for the prison at Sheridan. (That prison was shortly reopened.)
George Ryan had to abide by state law and AFSCME is seeking to make certain that Rod Blagojevich does too. If lawmakers and the governor wish to debate the merits of closing any prison, there is an appropriate and legal forum for doing so. It’s called the legislative process. But I don’t believe most lawmakers–or most Illinois residents, for that matter–think you fix a dangerously overcrowded prison system by cutting its capacity even more.)
Comment by Anders Lindall Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:53 pm
How would clearer language benefit only the Lt. Gov? Seems to me the question as written is the product of people being paid by the word. Why not simply ask: Shall there be a convention to propose a revision of or amendments to the IL State Constitution? Yes or No
Comment by Suzanne Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 2:04 pm
I agree with Suzanne. I received my Con-Con booklet in hte mail today and was surprised how wordy it was. I don’t think an official State of Illinois mailing should attempt to summarize or explain the pros and cons of the ballot question.
Comment by Capatain Flume Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 2:28 pm
Mentioning 1988 is completely irrelevant, biased and insulting to anyone’s intelligence.
The question is supposed to be a question, not a biased statement against the proposal.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 2:33 pm
It pains me to say this both because I’m opposed to a Con Con and because I think Pat Quinn is a bit goofy, but…I think he’s right.
Comment by Gadfly Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 2:34 pm
Clearly the language that Quinn has objected to is entirely superfluous and not germane. The outcome of the 1988 vote is irrelevant in 2008.
I concur completely with Lt. Governor Quinn. He’s absolutely right even though many of us may not be his bigget fans. Let’s give credit where credit is due.
I’ll be voting for con-con because I strongly believe that the political and governmental system needs a strong jolt because of the endemic bipartisan corruption that has permeated all level of Illinois government since time immemorial and because of the recent extreme level of political dysfunction in State government. A few men who don’t qualify as mostly “good and decent” have rigged the system to favor insiders and have completely stopped state governemnt in its tracks to the general detriment of the common citizenry.
I say to the establishment status quo naysayers - Let the chips fall where they may! Revolution, such as it may be!!!
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 2:34 pm
Well, Captain, that sure is a mouthful.
First, wasn’t that you out in the precincts helping to get those,”few men who don’t qualify as mostly “good and decent”” elected?
Second, a lot of the gridlock problems we have today are a result of the last time Quinn wanted to fool around with the Constitution and the electorate bought it. I don’t think that the voters will fall for his antics again.
Finally, your revolution vs the status quo rhetoric went out with the sixties and I would hardly call Bruno Behrend John Bambenek “revolutionaries.”
Be careful what you ask for, Captain. The reactionaries will come out of the woodwork in force in the unlikely event that the ConCon passes.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 3:08 pm
Now, this would have been biased
“In 1988, when Republican Big Jim Thompson was Governor the people thought things were going well and voted down a Con. In 2008, with Dem. Gun Ban Rod running things, people might think differently”.
:)
The whole thing was only 4 pages, a very quick read.
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 3:21 pm
Anyone who does not believe that the language is prejudicial should read Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini. This is a widely-recognized classic.
Comment by Ahem Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 3:52 pm
Bill, the reactionary argument doesn’t work. Even if somehow “reactionaries,” however you define them, were able to take over a Con-Con (I don’t see it), any final product would have to be approved by voters. Illinois is hardly a reactionary state.
The truth is, a lot of interests have a lot of money invested in the status quo. And I’m sure the Four Tops have told them all to belly up to the bar to defeat this. Recall, term limits and redistricting reform are what scare them.
The education people are the ones that kill me. “A Con-Con would mean we’ll have to wait longer for education funding reform.”
How anyone who deems themselves an educator could spout such nonsense is beyond me. Why have they had to wait so long? What’s imminent?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 4:07 pm
Suppose your local high school district put a $90 million dollar bond referendum on the ballot, and the County Clerk added language thus: “In 2006 the electors rejected the this bond issue referendum, with 75% voting against the bond issue and 25% voting in favor. If you believe that the the school district needs the money, vote “YES” on the question. If you believe that the the bonds are not necessary, or that the school has enough money, vote “NO” on the bonds.”
Would that impress you as fair? Would the IEA agree?
Comment by Anon III Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 4:18 pm
I have to say that when I read it I didn’t think anything of it, but now I actually read that sentence as a reason to vote for a con con. The sentence simple states the vote from 20 years ago - 20 years ago it wasn’t necessary, but now it is.
I think the booklet is fine and Quinn is just using this to get press.
Comment by Quinn got it wrong Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 4:36 pm
Two things:
1) They printed this booklet 20 years ago and also included the explanation with the question - what’s the point of putting a question without an explanation.
2) The pamphlet is a legal requirement to educate the voters. It was drafted by a group of legislators and staff. I attended one of the meetings and I can tell you that they went to great lengths to show both the pros and the cons of a constitutional convention. I think both sides are fairly represented, and Quinn had an opportunity to express his “distaste” for the form of the ballot and the booklet earlier.
After all, the person who drafted the lawsuit used to work for Madigan.
Comment by please read the Constitutional Convention Act Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 4:48 pm
Of possible interest re the Con Con pamphlet discussion:
Secretary of State White is not the author of the Con Con pamphlet. As state law provides, the language in the pamphlet was written by a bipartisan legislative panel and embodied in a resolution formally adopted without a dissenting vote by both legislative chambers last May 31 (HJR 137.) Its sponsor, Rep. John Fritchey, was the chief sponsor of an earlier House resolution urging the electorate to support a convention (HR 25, approved 48-47 on June 7, 2007.) Fritchey and 44 other representatives who voted for HR 25 also voted for HJR 137. The other three “yes” votes did not vote on the question; two were recorded as excused absences and the third as being absent (not voting.)
Comment by Charlie Wheeler Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 4:57 pm
Wordslinger,
Re: reactionaries
see Pat Collins comment above.
A recall ammendment can be put on the ballot at any time without opening up the entire constitution.
We already have term limits. It is called an election.
As far as the “educators’ are concerned they are concerned about protecting their hard earned pensions. I don’t blame them.
Half of the four tops will always be unhappy with redistricting. I don’t see the constitution being changed in any meaningful way to prevent this.
Anyway, the voters will decide whether to open the constitution up to fringe groups and politicians like Quinn.
The question at hand is about the pamphlet. I don’t think that the few voters who bother to read it will be influenced one way or the other by its wording.
Previous commenters are correct. This is just Quinn trying to keep his name in the press. Or maybe he is trying fabricate, in advance, his excuse for the voters rejecting the ConCon boondoggle.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 5:10 pm
Agencies within the State of Illinois are required to write all pamphlets, brochures, forms, etc at a sixth grade level, if it is to be distributed to the general public. How come this question is so wordy and convoluted? This is also going to the general public. Mischief making at its finest.
Comment by Disgusted Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 6:13 pm
From the Illinois Compiled Statutes:
(5 ILCS 25/0.01) (from Ch. 1, par. 150)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Constitutional Convention Act.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1324.)
(5 ILCS 25/1) (from Ch. 1, par. 151)
Sec. 1. Whenever the question of whether a Constitutional Convention should be called is required to be submitted to the electors of this State pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of Section 1 of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution, the General Assembly shall prepare a brief explanation of such call, a brief argument in favor of the same, and the form in which such call of a Constitutional Convention will appear on the separate ballot as provided by Section 16‑6 of The Election Code, as amended. Members of the General Assembly who oppose the call of a Constitutional Convention or, if there are no members opposing the call of a Constitutional Convention, anyone designated by the General Assembly shall prepare a brief argument against such call of a Constitutional Convention.
Comment by Charlie Wheeler Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 6:15 pm
Mr. Wheeler’s citation cuts to the heart of the issue. He is to be thanked for posting the relevant section of the Constitutional Convention Act. As his quotation indicates, the form of the ballot for the constitutional convention question is to be drafted “as provided” by Section 16-6 of the Election Code. This seems to be the decisive statutory language, and Mr. Wheeler inexplicably fails to cite it. Section 16-6 of the Election Code “provides”:
In the case of a proposition for the calling of a constitutional convention, such proposition shall be printed in substantially the following form:
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
YES For the calling
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ of a Constitutional
NO Convention.
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
On the back or outside of the ballot so as to appear when folded, shall be printed the words “CONSTITUTION BALLOT”, followed by the designation of the polling place for which the ballot is prepared, the date of the election and a facsimile of the signature of the clerk or other officer who has caused the ballots to be printed. Immediately above the words “CONSTITUTION BALLOT” in the case of a proposition for the calling of a constitutional convention the following legend shall be printed in bold face type:
“NOTICE
THE FAILURE TO VOTE THIS BALLOT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEGATIVE VOTE. (THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DIRECTION THAT YOUR VOTE IS REQUIRED TO BE CAST EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSITION HEREIN CONTAINED.)
WHETHER YOU VOTE THIS BALLOT OR NOT YOU MUST RETURN IT TO THE ELECTION JUDGE WHEN YOU LEAVE THE VOTING BOOTH”.
Please note that the question must be phrased in “substantially” the same form as the above-cited section of the Election Code, which MAKES NO MENTION of any “explanation” being a part of the ballot form. The fact that the Constitutional Convention Act directs the drafting of such an explanation is entirely irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the the fact that the pamphlet produced by the Secretary of State conforms to the requirements of the Constitutional Convention Act. The subject of quinn’s suit is the ballot question, which both the Constitutional Convention Act AND the Election Code specifically state is governed by the Election Code. There is not really any serious argument the conclusion of which is that the proposed question is “substantially” akin to the model set forth in the Election Code.
This was laid out in quinn’s lawsuit, if anyone had taken the time to read it……..
Comment by The Election Code Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 6:48 pm
Where was Frank Watson when it came to Bob Kjellander and other IL GOP pay-to-play kingpins?
Talk about a guy who’s been on the sidelines.
Comment by GOP'er Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 7:22 pm
I’m curious about how they arrived at those impressive estimates for the cost of a concon mentioned in the blue pamphlet. Is that what 1970 cost to run?
Comment by Gregor Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 8:03 pm
The proposed question is verbose and slanted.
Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 8:09 am
The wording of the explanation meets the requirements of the law and was approved by the General Assembly as mandated. What no one has recognized is that this election has ALREADY STARTED–it is too late to change the ballot. Military and overseas voters already have their ballots, absentee ballots have already been cast, and election officials have already ordered millions of ballots with the current wording. Re-printing would create a staggering expense and would disenfranchise those who have already voted.
Comment by Electionsquad Monday, Sep 29, 08 @ 11:01 am