Vote NO on a Constitutional Convention

If the roof in your house sprung a leak, would you fix the roof or burn down the house and start over? That is essentially the choice Illinois voters will make this year when we decide whether or not to have a constitutional convention (con-con) to write a new state constitution.

Proponents of a con-con argue there are things that should be fixed in our state government. Some of these are legitimate issues, but they can be fixed without rewriting our entire constitution. Other things they bring up sound like good issues in the midst of our current political mess in Springfield, but they are red herrings.

I believe we need to fix certain things: Voters need the ability to recall elected officials, and Illinois should be allowed to have a progressive income tax. Those two items can be addressed by individual amendments without rewriting the entire constitution.

Proponents also claim that we need to change the constitution because too much power is concentrated in the hands of four legislative leaders. But guess what? Those powers are not in the constitution, they are in the rules of the House and Senate. If you want to change how the legislature works, change the rules not the constitution. You can read and compare these documents for yourself at www.ilga.gov, where the Illinois Constitution and both the House and Senate Rules are posted.

I have two other big concerns about a con-con. First, it is anticipated that it will cost Illinois taxpayers around $80 million. Especially in our current economic environment I would rather see that $80 million spent on health care, education, the environment and paying the state's overdue bills rather than on a playground for lobbyists and special interests.

The $80 million cost to the public will only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to money thrown around at a con-con. Every lobbyist and special interest group in Illinois will spend millions and millions more to make "improvements" to our constitution that benefit their particular point of view.

Instead of dealing with issues of governance, we could end up in a battle over whether a woman's right to choose should be eliminated, whether equal rights for gays and lesbians should be restricted and other social tinkering.

Is opposition to a con-con mainstream thinking? Yes it is! A diverse collection of groups oppose the con-con, including many who rarely find themselves on the same side of most issues.

Citizen Action Illinois and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce oppose con-con, along with the Chicago Urban League, the AFL-CIO, the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, the League of Women Voters, the Illinois Farm Bureau and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, among many many others.

When you go to your polling place, give this issue a lot of thought as it will affect your life and livelihood for decades to come. Let's just fix the leaks rather than burning down the house.
I urge you to vote "No" on the constitutional convention.

Comments

[gangwayjan]

I worked hard for con-con in 1973. I will vote against the proposed con con on this Election Day. Yes, there are things I would change in the current Illinois Constitution but nothing the amendment process can't handle. I fear two things: First, I fear the power of special interest groups, once the drafting process starts, to front load a new constitution with burdensome pet projects, more properly in legislation than a (mostly) immutable constitution. Second, I fear false lure of instant gratification in goverenment-- those clamoring for term limits and recall provisions.

Constitutions are meant to be frameworks , not detailed laws. The federal constituition has stood us in good stead. Rewritten state constitution, by contrast, become itemized lists of current passions one tying down future generations to today's fashions.

Mostly, I oppose the recall proposition, as much as I oppose Gov. Blago ( I, a life long "D" ,supported and gave $ to Judy). Impeachment can work; immediate recalls are expensive and again too given to whimsy and deep pocket charlatans.

[Hereslookingatu]

Though it's clear Mr. Harris is passionate about his position--and its many merits--his first problem is drawing an incongruent analogy, one where the alternative may better serve him. Few would respond positively to the prospect of leveling a home to fix a leak, so the better question may be, 'Is it necessary to tear down the house to make additions.­"

There is no categorically correct answer; circumstances, need and urgency may dictate competing responses from one state to another, from one era to another. However, for lllinois' purposes, it will serve everyone well to search for patience and responsibility, and a willingness to embrace the already broad parameters dealt us by our constitution without eroding the very laws that allow us to do so.

We live in an hasty era--no doubt encouraged by the Bush administra­tion--fixa­ted on stripping away any inconvenience without foresight. Look at the 'Yes' votes: citizens frustrated at 1 decade of imperfection or the prospect of legislative consensus! Consider for a moment posterity, and you will see why it's imperative to keep our charters fortified and leave legislative conflicts to the legislature. If this means Chicagoans take to Springfield, so be it. A real bottom up approach may be the trick, but the constitution remains above us all.

[plutocrat03]

Fear, uncertainty and doubt is all the con con opponents have to sell.

Why was it OK to have a con con in '70, but not now. The document has flaws that need to be remedied.

The fact that special interests are strongly opposed to this makes it clear to me that we need this convention.

[gfapierce]

Many of us supporting a constitutional convention have little interest in rewriting the entire document, but we would like a constitutional convention to propose a few amendments like recall and progressive taxation to the voters. The opponents say we don't need a constitutional convention to do this, but we do. Otherwise, to get on a ballot an amendment to the constitution has to be approved by 60% of both houses of the legislature. That hasn't happened in over ten years and it certainly is not going to happen in the forseeable future. The only other way to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot is by getting hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions and even then it can only be done on very narrowly defined grounds or it can be thrown out by the courts. A constitutional convention can bypass all of this and take amendments right to the voters.
That is why a wide variety of groups and individuals are supporting a constitutional convention, including Democrats like Pat Quinn, Jim Houlihan, Forrest Claypoole, Mike Quigley, Larry Suffredin; Republicans like Judy Barr Topinka and Tony Peraica, the Illinois Association of School Boards, United Power for Action and Justice, the Chicago Tribune and lots of others. And by the way. The best independent estimate of the cost of a constitutional convention is 1/4 of the figure the opposition likes to use, probably less if it doesn't try to rewrite the entire document and focuses on needed amendments.

[AndreaRaila]

Vote Yes in 2008 for an Illinois Con Con is endorsed by the Chicago Tribune and the Waukegan News Star, and many others like Illinois Association of School Boards, Lt Gov Pat Quinn, Cook County Assessor James Houlihan, former State Treasurer Judy Barr Topika, Cook County Commissioners Suffredin, Peracia, Quigley and Reps. Osterman, Fritchey, Frank, Boland and Froehlich.­...

Illinois Con-Con is our best chance for educational funding reform! God knows the State of Illinois public education system needs a fair educational funding formula.

Our state legislators are deaf to the public outcry for property tax reform, which is fundamentally connected to educational funding reform. For decades, no significant changes have passed in the Illinois Legislature that address our underfunded schools and overtaxed residents and businesses.

Illinois government has not served us well, especially in the last 20 years. Better government comes from the bottom up not the top down.

The opponents offer a dark pessimistic message. "Go home. Stop campaigning. Stay out of the debates," they say, "It's broken, yes, but here's some glue to hold things together." That type of cynicism is systemic in our political system. Fortunately, voters are wise enough to not become infected by the audacity to not hope for making Illinois the most affordable state to raise a family and educate our children.

I am a soccer mom of 3 children in Chicago elementary school. Moms VOTE YES!