A “yes” vote for the Con-con aids democratic process

October 29, 2008
By Armando Vega
Staff Writer

This November the 4th, in the state of Illinois, the first question put to the voters on the electoral ballot doesn’t concern the Presidency or any other race, but a referendum on our state’s supreme charter, the Illinois Constitution, and whether it needs to be revised.  In 1970 our Constitution as it is currently made available was crafted, and one subsequent change implemented was that every 20 years, voters decide whether to convene a new constitutional convention.  In this time of disillusionment with our current state of affairs in Illinois government, for voters to send such a message that profound, foundational change is needed may restore some much needed confidence in our political process.

Of course, there are other means of amending the constitution.  Amendments may be proposed by referendum by the general public, but this action is restricted to changes dealing with the Legislative Article, Article IV.  The legislature itself may propose changes to any part of the Constitution, but this requires a consensus on the part of both chambers of Congress on the exact language of any proposed amendment.  This is, needless to say, a bit of a rarity, and in fact of the hundreds of proposed amendments introduced by legislators since 1988 only six have made it to ballot by referendum.

Unlike 40 years ago, when there was virtual unanimity among interest groups and the voters ended up approving the call for a convention 71%, the battle lines have been drawn.  A coalition of unlikely partners, comprised of labor and business, trial lawyers and tort reformers, among others, terming itself the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, has out-raised proponents of the measure, pledging to spend $3 million by the date of referendum in an effort to defeat the measure.

Part of that effort is comprised of statewide radio-ads implying a convention process could come to an $80 million price-tag for taxpayers.  But according to the Chicago Tribune, the General Assembly’s own Legislative Research Unit places the estimate at closer to $23 million, and Lt. Governor Pat Quinn (a proponent of the measure) claims the cost could be as low as $15 million—roughly $1 per citizen of the state (much of this discrepancy in cost can be attributed to the methodology the Alliance has used to make its case).

If it seems odd for such political bedfellows to be working together, it might have something to do with both sides coming to an understanding on the enhanced difficulty of lobbying elected convention delegates as opposed to congressmen.  As Pat Quinn pointed out in a recent interview for Illinois Issues, “The good thing about a constitutional convention is, it doesn’t last forever; the people who are elected delegates are there for just one point in history — they’re not there to earn a pension for themselves or have a career as constitutional convention delegates…Right now, I think Illinois government is too often captured by professional politicians, who don’t always embrace reforms that are overdue…”

That sentiment may be an understatement.  On issues ranging from ethics reform to halting automatic congressional pay raises, there is a clear conflict of interest on the part of these Illinois politicians, and in fact Senate President Emil Jones has repeatedly demonstrated his will to leverage his (very considerable) power with restricting these progressive measures.  But if Mr. Jones isn’t winning Mr. Congeniality this year from voters outside his district, then Governor Rod Blagojevich has earned for himself the distinct ire of voters statewide.  In fact, his name is synonymous with one probable amendment to be proposed at any convention—the ability for voters to initiate recall proceedings.  Of course, with any such weighty measures, the devil is in the details, but the provision does seem a popular idea with the general public.

Other possible amendments to be introduced include general state funding of public education (swapping lower property taxes for higher income taxes), the merit selection of judges, a definition of “impeachable offenses,” term limits for elected officials, constitutional restrictions on gerrymandering, and constitutional support for more frequent legislation via voter referendum.

Naysayers profess fear that any constitutional convention would be dominated by special interests and lobbyists, but that dynamic is already in place today at the State Capitol building just down the road from us here at UIS.  It’s impossible to perpetually monitor all the backroom-dealings and quid-pro-quos going on there.  At least with a one-shot “con-con,” greater scrutiny could be brought to bear for a relatively brief period of months.  Finally, let’s not forget the most important criterion here: No matter what these elected delegates bring forth to the table, ultimately voters get the final say on approving any final referendums, in a separate election.  Hey—sounds pretty democratic to me.