Week of September 30, 2008
Ever since the blue mailer was sent out regarding the election question as to whether or not Illinois should call for a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), I have had dozens of people stop me and ask questions about the pamphlet. That particular flyer was an attempt to inform people regarding arguments for and against the Con-Con. I think the pamphlet was well written and very comprehensive. However, it was written mostly by lawyers and came in a format that was not very appealing. Whenever I receive something like that in such small print (with no pictures!) and seemingly not really making a point, I usually glance over it and either toss it in the trash or some recycling bin. By the response I have heard from constituents, there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the need for a Con-Con. In that regard, the mailer did what it was supposed to do and that was to present arguments for and against a Con-Con.
The present Illinois Constitution was written in 1970 and went into effect July 1st, 1971. One of the provisions of that Constitution is that every twenty years voters of Illinois be asked whether or not they want to convene a convention in order to rewrite the Constitution for the State. The first time the question was asked on the ballot was in 1988 and the voters of Illinois rejected the idea soundly (3 to 1). The question of whether or not Illinois should hold a Con-Con is on the ballot in 2008 because the current Constitution requires it not because any large group believes that there should be a convention. In fact, while some would like to see a Con-Con, far more groups seem to think that this is not the time for it.
Remember, the purpose of any Constitution is to establish the principles and framework that become the foundation of government decision making. Constitutions protect fundamental rights like individual freedoms and equal protection under the law. The current Illinois Constitution is an excellent document in that regard. In fact, the Illinois Constitution has been praised as a model for state government framework. There are even ways to change the current Constitution without the expense of a convention which is estimated to be as much as $100 million. Either the General Assembly can approve an Amendment for submission to the voters (by a three-fifths vote) or any citizen can start a petition drive that might lead to an Amendment question being presented to the voters in the next general election. Indeed, the Illinois Constitution has been amended ten times already since 1970.
It seems to me that many of those that support a Con-Con are upset regarding single issues for which they have not been successful in gaining enough support to see changes in current law. If the Constitution is opened and a convention is held issues like gay marriage, death penalty pardons, eminent domain, pensions, limiting or extending income or sales taxes, immigration, and even gun laws could be addressed. Instead of elected officials from Illinois making votes on these issues, a carefully crafted set of delegates could make provisions in a new Constitution that would address some of these issues rather than having your elected officials vote on them. If a Convention were to be held, two delegates from each of the fifty-nine Senate Districts would be elected to the Con-Con. Delegates could decide to keep the Constitution as it is, rewrite it entirely or make single issue changes and submit those changes to the voters.
People might think that because I am a life-long educator that I would want the Con-Con in order to address school-funding issues that exist in Illinois. I strongly believe that the current funding system is unfair and causes huge inequity in the way children are educated between wealthy areas of the state and poor areas. However, I feel that those single issues can and should be addressed through the legislative process or an Amendment to the current Constitution could be offered. In fact, school funding related changes could take much longer if there was a Con-Con. A convention would not be held until possibly as late as 2011. The same is true for other important issues. A Con-Con could be nothing more than an excuse to put these important issues off until the convention instead of elected officials addressing their responsibility to address these issues now.
I hope this helps clear up some of the issues related to a possible Constitutional Convention. The current political climate and dysfunction in State government here is Illinois does not, in my opinion, create the right environment for a Constitutional Convention to be held. That, coupled with the fact that Illinois cannot afford to spend what might be as much as $100 million on a convention while we threatened with the closure of State Parks and have no money for substance abuse treatment, causes me to be one of those that thinks a no vote is the correct vote on a Con-Con.
I have really appreciated your input in the past and look forward to hearing from you concerning issues that are important to you. You can write me at: P.O. Box 125, Hutsonville, IL 62433 or e-mail me at reddyunit1@aol.com. You can also read more on my web site: www.peopleforeddy.com