This morning in the mail I received a brochure from the Illinois Secretary of State’s office on the proposition that will be on the ballot in November on a proposal for a constitutional convention. In Illinois such a proposal must be voted on by the electorate every twenty years. The last time we voted on the proposal in 1988 it was rejected. I suspect it will be this time, too.
Illinois is in truly desperate need of constitutional reform and the only way that’s likely to happen is through a constitutional convention. Illinois’s politics is dysfunctional and corrupt. In just my lifetime four governors have been jailed for corruption after serving their terms as governor and we bid fair for a fifth. The state legislature, completely dominated in both houses by Democrats, is immobile due to feuds and factions within the Democratic Party.
Here in Illinois the state’s share of funding for public schools is one of the lowest in the nation. This is manifestly unjust and unfair. Rich districts prosper; poor districts languish. Anyone who drives to or from Illinois into any adjoining state can’t help but be struck by the low standard of maintenance of our highways relative to those in neighboring states. Our governor, who has been named several times in ongoing federal corruption investigations, keeps proposing expensive new programs while no one has yet devised a method for paying for the programs already in place.
In Illinois state and local public employee pension plans have constitutional force; this hasn’t stopped the governor from raiding those plans in pursuit of money to further his goals. One way or another the money will need to be paid back and this is a pretty darned bad time for the state to be looking around for credit to satisfy its commitments.
Property taxes and sales taxes are about tapped out as revenue sources and there’s no will to raise the state income tax rate.
For practical purposes Illinois has neither the initiative, the referendum, nor recall. The initiative we have is limited. Here’s the relevant language:
Amendments to Article IV of this Constitution may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal in number to at least eight percent of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election. Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.
Article IV refers to the legislature. Consequently, introducing any checks on the legislature by the people must be pass by the legislature itself.
If I were to wish for a single change to the Illinois Constitution it would be requirement, similar to the one in place in Missouri, under which any attempt by the state to raise revenue must be submitted to a popular vote.
But I’ll never get that or any other reform in Illinois without a constitutional convention and even then it would be a long shot since most of those who’d attend such a convention would undoubtedly be members of the current legislature.
After November I expect that the Democratic majority will have an even tighter grip on the reins of power than they do now. How we’ll prevent the Illinois House and Senate from becoming the Chicago City Council writ large I have no idea.
A constitutional convention is a terrible idea. First, it is a big financial boondoggle – estimates are that it would cost at least $78 million, and have you ever seen anything involving government not cost more than the estimates? We can’t afford it. Second, it can amend anything and everything in the constitution – a complete loose cannon! Third, there are procedures for amending the constitution without a constitutional convention, so if there are specific changes that need to be made, propose them and campaign for them. As to the argument that the legislature can block amendments, the same would likely end up being true with a constitutional convention, given who would likely end up running it. Do you seriously think the people elected to a “con-con” wouldn’t for the most part be the same old politicians that get elected now? We don’t need a $78 million loose cannon. Vote NO!
I’ll probably vote for fear. As between the fear of bad results and the hope for good, fear usually wins.
I’m not sure structurally there is anything that I think needs fixed in the Constitution. Mainly its the people and the culture. Some ideas:
More legislators. I think the smaller size has enhanced the power of the leadership.
More liberal public referendum process, but not as liberal as California. I’m sorely tempted to support a recall process as well, but won’t.
Constitutionalize the authority of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. I haven’t followed the issue closely, but the Governor seems to be arguing that JCAR violates separation of powers by giving a legislative agency authority over agency rulemaking. I like that.
Give agencies and the governor discretionary authority to have their own lawyers represent them instead of the Attorney General. For example, when the A.G. gets into a legal dispute, the Governor should not be forced to have the A.G. represent him.
One more that Dave might like:
Restrict the state’s ability to increase benefits for local government employees without state payment to local government.
“This morning in the mail I received a brochure from the Illinois Secretary of State’s office on the proposition that will be on the ballet in November…”
Its gonna be on the “ballet”?
Well…I’m as musical as the next guy….
🙂
Thanks, Rich. Corrected.
I heard there might be a proposed constitutional amendment banning crooks and imbeciles from public office. Illinois would be ungoverned.
Dave — if you are worried about the Illinois state government being Chicago Writ large, you may want to advocate for the multi-member lower chamber districts that Illinois used to use before switching over to single member districts. IIRC, either 2 or 3 State Reps were elected per Senate district, but the decision was made a while back to downsize the State Leg. and the lower chamber was where the cuts were made.
Multi-member districts produce a weaker party structure as party discpline enforcement is a more iffy thing, especially in a partisan dominated district where the general election is really the primary election and not November. If you have JSTOR access, look at Greg(g) Adams on this as he has a couple of papers on Illinois party structures.
Yeah, I voted against that. I thought the old system was better.
Actually, the Legislative Research Unit compiled a report that estimates the cost of a convention will cost at most $23 million. And keep in mind, any suggested changes made to the constitution must be approved by the voters in Illinois before the suggested changes can be enacted. The current amendment process does not work. Last year a recall amendment was bottled up before anyone could even vote on it thanks to corrupt politician unwilling to be held responsible for their actions.
“And keep in mind, any suggested changes made to the constitution must be approved by the voters in Illinois before the suggested changes can be enacted.”
I had heard exactly the opposite is true…that the changes can be initiated without consulting the electorate at all.
Article XIV section 1 (g) in the Illinois Constitution states, “The vote on the proposed revision or amendments shall be on a separate ballot. Any proposed revision or amendments shall become effective, as the Convention
provides, if approved by a majority of those voting on the question.”
I agreee we have some issues that need to be fixed. But remember if we have a con con, we open up the whole thing to change. And that can also mean making things worse, messing with state funded pensions, etc.
If we want to make changes we should, but lets not take the chance on breaking what isn’t broken yet.
While we do need to fix some things. We need to remember that once a con con is convened, they are able to change, or remove or add anything they want. I can’t think of a group of people that I want having the power to change things in a wholesale fashion. I would rather fight to get things changed one by one.