On the Road to an Illinois Constitutional Convention
Earlier on this website, news was reported about HRJ0111 that creates a committee of 8 legislators to help prepare the materials for the con-con question that should be put on the 2008 ballot. This has highlighted a simmering debate in the background about whether a con-con would be good for Illinois or not, and there are a variety of perspectives on that. Other media discussions on the con-con this week include an article by The Southern, a talk radio show on the subject by Peoria Pundit, and video from CAN-TV discussing the con-con.
The interesting thing about the debate on this issue as a travel across the state is two-fold. First, honest grassroots people of all political stripes generally agree that both Illinois is in serious constitutional trouble and generally agree about the package of reforms needed. Second, those opposed to a convention do not debate the reforms that are needed, they simply argue that a convention would “make things worse” or that it simply would not be successful.
It is important to point out, my push for a convention is not meant to enshrine conservatism in the Illinois Constitution. While every reform I am pushing is amenable to conservatives, progressives and moderates agree also. A constitution isn’t a place for policy debates, it’s a place to deal with fundamental rights and governmental structure in which amazingly everyone more or less agrees. For instance, recalling elected officials, open ballot access, binding citizen referenda, open government and ending gerrymandering all enjoy majority support in both parties among the grassroots.
If such a push for a convention were meant to establish conservatism as the supreme law of the land, it would fail. Let’s be honest, conservatism isn’t particularly welcome in the Illinois GOP. The push for a convention would allow for people of all political stripes (including conservatives) to freely advocate for their ideas in a meaningful way. An as an aside, I firmly believe that the future of the ILGOP depends on convincing voters of their reform credentials and supporting this convention is about the only way they can assume any real power in this state again.
The push for a convention is meant to open up the political process so people besides entrenched interests can influence the debate on issues. The corruption in the governor’s office is enhanced and incentivized by a constitution that gives him a great deal of power he ought not to have. The governor should not be able to create legislative benefits that no one asked for, no one wants but no one can do anything about. We should not have a chief executive who can establish laws by fiat.
The corruption in the General Assembly is a factor of a legislative structure that insulates the ILGA from public influence. Districts are gerrymandered to make races uncompetitive. Elections push out third parties and independents. The primary system reflects a political reality that hasn’t been true for many decades. Lastly, the legislative leaders (the four tops) have complete control over the legislative process. We do not elect and pay the salaries of 118 representatives and 59 senators just so Sen. Jones and Rep. Madigan can make all the big decisions. Those two can and have unilaterally killed bills, just take a look at HB1 to see how a unanimous bill in the House with 47 Senate cosponsors can be stopped because of one man. We vest too much power in this individuals and we see the logical result… rampant corruption.
Normal Illinois voters see this and are disgusted. They see their friends, families and themselves taxed out of their homes for “pay-to-play” politics. They see government at every level in Illinois under federal investigation. They see other states thrive while Illinois is left behind. Most importantly, the issues important to Illinois voters are left by the wayside.
Not every problem facing Illinois needs to be addressed in a constitution, but many elements of the 1970s constitution (for instance, creating a strong governor) have directly lead to the constitutional crisis we are in now. There exists no other avenue with which to effect these reforms and waiting 20 years ensures that the crisis will grow to the breaking point. This is the last, best hope for normal Illinois voters of all political persuasions to enact the reforms we so desperately need. Illinois deserves better. Join me in making it happen.
Comment by Lally on 14 March 2008 at 8:33 am:
I will have a lot more comments when I get off work, but here’s some stuff to start:
- Here at IGPA, I work with two professors who have a long history with Illinois’ constitutional convention. I invite everyone to read their piece against it here:http://www.igpa.uiuc.edu/IllinoisReport/2008/concon.asp?mode=summary
(at least one of them is conservative).
- John, you say “The push for a convention is meant to open up the political process so people besides entrenched interests can influence the debate on issues.”
But the con-con isn’t supposed to work like that. It’s an inordinately expensive process in which delegates make decisions. We have, for better or for worse, representatives in the legislature for this matter. This things you list that are wrong with the legislature still wouldn’t be changed by a convention; the same people will lobby there as lobby and gerrymander now. In fact, I think a new con-con at this point in Illinois politics would just be a way to air grievances against the capitol and the governor. The con-con isn’t meant to serve as a way to condemn them in a heat of passion. This is the way mistakes are made, relatively permanent ones.
- You say “Not every problem facing Illinois needs to be addressed in a constitution, but many elements of the 1970s constitution (for instance, creating a strong governor) have directly lead to the constitutional crisis we are in now.”
But we are not in a constitutional crisis now. We are in a political and fiscal crisis, sure. But those things won’t be solved by changing the fundamental fabric of a (relatively functioning) constitution. Edgar, if we all recall, was under the very same one.
I don’t think the things John rightly points out are wrong with the state will be changed with a convention. I invite you to read prof. Nowlan and Gove and Winkel’s piece on the matter, linked above (be sure to go to the full chapter, the front page is summary).
Comment by Lally on 14 March 2008 at 8:34 am:
Sorry, that link was not working that well
IGPA’s Illinois Report Coverage of a possibly Con-Con
Comment by Augur on 14 March 2008 at 11:36 am:
I thought this document was reasonably balanced, but there is certainly a risk with a con-con that we will end up with a worse document than the current one.
I think Yoshi and I are the only two on this blog who have actually worked for the state legislature. He is less than a month in, so I will comment very briefly on some of the reasons I support a con con. I’ll likely do a more substantive post on it later.
The “four tops” parliamentary structure strongly favors Chicago and disarms individual state reps who may disagree with party leadership. The four tops have iron clad control over their parties, both in procedure and in practicality. this is not something they will surrender through legislation. They control the policy staff, the press staff, almost all of the campaign funding, and the campaign staff, and they draw the maps!
Illinois has virtually no campaign finance law. You can give as much money as you want to any state candidate, but you’re capped in your giving to federal candidates. This gives certain interests way too much power, they just have to outbid everyone else. Public utilities companies and telecom companies have been among the worst offenders.
The way we handle redistricting is absurd. Literally, a name is drawn out of a hat to determine whether or not the democrats will run the state legislature for 10 years or whether there will be a divided government. I’ll do a post on this absurdity later, but it is as bad as I say it is. All the fundraising, campaigning, public speaking, community organizing…the only thing that really matters is having the right name drawn out of the hat to determine which party gets their hyper partisan map (which mostly just impacts the senate).
Politicians can go their entire careers without ever having a real general election race, then we get representatives like the thoroughly useless tim johnson.
Also, the 4 top system afflicts some districts with representation like champaign urbana – we have to settle for the vacant naomi jacobsen, lapdog to mike madigan. Surely we could find a more competent and fiery progressive to represent this district.
Public school funding is dramatically imbalanced. The legislature refuses to do anything, and the courts refuse to hear cases on it. A con con is necessary to restore some balance.
Regarding dangers:
1) I don’t see the pension threat as that realistic, but some bright people I know do.
2) Some people want term limits, which can deprive government of our best public servants – then again losing some of the worst of them might be a worthwhile trade-off
3) there are many unforeseeable consequences
Comment by Brian on 14 March 2008 at 1:16 pm:
Augur (or John),
I don’t know anything about this at all, but could one of you address Lally’s point about why we should think a con con would solve these problems when legislation isn’t doing the job now? I mean, Augur brings up campaign finance, public schools, etc. – all of which seems like stuff that COULD be worked on by the legislature and isn’t. Presumably there is some reason it isn’t, and why wouldn’t that reason also apply whenever people got together for a con con? In other words, why should we think there is some prospect that the con con would change things?
Again – don’t know anything. Just asking.
Comment by augur on 14 March 2008 at 1:26 pm:
BJP –
School Funding:
part of school reform is b/c of the concentration of power in the suburbs. downstate schools have hardly any resources also b/c of the power and priorities of the 4 tops. Also, that’s why chicago state is treated differently than Illinois.
Campaign Finance Reform:
without a con con, the 4 tops would have to decide to legislate campaign finance reform. Essentially they would have to decide to take away their own power. Same with changing the way maps are drawn. Even though there is some risk, at least they can protect their own seats and those they really care about.
Term limits, which bamby would argue for, are similar. They aren’t going to legislate term limits for themselves.
The broader lack of responsiveness issues are what I would like to see resolved, Springfield would be very different if: 1) maps were drawn by neutral third parties or machines; 2) the parliamentary structure was busted up (give individual members and committee chairs more control over staff, ask bill black about this); 3) campaign finance rules were put in place; 4) there were a recall mechanism for shitty governors/state reps/statewide office holders.
Also, the convention members are different folks than the legislators. I have a concern they could stack the con con w/ their own people.
Comment by John Bambenek on 15 March 2008 at 6:52 am:
Lally et al-
Inordinately expensive? How much do you think one costs? One estimate I heard was 80M. That’s about 1/3rd of the amount of pork that Sen. Jones stuffed into the budget just for the *Senate* *Democrats*. You’re talking about an amount that’s .1% of the state budget.
We have representatives in the ILGA, sure. But the important decisions are made by Sen. Jones and Rep. Madigan. They routinely unilaterally kill bills. Look at HB1 for instance. There are a dearth of bills that pass out of one chamber that get killed in Rules by the chamber leader and that includes bills taht would pass on a floor vote. A motion to discharge a bill takes UNANIMOUS support. That is a constitutional crisis that two people control the legislative process.
The state is going broke. We have a balanced budget requirement in the constitution. That’s a constitutional crisis.
People are being taxed out of their homes, the state’s economy is one of the lowest in the country and people are fleeing the state.
The point of this article wasn’t to point out the flaws of the current Constitution, I’ve written others for that and I will right more.
But as far as the same people being in charge…
In order to convene a convention, the referenda has to have 60% support. That’s no small thing, voters have to be really convinced because a convention is not a minor thing. I’m simply not in the same camp that the voters are that stupid to come out in support of a convention but send the same people who broke it in the first place. That’s why I’m in process of identifying 118 delegates beforehand that will push the general package of reforms.
A convention isn’t meant to air grievances, it’s meant to enact reforms, Augur spelled out some, I’ve done so in the past, and the book will have the full balance of everything.
A constitution won’t fix everything but there are many things that need fixing. A constitution with a balanced budget requirement in a state that still managed to reign up $108B in debt isn’t “working relatively well”.
And yes, we’ve had decent politicians before, but a constitution is meant to limit the damage of bad politicians not to be written in the hope only good people get elected. Checks and balances and the Bill of Rights would be unnecessary if you could guarantee good politicians.