John Bambenek
Is Obama Afraid of Change for Illinois?
The presidential candidate for change has adopted the twin themes of "hope" and "change" for his political campaign. These themes are the creation of David Axelrod, Barack Obama's senior campaign adviser. It was a stroke of brilliance to tap into the widespread disaffection with Washington D.C. and the growing irritation among normal citizens that they have no say in their federal government. With approval ratings of the U.S Congress being around 9% (in other countries there would be an armed coup by now), the timing was perfect.
However, the same distrust and disgust are just as true with the state government of Illinois. We have a governor under multiple federal investigations, a General Assembly that can never seem to pass a budget, and political patronage happening out in the open with no regard for citizens. The gridlock in Springfield is universally despised and all other attempts to reform Illinois have failed. Change is sorely needed for Illinois.
That is why it is disappointing to see the same firm that crafted the candidate for change was just given a two to three million dollar contract to oppose a constitutional convention. Among the arguments they will make is that convening a constitutional convention will give power to all the special interests, that the constitution will be made worse, and that there is no way to elect good people to a convention. They have already gone so far as to tell seniors that a constitutional convention will take their pensions away even though federal law is clear that it can't. In short, the ads can be reduced to a sound bite: "No… you can't."
In November, voters will be able to vote to convene a constitutional convention to amend the state charter. This would allow for the ending of gerrymandering, the practice of politicians picking their voters and not vice versa (see Illinois Congressional District 4's map for an illustration of how absurd the maps have gotten). An additional change could be adding the ability of citizens to recall elected officials, a right many states currently already enjoy.
Many of the problems that Illinois faces are a direct result of a constitution written in 1970 to create a "strong government." This allowed politicians to amass incredible power and to engage in rampant and overt corruption. For instance, the Cook County presidency was almost literally bequeathed from father (John Stroger) to son (Todd Stroger) reminiscent of a title of nobility in the Middle Ages. The constitution guarantees state pensions but it was also explicitly written to not require funding of the pensions. This has resulted in the worst funded pension system in the nation. We aren't even close to 49th place.
The governor can treat budgets as advisory and move money around at will. The leader of a legislative chamber can unilaterally kill a bill with no recourse by other members of the chamber (see House Bill 1 which was sponsored by over 80% of the Illinois Senate, yet still killed by Senator Debbie Halvorson).
In all this, the citizens are disempowered. Illinois election law is the most restrictive (and unconstitutional) in the Union. Third party and independent candidates are required to get over 10 times more signatures and are subject to capricious ballot challenges that keep them from being listed on the ballot. Ballot initiatives are not binding and routinely ignored by politicians.
Even the balanced budget requirement in the Constitution is considered a "moral imperative" when crafting the state budget. This requirement is unenforceable which is how the state gets away with trying to pass a budget $2 billion out of balance. Try considering paying your next property tax bill with a "moral imperative" and see how that works out.
Citizens are disempowered and government is dysfunctional. The result has been a grassroots movement comprised of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and those who normally would not associate with a political party. The citizens are demanding that Springfield change. The question is why the same people running Obama's campaign are saying, "Change you must fear."
Can a Constitutional Convention Save the Illinois Pension System?
(This is a copy of a syndicated column that was printed in papers around Illinois. For more on the Constitutional Convention, see my book Illinois Deserves Better).
One of the chief arguments against a constitutional convention is that “they” will take away the pensions. In fact, there are some proponents (chiefly business groups) that advocate scrapping the pension system because it is a large part of the state’s debt. To be fair, in about 10 years, the state’s pension obligations threaten the solvency of the state without reducing pensions, raising taxes or both. It is a problem that needs to be solved, and solved soon.
The pension problem is chiefly a creation of the current
It made sense to the delegates to give the General Assembly discretion in how they funded the pension system. The General Assembly has used this discretion to shortchange the pensions every single year since ratification. Some years they even took money out. This discretion has been grossly abused and shows the General Assembly as a poor steward of the pension system. The chief problem facing the pensions is not “generosity”, it is a chronic and perpetual failure of the state to contribute the amount they promise.
There are those that argue the solution to this problem is to simply let the state out of its promise to workers. The problem is that such a solution would be ruled unconstitutional under the federal constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists several things states cannot do. States cannot enter into treaties, coin money or impair the obligation of contracts. By calling pensions an “enforceable contract”, the U.S. Constitution forbids them of taking them out from under people, even via constitutional amendment.
Those who are vested in the pension system could not have their pensions confiscated, period. Federal case law is clear on this point in cases such as McGrath v Rhode Island Retirement Board. Anyone who says the pensions will be taken is using fear-mongering in an attempt to scare citizens from demanding the reforms they are entitled to.
On the other hand, adopting a “wait and see” approach will only result in an exponentially growing pension debt that eventually leads the state into bankruptcy. There is an exception to the federal contract clause, namely if the diminishment of a contract serves an important public purpose. While it is impossible to know for sure, avoiding bankruptcy of a major state certainly is an important public purpose to which a court may decide a benefits reduction is necessary.
In short, there is no risk to the pensions by trying to address them in a convention, however, waiting for bankruptcy does entail significant risk to those in the pension system and potentially even those already retired.
So what could be done to fix the pension problem in a convention? The only proposal in the state (that isn’t a promise to fix the problem) is one that I created. Namely, the General Assembly has proven they cannot be trusted to fund the pensions and keep their promises. Instead, the constitution should be amended to require the employing agency to pay the pension contributions directly out of their own budget.
The benefits of this are several. One, a state agency can be sued to force them to pay the promised pension contributions, the General Assembly cannot be so sued. Two, employing agencies pay the full cost of abusive pension games to benefit top administrators. Three, employing agencies will bear full cost for employment of people and will make more efficient hiring decisions. This will not fix the debt already incurred, but it stops the massive bleeding from a General Assembly failing year after year to keep their promises.
If you want to save your pension in November, vote yes for a constitutional convention. If you want to roll your dice and gamble with your retirement, vote no. Either way, we deserve a state that keeps its promises.
The Illinois Senate’s Version of the Recall Amendment / Recalled Officials Can Run to be Their Own Successors
After the fiasco two weeks ago, when the Illinois Senate buried Rep. Franks’ recall amendment (HJCRA28), Senator Hendon introduced his own recall amendment in the Senate. This version (SJCRA70) is substantially similar to Rep. Franks’ recall but has a few changes: the ability to recall judges, the Governor and Lt. Governor have to be recalled together, and salaried local officials can be recalled.
Two weeks ago, I testified at the Senate Executive Committee hearing on HJCRA28 and spoke specifically about the ability to recall judges. There is understandably some concern with this (and rightfully so) that unpopular but legally sound decisions could cause a judge to be recalled from office. I had proposed that as a prerequisite to recalling a judge, the judicial discipline process in Article VI, Section 15 of the current state constitution be used. At the time, Senator Hendon expressed that he liked the idea and he has incorporated my suggestion into his current amendment.
The big problem with the bill that no one has caught so far (and admittedly, I missed it when I testified two weeks ago) is that an officeholder subject to a recall can also run to succeed himself should the recall succeed. To illustrate, let’s say Blagojevich/Quinn get a successful recall petition that’s on the ballot. Both can, in turn, can submit the right paperwork to run in the succession election that occurs during the same election. It is important to note because of the condensed time frame, there are no primaries. This means, like what occurred in
An interesting idea surfaced two weeks ago during the recall debate then, that because the Governor and Lt. Governor run together as a ticket that they must be recalled together. I find this idea rather unconvincing considering that there is no requirement that they must be impeached together. I think it is a ploy to accomplish two things: put Lt. Governor Quinn in the hot seat for pushing this issue and make it harder to accomplish recalling a governor successfully. Voters who may want to recall a Governor may vote no simply because they don’t want to “take it out” on the Lt. Governor. I am not sure how much of an effect it has, but it’s there.
Lastly, the big change and big win is the inclusion of local officials in the recall amendment itself. The amendment, however, restricts recall to only “salaried” elected officials. This immunizes school boards, for one. In smaller towns or counties, elected officials there may not draw a salary. Officials who are paid per-meeting “stipends” may also not be subject to recall. It’s a limitation that I can live with, but I prefer that anyone elected can be recalled. It’s philosophically sound that way. I’m not sure the reason for shielding unpaid officials.
I certainly do think that SJCRA70 is an improvement on HJCRA28 with the adding in of judges and most local officials. I think the threshold for signatures could be lowered to 10% for all the offices and would like to raise the number of counties needed for statewide recalls, but by and large I think most of it is good. The show-stopper here is that a recalled official can run to be their own successor which all but nullifies the intent of recalling them in the first place.
The Illinois Senate’s Version of the Recall Amendment / Recalled Officials Can Run to be Their Own Successors
After the fiasco two weeks ago, when the Illinois Senate buried Rep. Franks’ recall amendment (HJCRA28), Senator Hendon introduced his own recall amendment in the Senate. This version (SJCRA70) is substantially similar to Rep. Franks’ recall but has a few changes: the ability to recall judges, the Governor and Lt. Governor have to be recalled together, and salaried local officials can be recalled.
Two weeks ago, I testified at the Senate Executive Committee hearing on HJCRA28 and spoke specifically about the ability to recall judges. There is understandably some concern with this (and rightfully so) that unpopular but legally sound decisions could cause a judge to be recalled from office. I had proposed that as a prerequisite to recalling a judge, the judicial discipline process in Article VI, Section 15 of the current state constitution be used. At the time, Senator Hendon expressed that he liked the idea and he has incorporated my suggestion into his current amendment.
The big problem with the bill that no one has caught so far (and admittedly, I missed it when I testified two weeks ago) is that an officeholder subject to a recall can also run to succeed himself should the recall succeed. To illustrate, let’s say Blagojevich/Quinn get a successful recall petition that’s on the ballot. Both can, in turn, can submit the right paperwork to run in the succession election that occurs during the same election. It is important to note because of the condensed time frame, there are no primaries. This means, like what occurred in
An interesting idea surfaced two weeks ago during the recall debate then, that because the Governor and Lt. Governor run together as a ticket that they must be recalled together. I find this idea rather unconvincing considering that there is no requirement that they must be impeached together. I think it is a ploy to accomplish two things: put Lt. Governor Quinn in the hot seat for pushing this issue and make it harder to accomplish recalling a governor successfully. Voters who may want to recall a Governor may vote no simply because they don’t want to “take it out” on the Lt. Governor. I am not sure how much of an effect it has, but it’s there.
Lastly, the big change and big win is the inclusion of local officials in the recall amendment itself. The amendment, however, restricts recall to only “salaried” elected officials. This immunizes school boards, for one. In smaller towns or counties, elected officials there may not draw a salary. Officials who are paid per-meeting “stipends” may also not be subject to recall. It’s a limitation that I can live with, but I prefer that anyone elected can be recalled. It’s philosophically sound that way. I’m not sure the reason for shielding unpaid officials.
I certainly do think that SJCRA70 is an improvement on HJCRA28 with the adding in of judges and most local officials. I think the threshold for signatures could be lowered to 10% for all the offices and would like to raise the number of counties needed for statewide recalls, but by and large I think most of it is good. The show-stopper here is that a recalled official can run to be their own successor which all but nullifies the intent of recalling them in the first place.
The Illinois Senate’s Version of the Recall Amendment / Recalled Officials Can Run to be Their Own Successors
After the fiasco two weeks ago, when the Illinois Senate buried Rep. Franks’ recall amendment (HJCRA28), Senator Hendon introduced his own recall amendment in the Senate. This version (SJCRA70) is substantially similar to Rep. Franks’ recall but has a few changes: the ability to recall judges, the Governor and Lt. Governor have to be recalled together, and salaried local officials can be recalled.
Two weeks ago, I testified at the Senate Executive Committee hearing on HJCRA28 and spoke specifically about the ability to recall judges. There is understandably some concern with this (and rightfully so) that unpopular but legally sound decisions could cause a judge to be recalled from office. I had proposed that as a prerequisite to recalling a judge, the judicial discipline process in Article VI, Section 15 of the current state constitution be used. At the time, Senator Hendon expressed that he liked the idea and he has incorporated my suggestion into his current amendment.
The big problem with the bill that no one has caught so far (and admittedly, I missed it when I testified two weeks ago) is that an officeholder subject to a recall can also run to succeed himself should the recall succeed. To illustrate, let’s say Blagojevich/Quinn get a successful recall petition that’s on the ballot. Both can, in turn, can submit the right paperwork to run in the succession election that occurs during the same election. It is important to note because of the condensed time frame, there are no primaries. This means, like what occurred in
An interesting idea surfaced two weeks ago during the recall debate then, that because the Governor and Lt. Governor run together as a ticket that they must be recalled together. I find this idea rather unconvincing considering that there is no requirement that they must be impeached together. I think it is a ploy to accomplish two things: put Lt. Governor Quinn in the hot seat for pushing this issue and make it harder to accomplish recalling a governor successfully. Voters who may want to recall a Governor may vote no simply because they don’t want to “take it out” on the Lt. Governor. I am not sure how much of an effect it has, but it’s there.
Lastly, the big change and big win is the inclusion of local officials in the recall amendment itself. The amendment, however, restricts recall to only “salaried” elected officials. This immunizes school boards, for one. In smaller towns or counties, elected officials there may not draw a salary. Officials who are paid per-meeting “stipends” may also not be subject to recall. It’s a limitation that I can live with, but I prefer that anyone elected can be recalled. It’s philosophically sound that way. I’m not sure the reason for shielding unpaid officials.
I certainly do think that SJCRA70 is an improvement on HJCRA28 with the adding in of judges and most local officials. I think the threshold for signatures could be lowered to 10% for all the offices and would like to raise the number of counties needed for statewide recalls, but by and large I think most of it is good. The show-stopper here is that a recalled official can run to be their own successor which all but nullifies the intent of recalling them in the first place.
Preparing for a Constitutional Convention
One of the chief arguments against a constitutional convention is the statement that there has been no preparation for the upcoming question that will be on the ballot in November. In 1968 and in 1988, preceding the question being on the ballot there were several committees, organizations and legal groups that produced numerous reports on various aspects of the constitution and what the advantages and disadvantages are of several reforms. None of this preparation has been present for the upcoming 2008 vote, it is true to a small degree.
Largely, the preparation for a constitutional convention has been done by the same two individuals (with the valued assistance of many other individuals) who are pushing for a yes vote on the con-con question: myself and Bruno Behrend. We’ve been talking about this for years, identifying the flaws in the current constitution, the reforms that are sorely needed in
In addition to a book we’ve written that will be coming out in May called “Illinois Deserves Better: The Ironclad Case for an Illinois Constitutional Convention”, we’ve written a draft constitution which we think covers the deficiencies in the current constitution, reforms those aspects of the constitution that assist corruption and truly empowers the voters.
You can view our work at http://www.myillinoisconstitution.org and comment on each section of our draft constitution individually. It is time to open up the political process to the public so that we can truly participate in the governing process and that should start with the drafting of our new constitution (or the amendment thereof). Feel free to leave comments and feedback, we want to know what you think.
Can a Constitutional Convention Fix Illinois’ Broken Government?
There are two arguments that a constitutional convention is inadvisable: the necessary changes can be made through other means (i.e. electing better politicians) and that there is no way to ensure that reform-minded delegates get elected. Skipping past the individual merits of these arguments for a moment, the arguments perfectly illustrate the problem. On one hand, we need to elect better politicians (I agree); on the other hand, we can’t enough elect good politicians to make a difference (I also agree). The opposition to a convention presents no solutions, just another intractable problem.
Fixing the balanced budget loophole that allows the state to count debt as “income”, ending gerrymandering, allowing binding citizen referenda, creating recall elections, enabling open ballot access and term limits all have to be done in a constitution. There exist only three ways to amend the constitution. The legislature can do it, citizens can have a referendum to amend the legislature article only, or a constitutional convention must be convened.
Currently the General Assembly is required to pass only one bill per year, the state budget. They could not even do that without being months late and still engaging in chicanery. HB 1, one of the many state ethics reforms bills in the General Assembly was passed 116-0 in the House and has 47 Senate Cosponsors. You would think that a bill that is not only supported by 80% of the Illinois Senate, but actually sponsored by 80%, would be law. One Senator, Emil Jones, has killed the bill and that is that.
The General Assembly cannot pass simple reforms right now, much less the constitutional changes that are required to fix our broken government. There are amendments in the General Assembly that contain many of the reforms that
Citizens could initiate referendum, but only on the legislative article of the constitution and then only the “structural and procedural” items it contains. Some good reforms could be made this way, but it would not fix the deep-seated structural problems (like counting “debt” as “income”) in the Constitution because those referenda would not be allowed.
That leaves the only option to fix the structural problems with our government and the current constitution is a constitutional convention. This is the precise reason why such a provision was put into the current constitution; to allow the people to take control and reform the government when all other avenues have failed.
The state is in dire shape with over $106 billion in debt, a failing pension, government officials on every level being investigated or indicted on federal corruption charges, and the needs and interests of citizens routinely being ignored.
Electing good politicians would help, but there are structural problems in our constitution and laws that close the political process to “outsiders”. Third party and independent candidates, for instance, have to get 10-15 times the number of signatures as “established” parties, for instance. More importantly, constitutions are written to restrict the harm bad politicians can do. That’s why there are “Bills of Rights” and “checks and balances” with a mind of keeping the level of harm as small as possible.
If a convention happens, it will take work to identify and elect reform-minded delegates and it won’t be easy. However, sitting by and hoping things get better means the state gets driven to bankruptcy, more politicians get indicted and the needs of the citizens continue to be ignored. This November, citizens have the power to take back their government and effect the changes that are needed before it’s too late. The General Assembly has failed; now it falls to us.
Can a Constitutional Convention Fix Illinois’ Broken Government?
There are two arguments that a constitutional convention is inadvisable: the necessary changes can be made through other means (i.e. electing better politicians) and that there is no way to ensure that reform-minded delegates get elected. Skipping past the individual merits of these arguments for a moment, the arguments perfectly illustrate the problem. On one hand, we need to elect better politicians (I agree); on the other hand, we can’t enough elect good politicians to make a difference (I also agree). The opposition to a convention presents no solutions, just another intractable problem.
Fixing the balanced budget loophole that allows the state to count debt as “income”, ending gerrymandering, allowing binding citizen referenda, creating recall elections, enabling open ballot access and term limits all have to be done in a constitution. There exist only three ways to amend the constitution. The legislature can do it, citizens can have a referendum to amend the legislature article only, or a constitutional convention must be convened.
Currently the General Assembly is required to pass only one bill per year, the state budget. They could not even do that without being months late and still engaging in chicanery. HB 1, one of the many state ethics reforms bills in the General Assembly was passed 116-0 in the House and has 47 Senate Cosponsors. You would think that a bill that is not only supported by 80% of the Illinois Senate, but actually sponsored by 80%, would be law. One Senator, Emil Jones, has killed the bill and that is that.
The General Assembly cannot pass simple reforms right now, much less the constitutional changes that are required to fix our broken government. There are amendments in the General Assembly that contain many of the reforms that
Citizens could initiate referendum, but only on the legislative article of the constitution and then only the “structural and procedural” items it contains. Some good reforms could be made this way, but it would not fix the deep-seated structural problems (like counting “debt” as “income”) in the Constitution because those referenda would not be allowed.
That leaves the only option to fix the structural problems with our government and the current constitution is a constitutional convention. This is the precise reason why such a provision was put into the current constitution; to allow the people to take control and reform the government when all other avenues have failed.
The state is in dire shape with over $106 billion in debt, a failing pension, government officials on every level being investigated or indicted on federal corruption charges, and the needs and interests of citizens routinely being ignored.
Electing good politicians would help, but there are structural problems in our constitution and laws that close the political process to “outsiders”. Third party and independent candidates, for instance, have to get 10-15 times the number of signatures as “established” parties, for instance. More importantly, constitutions are written to restrict the harm bad politicians can do. That’s why there are “Bills of Rights” and “checks and balances” with a mind of keeping the level of harm as small as possible.
If a convention happens, it will take work to identify and elect reform-minded delegates and it won’t be easy. However, sitting by and hoping things get better means the state gets driven to bankruptcy, more politicians get indicted and the needs of the citizens continue to be ignored. This November, citizens have the power to take back their government and effect the changes that are needed before it’s too late. The General Assembly has failed; now it falls to us.
Can a Constitutional Convention Fix Illinois’ Broken Government?
There are two arguments that a constitutional convention is inadvisable: the necessary changes can be made through other means (i.e. electing better politicians) and that there is no way to ensure that reform-minded delegates get elected. Skipping past the individual merits of these arguments for a moment, the arguments perfectly illustrate the problem. On one hand, we need to elect better politicians (I agree); on the other hand, we can’t enough elect good politicians to make a difference (I also agree). The opposition to a convention presents no solutions, just another intractable problem.
Fixing the balanced budget loophole that allows the state to count debt as “income”, ending gerrymandering, allowing binding citizen referenda, creating recall elections, enabling open ballot access and term limits all have to be done in a constitution. There exist only three ways to amend the constitution. The legislature can do it, citizens can have a referendum to amend the legislature article only, or a constitutional convention must be convened.
Currently the General Assembly is required to pass only one bill per year, the state budget. They could not even do that without being months late and still engaging in chicanery. HB 1, one of the many state ethics reforms bills in the General Assembly was passed 116-0 in the House and has 47 Senate Cosponsors. You would think that a bill that is not only supported by 80% of the Illinois Senate, but actually sponsored by 80%, would be law. One Senator, Emil Jones, has killed the bill and that is that.
The General Assembly cannot pass simple reforms right now, much less the constitutional changes that are required to fix our broken government. There are amendments in the General Assembly that contain many of the reforms that
Citizens could initiate referendum, but only on the legislative article of the constitution and then only the “structural and procedural” items it contains. Some good reforms could be made this way, but it would not fix the deep-seated structural problems (like counting “debt” as “income”) in the Constitution because those referenda would not be allowed.
That leaves the only option to fix the structural problems with our government and the current constitution is a constitutional convention. This is the precise reason why such a provision was put into the current constitution; to allow the people to take control and reform the government when all other avenues have failed.
The state is in dire shape with over $106 billion in debt, a failing pension, government officials on every level being investigated or indicted on federal corruption charges, and the needs and interests of citizens routinely being ignored.
Electing good politicians would help, but there are structural problems in our constitution and laws that close the political process to “outsiders”. Third party and independent candidates, for instance, have to get 10-15 times the number of signatures as “established” parties, for instance. More importantly, constitutions are written to restrict the harm bad politicians can do. That’s why there are “Bills of Rights” and “checks and balances” with a mind of keeping the level of harm as small as possible.
If a convention happens, it will take work to identify and elect reform-minded delegates and it won’t be easy. However, sitting by and hoping things get better means the state gets driven to bankruptcy, more politicians get indicted and the needs of the citizens continue to be ignored. This November, citizens have the power to take back their government and effect the changes that are needed before it’s too late. The General Assembly has failed; now it falls to us.
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.