BY DAN CAMPANA
Early voting the other day, my fingers paused when the electronic voting machine asked me whether I wanted a state constitutional convention.
Say it out loud -- CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION . Wow. Sure sounds like a big deal. And for us, the responsbile voting public, to decide what to do with this sacred state document? Wow, again.
With the pressure mounting, thoughts of what it all means racing through my head, I ...
... can't tell you yet. What fun would that be?
In all honesty, when word of the con-con began to surface, it seemed like a pretty cool idea. A bunch of folks get together, come up with some ideas to fix flaws created by the Illinois Constitution adopted in 1970 and pass onto voters the chance to enact a nifty new document that reflects life here in 2008.
Pro con-con guy Bruno Behrend stopped by Beacon Election Central a couple of weeks ago to reinforce that notion. Armed with a 68-page book/infomercial dubbed "Illinois Deserves Better: The Ironclad Case FOR an Illinois Constitutional Convention," he said the road to brighter Illinois was just a couple of votes away.
Want a better way to pay for schools? Hate gerrymandering of legislative districts? Think a balanced, properly funded budget is a good idea? Those are just some of things that can be fixed IF there is a con-con and IF these concepts are eventually refashioned for another vote by Illinois residents.
Hmmm. I don't like that second "if." Anyway, let me oversimply a few of the basics:
-- A 3/5ths majority is needed next week to approve the con-con.
-- An election to pick 118 convention delegates will follow -- at some point, whenever our folks in Springfield decide to hold it. You, your brother-in-law or any politician in training can be a delegate. Of course, you'll have to beat an inevitable slew of special-interest candidates, but Behrend thinks enough right-minded people are available to keep so-called proxies in check.
-- Within three months of that election, it's convention time.
-- The convention has no time limit, per se, although certain things like money keep it from going on forever, according to Behrend.
-- The state pays for this thing, which could cost $50-80 million. Behrend believes it will be closer to the low end, and that the money is out there to foot the bill.
-- Eventually, delegates decide on what the constitution should look like, and voters statewide decide if they actually want it.
Like I said, oversimplification. For a more detailed account of all this, check out the Illinois General Assembly's Web site.
Basically, if you think Springfield is broken, this is your chance to fix it. Opponents say save the money since there's already an amendment process to make right the constitutional wrongs we've lived with for 38 years.
As my voting finger approached the screen, THE CATCH popped into my head. We could do all this -- three elections, a bunch of delegates making a little stipend dough and a ton of debate -- and get nothing out of it
You could vote yes now, but dislike enough of a proposed new constitution down the road, and it ends up being an overpriced civics lesson in cash-strapped state.
Behrend counters that a "no" vote now means we don't even get a chance to make a change. The cost, he continues, is small in comparison to the financial benefits possible out of a better-designed constitution. Fair arguments.
Ultimately, my finger tapped "no" on the screen. Why? Because my cynical side has little faith in who our delegate choices would be and how they'd guide the process toward an improved constitution. Springfield might be a mess, but the convention sounds like amateur hour (many of them) with our money.
Voters defeated a con-con in 1988, will history repeat?
This constitution is a BAD idea for Illinois. Please VOTE NO on Tuesday. For one thing, this constitution will give Springfield the right to use the pensions of IL municipality workers to pay for things they messed up. There are many IL organizations that are against this constitution.
It's not a constitution; it's a constitution convention. Allow me to quote political columnist Rich Miller on what really could happen to some public pensions:
"No matter what happens at the constitutional convention, state and local governments cannot legally reduce pension payments to current retirees. A convention cannot legally take away pension payment benefits already earned by current employees.
And, of course, everything decided at the constitutional convention would have to then be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum.
A convention could, however, change a few words in the current constitution that would allow the General Assembly to eventually make changes, such as reduce future pension benefits, including health care benefits, for current workers or workers yet to be hired. But it's highly improbable that the convention delegates themselves would micromanage pension funding proposals."
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/miller/1218543,101408miller.article
I voted early, and I voted for the constitutional convention. I did so, in part, because I hope the convention will end up proposing meaningful education funding reform.
I acknowledge the problems that Dan points out in his post, but I can't think the end result of a constitutional convention can be much worse than what goes on in Springfield now.
Sorry to hear you allowed cynicism to trump your faith. At least you thought about it, which is more than one can say about Kathy Union Drone, soaking up and repeating all the lies of her corrupt masters at the Union hall.
Kathy, you dingbat! We wanted to strengthen pension protections.
Stop parroting the lies of your masters. Think for yourself.