The Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, a coalition of business leaders, unions, and civic organizations that oppose a constitutional convention, held its first press conference yesterday, asking voters to vote "no" on the November referendum:
"There is no question there has been too much inaction and infighting in Springfield, but it's the politicians, not the constitution, that are at fault," said former State Representative Nancy Kaszak, executive director of the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution. "Changing the Constitution because we're unhappy with our leaders of the moment would be like junking your entire car just because it has a flat tire. A constitutional convention could jeopardize constitutional guarantees like protection from discrimination, the affirmation of basic freedoms and equal rights and tax caps."
Capitol Fax's Rich Miller takes a look at the critiques of Con-Con put forth by the Alliance and comes away unimpressed:
I haven’t closed my mind on this topic by any means. I’m totally open to sound, logical, reasoned arguments for a “No” vote that don’t resort to silly fear and loathing tactics. But those were few and far between during yesterday’s press conference.
Miller makes some valid points and offers some useful context regarding the amendatory process.
Dan Johnson-Weinberger also responded vociferously to the Alliance presser, providing a quick rundown of the deficiencies in the Illinois constitution and concluding with these thoughts:
Only the electorate could amend the constitution. The delegates to the convention could suggest amendments. But only the electorate could approve or reject them
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn criticized the Alliance's position as well:
People are sick and tired of the political feuds, they don't like an unfair tax system and corruption that exists for far too long in Illinois and this is our chance to send a message to Springfield that it's time to reform and the people are gonna get the job done.
Quinn estimated that the convention would cost only $13 million, which as Miller pointed out, is very unlikely.
But one crucial critique of the convention process that Kascak brought up during the presser -- and that Miller didn't acknowledge in his post -- is Article 14, Section 1 of the current constitution, which stipulates that the state legislature sets the rules for the convention, deciding how the election will be run, how the votes will be tabulated, when and where it meets, and whether delegates are to be elected on a partisan or non-partisan basis. Here's Kaszak from our feature article on this debate:
“This is a dangerous time to give the keys to the constitution over to the folks who are in leadership in Springfield,” says Nancy Kaszak, former state representative and executive director of the Alliance To Protect The Illinois Constitution, a coalition of civic leaders who oppose Con-Con. “These folks have difficulty passing budgets and … [they] can’t even agree when to meet.”
While this doesn't necessarily mean that a convention couldn't be run successfully and without undue political influence, the fact that the legislature -- with all its current dysfunction -- would be in charge of setting up Con-Con seems to be one of the stronger arguments against it -- more so than pointing out the potential cost to taxpayers or the possibility of "discord and distractions from our pressing everyday problems."
Comments
on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 15:22
Thanks for the fair coverage (particularly since SEIU is opposed).
Thinking this through, I'd say that Nancy Kaszak's position is inconsistent. On the one hand, she (and the Alliance) say that the amendment process works, so we can trust the legislature and the legislative leaders to fix the real deficiencies in the constitution (the flat tax, the lack of any right to a funded education, etc.). On the other hand, she (and the Alliance) say that the reason we shouldn't elect new people to a convention is because the legislature and the legislative leaders will set the terms of that election up. So therefore, because we don't trust the legislature and the leaders to set the terms of the election to the convention, don't have the election at all and instead trust the legislature and the legislative leaders to choose what amendments the electorate can accept or reject themselves.
If they aren't good enough to fairly set the terms of the election to the convention, how could they be good enough to run the amendment process altogether?
That's another reason why I'm voting yes (and I do think by the way that the terms of the election are likely to be pretty fair). I think most legislators would like to solve problems and if the con-con can do it, then from most of their perspectives, great.
on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 21:43
I'm not sure where this idea that the rules for a convention are decided by the ILGA. The convention is an *independent body* from the ILGA. What the ILGA does is set up an election, give the convention a budget, set the pay, provide them a building and set a start date. That's it. They COULD write the rules, but I would go to court to have them struck down, or simply ignore them. Failing both, I'd say first order of business, rewrite the rules.
The election is determined by the ILGA, but they use the Senate maps and there is only so much the Voting Rights Act lets them do to an election. For instance, you suggest they get to determine how votes are tabulated. The VRA says there is only one way to tabulate votes... one person, one vote. Having been around enough non-partisan races, I've seen them to be just as partisan.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.