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."