In a letter to the Tribune today, former congressman, federal appeals court judge, and White House counsel Abner Mikva explained why he opposes a Constitutional Convention in 2010:

I maintain that the arguments being made in Illinois today in favor of a constitutional convention are not based on the positive reasons cited above but, rather, as a reaction to a perception that government leaders have failed and as an opportunity to advance various special interests from across the political spectrum.

The risks of a constitutional convention driven by the special interests are real, and the casualties could include the power of local governments, an independent judiciary, civil rights for minorities, women and gay people and the rights of gun owners and gun victims alike, to name a few.

Voter disenchantment with Springfield has made the possibility of recall for elected officials an attractive reason for a constitutional convention, but even there the risk for unworkable provisions that hamstring legislators or interfere with judicial independence are real.

A constitutional convention is not the way for Illinois to address its current gridlock, heal its divisiveness or fix a failure of leadership. That's what elections are for.

Later this week, we'll be publishing video highlights from a Con-Con debate between Dawn Clark Netsch and Greg Pierce that took place about a month ago in Chicago.  So be on the look out for that, as well as much more Con-Con coverage as Election Day nears.