Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is calling on Secretary of State Jesse White to
redraft the language of this year's Con-Con ballot question because it is
"biased" and therefore "illegal," his legal adviser said yesterday.
Quinn, a vocal proponent of convening a ...
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is calling on Secretary of State Jesse White to
redraft the language of this year's Con-Con ballot question because it is
"biased" and therefore "illegal," his legal adviser said yesterday.
Quinn, a vocal proponent of convening a constitutional convention in 2010, filed an administrative petition (part two can be found here) with White yesterday, requesting that he strike a sentence from the ballot that recounts the outcome of the 1988 election (the last time the electorate had the opportunity to call for a Con-Con). Here's the "proposed call" slated to appear on the November 4 ballot in Illinois. The bolded line is the one Quinn wants removed:
This proposal deals with a call for a state constitutional convention. The last such convention was held in 1969-70, and a new Constitution was adopted in 1970. The 1970 Illinois Constitution requires that the question of calling a convention be placed before the voters every 20 years. In 1988 the electors rejected the call for a constitutional convention, with 75% voting against calling a convention and 25% voting in favor of calling a convention. If you believe that the 1970 Illinois Constitution needs to be revised through the convention process, vote "YES" on the question of calling a constitutional convention. If you believe that calling a constitutional convention is not necessary, or that change can be accomplished through other means, vote "NO" on the calling of a constitutional convention.
"We think that that statement there is ... a subtle way of suggesting that supporting Con-Con is a fringe position," said Sean Vinck, Quinn's legislative counsel. "We just want a real simple question: 'Are you for or against Con-Con.'"
If Quinn's challenge is successful, he'll have to race against the clock to get the language changed. A revised ballot question would have to be reviewed again by the State Board of Elections, which already signed off on the wording in late August. Since it's been certified, election authorities now have the go-ahead to begin printing up ballots.
Comments
Login or register to post comments