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.
Leslie M. Golden (not verified) on Thu, 09/18/2008 - 06:35
The phrase "or that change can be accomplished through other means" is also electioneering and should be pulled.
The revised election law provides local election officials the ability to cleanse a faulty ballot, the result of Les "Cut the Taxes" Golden getting ballot access and defeating Cook County Clerk David Orr in court when he tried to remove the ISBE-certified name on the 2002 ballot. Orr, while the case was in the appellate court destined to be sustained, directed his friends in the General Assembly to pass the cleansing provision of the election code.
Unless that new authority is solely to keep Cut the Taxes off the ballot, the law demands that the county and city authorities remove the electioneering on the Con Co proposal. They, as well as the ISBE, should be the focus of a law suit. This all shows that, despite their public admission that Con Con should be convened, the state legislators, who drafted the language upon which the Secty of State and ISBE prepared the ballot, are hypocrites. They fear a Con Con as providing term limits, which means they would have to go get a job.
Two other states have con con proposals on the Nov. 4 ballot and they simply ask the Yes-No question. Les Golden, Director, Media Relations, YES for Illinois (yesforillinois.com).