Earlier this week, we flagged a New Republic piece in which Nicholas Stephanopolous made the "case for regularly amending state constitutions -- or at least having the opportunity to" do so. Citing the demise of constitutional convention referenda this year in Hawaii, Connecticut, and of course, Illinois, Stephanopolous concluded:

[C]onvention referenda are useful even if they fail. When the public votes against holding a constitutional convention, it sends a powerful message that it is satisfied with how things are or, at least, opposes the proposals of the convention's supporters. Those supporters can then no longer claim a mandate for their ideas.

While this may be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the defeats in Hawaii and Connecticut, it just doesn't apply here in the Prairie State. 

Most residents are not at all satisfied with the state of Illinois government at the moment.  Indeed, the sheer distrust of Illinois political leaders led many to vote against Con-Con.  There was rampant concern about the role those same politicians and special interests would play in the convention process.  

Secondly, the Con-Con supporters -- a bipartisan group with a wide range of viewpoints and specific interests -- put forth many different proposals.  To translate the referendum's defeat as a rejection of all those ideas seems absurd.  For instance, convention opponent Dawn Clark Netsch repeatedly said that she agreed with some of the revisions proposed by the supporters, while at the same time arguing that opening up the document was not worth the risk in this political environment.

In short, what Stephanopolous overlooked is the toxicity factor, in which voters desperately want change and reform at the state level but just don't believe a constitutional convention will provide a fresh playing field.