The Constitutional Convention question that appears on the ballot this November is the subject of a court challenge. I blogged about the circumstances and issues at my County Clerk blog.
What I find striking is that "everyone" who knows anything seems to be against this but for some reason the powers that be (especially the General Assembly) have had to stretch so many legal and ethical limits to try to stack the deck against the Con Con. Hopefully we'll have a straight up and down vote on this issue, at some point, without the monkey business given to us by the various characters in this process.
When you say "'everyone' who knows anything seems to be against this" do you mean against con-con itself, or against the way the ballot question was worded? And what do you mean by "everyone who knows anything"?
Classic Illinois politics, elected and appointed doing pulling out all the stops to fight off any chance of deminishing their corrupt power structure. This provides another basis for low voter turnout. Unlike you Mark, I do not favor moving the vote to 2010 based upon the impact of any delay.
I've asked this before and not gotten an answer. Will someone please tell me how a new constitution will change the "corrupt power structure." Will it have a provision barring idiots from being elected governor? Will it have a provision barring Bill Celini from having any influence in Springfield? Will it provide that legislators from downstate Illinois will have two votes for every vote from north of I-80? Will it guarantee that Emil Jones and Mike Madigan can't have egos? What, exactly, is the new constitution supposed to change?
My suspicion is that the current mess in Springfield is just being used as an excuse for constitutional changes that have nothing to do with the mess. The Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party (but I repeat myself) would like to restrict the rights of plaintiffs in lawsuits and make it harder to collect workers compensation. The social conservatives would like to restrict abortion choice and make sure no judge can find a right for gays to marry. I don't know this for a fact, but I am suspicious that there is an agenda by the proponents of a new constitution and that they're not leveling with us on exactly what that agenda is. They're counting on the general disgust with Springfield to enact their agenda. That's why I'm voting against con-con unless someone can convince me otherwise.
"What, exactly, is the new constitution supposed to change?"
My personal goal would be to enact hard-and-fast rules for transparency. Real budget hearings weeks before voting on it, 100 percent, 48-hour online disclosure of campaign fundraising and spending, stronger FOIA with real penalties for non-compliance.
I'd also favor some structural reforms limiting the powers of the legislative leadership, and of the veto powers of the Governor. I'd consolidate the statewide offices. Recall and initiative and reasonable ballot access for all would be nice, too.
Perhaps most controversially, I'd eliminate property taxes.
Of course, all of these things could be done with legislation under the current constitution. But there have been no serious attempts, either by the clowns running the state now or previously.
That said, you're right in that we're getting exactly the government we deserve.
"The Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party (but I repeat myself) would like to restrict the rights of plaintiffs in lawsuits and make it harder to collect workers compensation."
The Illinois Chamber of Commerce is opposed to Con-Con.
"I don't know this for a fact, but I am suspicious that there is an agenda by the proponents of a new constitution and that they're not leveling with us on exactly what that agenda is."
As far as I can tell, there are no prominent supporters of Con-Con. All the "players" (unions, business groups, interest groups) are working against it. If you're looking for an agenda, I would start with those opposed to a Con-Con rather than the much-less-prominent supporters.
In reference to Mark's post above, the ballot language has been declared unconstitutional.
Ezra-
I'm a cofounder of one of the groups (Illinois Citizens Coalition) and we've been quite up front with what we want. For instance, you could read our book, Illinois Deserves Better to get an idea, or even look at the draft constitution which we wrote. I can't speak for all the groups, of course, but we're being intentionally up front with what we want to change, why, and how it will make Illinois function better.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Mark and John-keep up the good fight. I will help any way I can. I read the trial lawyers statement about this and I know bs when I step in it.
Well at least you've given me something, IP and Babenek. More transparency is certainly a laudable goal. The elimination of property taxes I'm not so sure about, at least without knowing what it would do to state income tax rates Babenek, I won't buy your book, but I will read carefully your proposed new constitution and compare it with the existing one. I did notice that it eliminates townships. That seems rather drastic given the problem with overlapping township and municipal governments seems to be a problem mostly in growing urban areas like Champaign. But I could be convinced. I'll study what you've got.
"Well at least you've given me something, IP and Babenek."
Just to clarify - Bambenek is part of an organized push to get pass the Con-Con referendum, and I'm not. I was just sharing my off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts as to what I might like to see in a new constitution, but if there's any overlap between my list and Bambenek's proposals, it's coincidental.
I don't want them to be held responsible for my hare-brained ideas. :-)
I like in the draft consitution:
"(e) Only real property may be taken via eminent domain action and any property so taken must be held by the governing body for a period of no less than 50 years before which it cannot be transferred, sold or leased to any private body."
I also like the improvements to the pension system for state workers. I might add though that funds in pension accounts cannot be used for any other purpose or used as collateral for bonds etcetera. I would also add that the pension system must be fully funded to meet future obligations.
When I read about townships, it seemed to merge them into municipalities, not simply drop all their functions. Anything that limits 7,000 local taxing bodies in illinois is a net plus