Officials split over holding constitutional convention

Font Size:

By Mike Riopell | Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:52 PM CDT | () comments

SPRINGFIELD — Over the past 40 years, lawmakers and voters have changed the Illinois Constitution 10 times to alter various tax and criminal issues, even reducing the number of state lawmakers serving in the General Assembly.

On Election Day, voters get to decide whether the state should convene a rare constitutional convention to review the top law in the state.

State officials and prominent interest groups are split over whether a full-blown convention is a good idea. But both sides say recent displeasure among voters with the actions of state government may manifest itself in a call for revised constitution.

“I think people are frustrated to the point that they want a protest vote,” said state Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington.

Convention supporters say now is the perfect time for a review of the document because of gridlock among lawmakers and Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Specifically, the ballot’s convention question could become an approval poll of Blagojevich and the state’s other top Democrats who control almost all aspects of state government.

“That’s basically what they’ve been telling me,” said state Rep. Mike Boland, an East Moline Democrat and convention supporter.

But supporters looking for a change are up against a vast assortment of lobbying groups who appear ready to spend big money in the final week before the election to prevent it.

The Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution has raised more than $1 million since July to urge voters to vote “no” on the convention question.

Among the groups in the alliance is the Bloomington-based Illinois Farm Bureau. They argue the constitution can be changed without a special convention. The opponents say the event could cost up to $80 million at a time when the state budget is hurting.

Also, farm bureau spokesman Kevin Semlow argues, the convention might end up being controlled by the same people who now run government, making change unlikely.

“The constitution is not what is broken,” Semlow said.

Convention supporters argue just the opposite. Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said the last convention 40 years ago didn’t include many lawmakers. And while the General Assembly and voters can amend the constitution without a big convention, Quinn says they likely won’t.

“The legislature and the governor alone aren’t going to reform themselves,” he said.

For his part, Blagojevich is mostly staying on the sidelines, with an aide saying the governor is “leaning towards no.”

For the convention to be approved, either 60 percent of those voting on the question or a majority of all voters need to approve. After that, the General Assembly would set rules for the convention, including how delegates would be elected. After the convention ends, voters would have to approve any changes.

Unlike many issues in Springfield, this one doesn’t appear to be split along party lines.

Instead, there appear to be other issues.

For example, state Rep. Mike Bost, a Murphysboro Republican, says he opposes a convention because once delegates are elected, too much power will be concentrated in the hands of people from the Chicago area. He said they wouldn’t understand the issues of central and southern Illinois.

The question comes up every 20 years, and in 1988, the proposal was defeated handily.

This year, the very language on the ballot has become controversial. Instead of asking about a constitutional convention as a simple yes or no question, the ballot language reminds voters that the same proposal failed two decades ago.

Convention supporters argued that language would influence people to vote “no.”

Supporters’ hopes for a convention vary widely. Some want the constitution changed so the state would be more responsible for education funding. Others want to see an amendment allowing voters to recall state officials such as the governor in the middle of their terms.

Mike Riopell can be reached at mike.riopell@lee.net or (217) 789-0865.

Most state officials against con-con question

Statewide elected officials are either voting “no” or leaning that way regarding the Nov. 4 ballot question.

Here’s how they stack up:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich: Spokesman Lucio Guerrero said it’s a close call, but he’s “leaning” toward voting “no” because he’s concerned that provisions regarding membership in labor unions could be altered.

Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn: He supports the constitutional question, saying it would give Illinois voters a voice in how government operates.

Secretary of State Jesse White: He’s voting “no,” saying it would be too costly during tough budget times. “He likes the document as it exists,” said White spokesman Dave Druker.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan: As part of her duties, the attorney general is representing the defendants in court on the issue of whether the wording on the ballot was misleading. Because of that, a spokeswoman said it would be “inappropriate for her to provide her personal opinion on it.”

Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias: Although he said in August that “it’s probably a good idea,” the treasurer now says he is opposed. “The treasurer is concerned about the cost of a constitutional convention during these tough economic times, especially when there are no guarantees that things would change for the better or that fundamental issues would be addressed,” spokeswoman Sarah Wojcicki said.

Comptroller Dan Hynes: He is opposed. He says it would be too expensive and there are other ways to amend the constitution without opening up the entire document for review.

— Kurt Erickson