PEORIA -- Would a convention to rewrite the Illinois constitution open a Pandora’s box of controversy or be a democratic exercise in fixing serious problems in the state?
Illinois voters next fall will have to decide whether to approve a convention to rewrite the Illinois Constitution. The required vote comes every 20 years.
The Peoria League of Women voters on April 19 heard two speakers debate whether or not to approve a new constitutional convention.
John Bambenek of Champaign, Il., a co-founder of Illinois Citizens Coalition, argued for the convention vote.
Jim Reed, director of government relations for the Illinois Education Association argued against the vote.
The lively, compelling debate left the League members and guests divided, as a show of hands and discussion revealed.
Bambenek said that the many serious issues facing Illinois, which apparently cannot be solved by the current state government, might be resolved by a better constitution.
He cited the state’s huge debt despite a balanced budget requirement, lack of full funding of state pensions, gerrymandered voting districts, late payment of bills, school funding and tax reform, ethics legislation, recall of public officials and other issues, especially the power of the General Assembly leadership to kill any initiative the leaders dislike, as problems that a new constitution could rectify.
“It’s the opportunity to change things,” said Bambenek, a Republican precinct committeeman who works as an internet security technician for the University of Illinois.
Reed, however, noted that the current 1970 constitution is considered a model of its kind, and its adoption followed years of study that has not occurred recently. Voters rejected a new convention in 1988 by a 3-1 margin, he said.
Problems in the state can be resolved without changing the constitution, he said, with amendments and laws. “New leadership in 2010 (would) take the state where it needs to go,” he said.
On the pension issue, Reed said, “there have been attempts by the governor to infuse cash (into the system.) The question is where we get the money. These are issues for the legislature.”
People are wary of the cost of a convention, which he estimated at $78 million or more, and suggested a convention would stifle other legislation as lawmakers waited for a new constitution to be developed.
Reed, an attorney who has worked for the Illinois Attorney General’s office, noted that prominent groups from labor to business oppose a new convention, while advocacy groups on the right and left want it.
He estimated that running to become a delegate may cost $200,000, and predicted “there will be organized campaigns.”
He suggested it might pass if Sen. Barack Obama with his message for change becomes the Democratic presidential nominee and endorses it.
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and others who advocate for democracy support it.
Bambenek expressed doubt that a convention would become a chaotic fight over hot button issues such as the death penalty, abortion rights and gay rights, and said gun rights might be the most divisive issue in a blue state.
If the measure passes, the General Assembly would decide details of the election for delegates and whether the races would be partisan or non-partisan.
During the discussion League members wondered whether a new constitution would offer change, since enforcement of any element in a constitution is always an issue.
Bambenek said a mechanism for lawsuits to enforce its provisions might be effective. A model he helped craft and other resources are available at this site.
Voters would have to approve a new constitution in an election for it to be adopted to replace the current constitution.
-- Elaine Hopkins
Comments