Everyone’s got an opinion on this, well… except the people who have never heard of it until just this very moment. So if you happen to catch this before you go to vote, here’s some info on the pros and cons of the proposition for a Constitutional Convention in Illinois.
pros- — Term limits and/or recall votes. There is no limit on how many times governors, other statewide officers, state representatives or senators can run for re-election, and no provision for removing an officeholder before his or her term expires unless he or she is convicted of a felony. Con-con advocate John Bambenek states that “far too many politicians rule ‘for life’ without any real means for the voters to make them responsive to their needs.”– Clarifying or limiting the authority of the governor to call special sessions. Blagojevich has called more than 40 special sessions since taking office in 2003, more than all of his predecessors under the 1970 constitution combined. Most have not resulted in any legislative action.
– Graduated income tax rates (the current constitution mandates flat rates for all individuals and corporations regardless of income).
– A stronger mandate for the state, rather than local property tax payers, to bear the majority of the cost of public education. Illinois schools’ dependence on local property taxes has led to large funding disparities between wealthy suburban school districts and poor urban or rural districts.
– Limits on the governor’s amendatory veto power. The current constitution allows the governor to veto entire bills, remove or reduce line items in appropriation bills, or make changes in the wording of any bill. Legislators must then decide whether to accept the governor’s changes, muster enough votes to override them, or allow the entire bill to die. Blagojevich has used this power to effectively rewrite entire bills against the wishes of the General Assembly.
– Changes in the redistricting process which follows each federal census. The 1970 constitution provides for revised Congressional and legislative districts to be drawn up by an 8-member commission evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. If they cannot agree on a map (and they never have) a ninth member is chosen by random drawing. The result, inevitably, is a map designed by the political party with whom the tiebreaking member is affiliated. District boundaries are in some cases wildly gerrymandered to insure the dominance of a particular party.
cons- — Potential cost. The 1970 convention lasted nine months and cost more than $14 million, equivalent to more than $80 million today. The expense is difficult to justify when the state is closing parks and other facilities and making severe program cuts because of budget shortfalls.
– Constitutional provisions guaranteeing the pensions of current state employees and retirees could be scrapped in an attempt to relieve the state of a looming future financial burden caused, in large part, by intentional under-funding of the pension systems.
– Special interest groups may use the convention as a platform to battle over hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage, gun control, abortion and the death penalty. The death penalty was an issue during the 1970 convention, and an amendment that would have abolished it was submitted to voters separately from the main constitution. It was rejected. (A new con-con could also allow a separate vote on the most controversial measures so as not to imperil the entire document.)
– The time and effort devoted to a con-con would distract officeholders and the public from more urgent public needs such as education, transportation and healthcare. But con-con backers argue that urgent public needs have been neglected for years anyway and a convention could not make the situation any worse.
– A con-con would “create an atmosphere of uncertainty” that would discourage businesses from coming to or remaining in the state, since they would not know what kind of tax or regulation structure they would face in the future.
– State government’s lack of action is not the fault of the “system”, but of the people currently in office. The solution is to vote for the right people, not change a basically sound system.
So there you go, a few things to consider. Click on the link in the thread for a little more information. Voting is good, informed voting is even better.
