|
ARCHIVES October News Contact: |
10.07.08 | Don't vote for a new constitutional convention Springfield is stuck -- really stuck -- in the muck of power and partisan politics. On Election Day, voters fed up with the squabbling and the abysmal lack of leadership will be looking for a fix. Awaiting them on the ballot is, at first blush, a tempting option: a vote on whether to hold a convention to revise the state's Constitution. A constitutional convention, proponents say, would let ordinary folks take matters into their own hands and fix the structural weaknesses of state governance that have led to gridlock. Equally attractive, they say, it would give grassroot reformers a chance to circumvent the gridlocked political process and solve major policy problems that have festered for decades. If nothing else, a "yes" vote would send a message of disgust to our dysfunctional Legislature -- and who doesn't want that? It's tempting, all right. But don't do it. The problems of Springfield are best blamed on the failures of our political leaders, not on the Constitution; and the risk of bad, unintended consequences in rewriting it are real. A convention could do more harm than good to the Constitution, which is generally sound. Every 20 years, Illinois voters consider a convention to redo the state's Constitution. Voters approved the last convention in 1968. At that 1970 "con-con," as it is called, elected delegates overhauled the state's then-100-year-old Constitution. Voters subsequently approved the new document, bringing Illinois into the modern era. The new Constitution established strong home rule authority for local governments, allowed for a state income tax and granted the governor strong veto power. It was the work of a broad consensus across the state, supported by the established powers of the day -- most crucially Mayor Richard J. Daley. It has been held up as a model for other states. But in Illinois in 2008, there is no broad support for a convention, certainly not among the powers that be or among a wide range of unlikely allies, including the League of Women Voters, the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois Federation of Teachers. A con-con today, given our fractious times, easily might be dominated by single-issue crusaders, paid lobbyists and the same feuding politicians running the state now. They will be the ones who decide whether delegates to the convention are elected on a partisan or non-partisan basis (say goodbye, folks, to heavy grass-roots participation) and set the convention's budget. Proponents of a convention tout specific goals that could be achieved by revising the Constitution: A more equitable system of school funding, more stringent ethics standards for public officials, the creation of a recall system to toss out bad elected officials and term limits. On those first two enormously controversial issues -- school finance and ethics -- we have little confidence con-con delegates could get the job done, although we would cheer them on. The same self-preserving opposition to ethics reform and the same conflicting philosophies of taxation that have made legislative action so difficult would be present at the convention. As for the second two issues -- recall powers and term limits -- we are loath to rewrite the Constitution out of frustration with one unpopular governor. The dangerous wild card in all this, however, is not so much what a convention might fail to do, but what it might do. Once the Constitution is thrown open, anything goes. A woman's right to choose an abortion could be curtailed. Same-sex marriage could be permitted or prohibited. Home rule authority, crucial to ability of cities such as Chicago to manage their finances, could be substantially weakened. Do we honestly fear the Constitution would be so completely overhauled? Not really. Without a shared agenda among the state's power brokers -- as there was in 1970 -- our best guess is nothing would be changed. But if those who favor a convention are right in saying big reforms would be possible, be forewarned: those "reforms" could be more where they hurt than where they help. The real solution to the games in Springfield is not a new constitution; it is a set of players who have the best interests of Illinois as their goal. © 2008. Chicago Sun-Times. |
