10.06.08 | The Big Con
By Greg Hinz, Crain's Chicago Business
In 1980, after Illinois legislators snuck through a fat pay hike for themselves, political "reformers" took revenge. Rallying under a banner of throw-the-rascals-out, they persuaded voters to radically alter the way members of the Illinois House were elected.
Nearly three decades later, voters again are being asked to give Springfield a drastic shaking up. Reopen the Illinois Constitution, the argument goes, and we'll really boot out the corrupt so-and-sos.
Would it surprise you to learn that some of the same folks who were involved in the first effort are involved in this one, too?
A simplistic political solution didn't work wonders 30 years ago — it may have made things worse — and it likely won't work now. Though arrogant agents of the status quo are overplaying their hand, voters need to look through the bull and their own justifiable anger on Nov. 4 when they decide whether to convene a constitutional convention, or con-con, to consider rewriting the state's seminal law.
I share today's anger.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has squeezed campaign cash out of darned near everyone who has ever gotten or sought a state job or contract. Gridlock has blocked action on infrastructure, revamping the state's outmoded tax system and even banning "pay-to-play" fundraising — the latter until Barack Obama intervened. Few legislative districts have competitive elections, and those that do are filled with mud and flooded with outside cash.
That's quite a list. Combined with the outrage over the bumbling federal response to Wall Street's collapse, it explains why increasing numbers of political insiders believe that voters on Nov. 4 will declare "enough is enough" and approve con-con.
Similar anger existed in 1980.
Voters already were irate over a then-legal practice in which lawmakers drew their entire salaries years in advance. Then, acting right after an election, officials voted themselves big pay hikes.
A fuse had been lit, and the call went out to teach greedy, unresponsive legislators a lesson. "The message was demagogic," recalls Dawn Clark Netsch, the former gubernatorial candidate, who then was a state senator. "It was, 'Let's get rid of some of these bums.' "
So voters approved a constitutional amendment. It reduced the size of the House by a third and, more important, replaced a system in which three House members were elected per district with one in which there was a single representative.
The most immediate result was that the Democratic Party virtually disappeared from the suburbs and the GOP from the city. Under the old system, odd-duck independents, controlled by no one, gained office because one party could win only two of each district's three seats. But folks like Democrat Bill Redmond from DuPage County and city Republicans Roy Sandquist and Art Telcser immediately lost their jobs under the new system, and party bosses grew in power.
"The House used to have a much freer way of representing people," Ms. Netsch summarizes. "Now, it's totally controlled."
One thing the "cutback amendment" didn't do: reform Springfield. If it had, we wouldn't be talking about reforming it again.
Fast-forward to today. If con-con occurs, it could in theory mandate recall for bad public officials, a new tax code and a non-partisan remap every decade. If, that is, independents rather than party schlubs were elected as con-con delegates, if they drafted the right document and if voters approved it in a referendum.
Con-con also could produce other results. Like a provision banning gun-control laws. That could pass. Or a provision guaranteeing abortion rights. Ditto.
The fact is, if people want to dump G-Rod, they can vote him out in two years or demand that their legislators impeach him. If voters really want to zap corporate fat cats to raise dough for schools, they can communicate that, too.
State Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, perhaps the state's biggest school funding advocate, is "on the fence" on con-con. While some advocates are blowing a lot of smoke at him about money for schools, "There's a lot of agendas out there," he says.
The senator is right. If voters open Pandora's box, they may not like what crawls out.
©2008 by Crain Communications Inc.
