A number of local groups came out against a constitutional convention yesterday.
Representatives with the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters of Greater Peoria, the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Labor Council of West Central Illinois gathered Monday at Peoria City Hall to voice their disapproval with a referendum they claim will only exacerbate problems in the state.
“We believe it’s inappropriate, unpredictable and expensive,” League President Mary Jane Crowell said.
Their basic premise is that there’s nothing wrong with the state’s constitution. Rather, the problems in the state house are the result of bad behavior by our elected representatives. All we need to do is elect different (better) people and Springfield will be fixed. If anyone has a problem with the constitution, they should work on amending it, rather than rewriting it.
The pro-constitutional-convention website Yes for Illinois counters this argument:
Some “No” proponents argue that we can improve the state through “better leadership”. That’s fine on paper, but it reminds us of all the “guaranteed rights” in the Soviet Constitution. You can talk about better leadership, but how will we ever get better leaders.
It is our position…that while there are many good people in Illinois who could do a better job than their current legislators, they have precious little chance of getting elected, given Illinois gamed system of election laws and ballot access hoops….
This can’t be fixed by “electing better people” for one very simple reason. “Better people” are locked out of this system. ONLY dynamic changes of the kind brought about by a Constitutional Convention offers the opportunity to bring “better people” into the process.
A good example of that is how the legislative districts are drawn. Take a look at this political map:
This is textbook gerrymandering. Legislators are picking their voters instead of the other way around. So, what incentive is there for an elected representative to fight for a redrawing of a legislative district that he or she won? The system is fundamentally broken, which is why a constitutional convention is critical.
A “no” vote is a vote for the status quo. And we know the status quo isn’t working.
What is the financial cost of a constitutional convention? Can the state of Illinois afford that kind of spending right now? Why would anyone trust the present Springfield legislators to make wise decisions about changes in the constitution. My vote for Joan Krupa was sealed when she told me she would vote “no” to a constitutional convention.
It will cost upwards of $100 million for a con con. AND…the people who would make the changes are the people in office NOW. A “no” vote is for the status quo – but it’s a lot better than handing the money-grubbing sleazebags currently in the state assembly the power to change our constitution! we have one of the most citizen-friendly constitutions. PLEASE PLEASE research this before voting yes. It won’t fix the current problems in Springfield – only magnify them.
If men were angels there would be no need for a government.(A. Hamilton)
If a beat up car was driven by you or me the performance of that car in a competitive race would be poor at best. If the car was driven by Jeff Gordon it still would not be able to be competitive. It would only be less likely to cause an accident. Same with Illinois government If we had angels in springfield the govt would limp along and only stay out of the wrecks along the way.
ep-blondie: Not true. We would elect delegates to the constitutional convention — it would not be the people in office now who would be making changes to the constitution.
Furthermore, the constitution that ultimately comes out of the convention would have to be approved by the voters. So if it’s a turkey, we can vote it down and it won’t be enacted. There are safeguards built in.
PLEASE PLEASE research this before voting “no.” Don’t be paralyzed by fear. We can make this constitution and this state better. Be brave; be confident; vote yes.
Thanks for reporting on this C.J.. I got my pamphlet from Jesse White recently, and I’ve consulted a couple other sources related to the con con idea.
IF I vote in November–and that’s a big if right now–I would likely vote yes. The cost does concern me a bit, particularly in light of the current economic problems. But, I think we are at the point where this more radical solution may be called for. The groups that oppose the measure may not agree on much, but I think they do share
a deep distrust of a more participatory form of democracy. If going to the polls every couple years and placing your faith in the professional political class is your idea of democracy, then so be it. I believe there is more to citizenship than those in government, business groups and establishment labor organizations would have us believe.
You should have posted the Congressional district map too… it’s even worse!
The gerrymandering of Congressional District 4 (in Chicago) and Congressional District 17 (Phil Hare’s district) is absolutely ridiculous.
Congressional districts are drawn by the same people who do the legislative districts.
Also, in every single instance since the 1970 Constitution took effect, the party who controls redistricting has been chosen by random drawing — provided for in the Constitution — because a committee of 4 Dems and 4 Repubs appointed to that task has never been able to agree on a map (surprise, surprise).
Yet another reason to vote for Con-Con.