Illinois Members, vote yes for a Constitutional Convention in November

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,882
Location
Alma Illinois
I now that it's always dangerous to fool around with a document like that. The current Illinois constitution does not give us RKBA. It plays lip service to the notion of RKBA, but any right that is subject to the police power is not a right, it's a sham, a lie. Total gun bans are constitutional in Illinois. We need to fix that.

We also need to break the stranglehold Chicago has on the rest of the state. A redistribution of senate seats so they are based on geography would accomplish that.

The current sad state of affairs is a direct result of politicians abusing the poorly written document that came out of the 1970 convention. Fortunately, it's not 1970 anymore and the mood of the electorate has changed. Over 100 counties have passed resolutions stating they won't tolerate any more gun control. Winnebago county is talking about implementing CCW.

A constitutional convention will be our best chance to address the issue for 20 years. There will be no reform through the legislature. Pat Fitzgerald will be replaced as US Attorney for the Chicago area, most likely the day after the next president takes office. The cleanup he started for us will stop. Unfortunatly that won't be enough time for him to finish his work.

Now is the time to act. Once we get the con-con we have to stay involved. Run for delegate or give a lot of support to a delegate candidate you have vetted.


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...8884EA2FB566E512862574430013A368?OpenDocument
Ill. voters to vote on 'Con-Con'
By Kathleen Haughney
POST-DISPATCH SPRINGFIELD BUREAU
05/08/2008

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois voters in November will get to decide whether to have a constitutional convention and revamp the state's governing document.

The question of whether to rewrite the state constitution is automatically put to voters every 20 years, and Illinoisans rejected the idea in 1988. But some veteran political observers and activists believe that voters may think differently this year because of the state's contentious political climate.

"If we owned cars or homes performing as poorly as state government, we would give them a tune-up or call a contractor," said John Alexander, a Virden resident who was a delegate to the last state constitutional convention, in 1969-1970.

Samuel Gove, former director of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at University of Illinois, said the vote may come down as a protest of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.


Political infighting has dominated Springfield for the last year, going so far that Blagojevich sued House Speaker Michael Madigan over the power to call the Legislature into special session. The Legislature and governor were also months late in agreeing on a budget. Some lawmakers have called for the governor's resignation or impeachment.

Possibly at stake in a constitutional convention could be the state's flat income tax rate, election of judges and almost any other issue that participants wanted to bring up. If voters in November approve the idea of having a constitutional convention, a separate election will be held for delegates, who would meet in 2010 to work on the document.

Dawn Clark Netsch, a former candidate for governor, cautioned against holding a convention, saying she fears hot-button social issues like abortion or stem cell research would monopolize the debate because special interests are frustrated that the issues are not being debated by the Legislature. She argues that ineffectual lawmakers, not the constitution, stop the state from addressing important social issues.

"The atmosphere is so poisoned right at the moment," she said.

But Netsch, who was a delegate at the 1969-1970 convention, agreed that voter frustration with Springfield lawmakers may work in favor of reformers, such as Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who favors a convention.

Quinn was among activists who pushed unsuccessfully for a convention in 1988, seeking fundamental reforms in the state's property tax system, education funding, ethics rules and the creation of a recall-election system.

Quinn said Wednesday that many of those issues are again driving this year's push for a convention: "It's sort of 'Back to the Future.'"

The question is one way for Illinoisans to change the course of state government. Movements to place other questions on the ballot all failed to meet a Monday deadline. Among initiatives that failed to make the cut were a measure to recall the governor, a proposed ban on gay marriage in Illinois and a movement to lower the voting age to 17.

Springfield bureau chief Kevin McDermott contributed to this report.
Click to expand...
 
Jeff

I would tend to agree with you except for the fact that Chicago does in fact control things. A new constitution would also be written in favor of Chicago by the same people who did it last time. Michael Madigan was one of the major writers. How can we be sure that Chicago will not control everything. it takes votes and Chicago is not going to give up any power. If it is based on counties or townships we may have a chance. Based on population we would be worse off than we are now. This has been discusses on Illinois carry and the negatives I just mentioned always come up. Do you have better information that I can use?


Len S
 
I would love to see senate seats apportioned one per county, something like the way US senate seats are apportioned 2 per state.

Beyond that some minor tweaks to the home rule stuff, fix the RKBA provision, and put in some kind of provision that all tax or fee increases have to be approved by referendum and you are all set.

Maybe a spending limit of 103% of the revenues collected in the previous fiscal year. :)
 
Len,
Blagojevich, with his outright Chicago centric ideals, his refusal to move into the governors mansion, his outright statement that Chicago is the center of government when questioned about his use of state aircraft to commute to Springfield has done more to create anti Chicago sentiment in the rest of the state then anyone in my lifetime. If we can elect people from outside the political parties as delegates we can change things. We also have a very different media climate now then in 1970. In 1970 the Illinois economy was booming. In 2008, municipalities fight over prisons and the few hundred middle class jobs they bring to the local economy. We're probably going to be the first state into federal court to file for bankruptcy protection.

Delegates need to be normal people from outside of Illinois politics. Both parties in Illinois are equally corrupt. If you look at the Illinois Democrats and republicans as two mafia families who split the take from governing, you'd have the right idea. Illinois government is more like The Sopranos then Mr Smith Goes to Washington.

I think we can make a difference, and I fear that if we don't our only hope is federal prosecution of the current batch of elected criminals. As long as the spoils system and pay to play remains technically legal in Illinois nothing will change.

I think this is the best chance we'll have to see meaningful change in our lifetimes.

Jeff
 
I would assume that one circulates nominating petitions, gets the required number of signatures to get on the ballot, then campaigns and is elected by his friends and neighbors.

Jeff
 
I'd like to see everything from Springfield, south, as the 51st star on our Nation's flag. But, if nothing else, living downstate helps one understand how folks felt below the Mason-Dixon line in 1861...
 
Good luck, Illinois. We in America are rootin' for our freedom lovin' brethren.

Unlike some other places I could name (cough...New Jersey...cough) ya'll actually have a chance of pulling something like this off.

I salute you.
 
I would suggest in the name of freedom, to make chicago a federal district so it has to fend for itself.

then you can let chicago pass whatever silly laws without stripping the state of its rights.

but i am a trouble-maker....
 
I would suggest in the name of freedom, to make chicago a federal district so it has to fend for itself.
Click to expand...

And I would remind people that while for better or worse, the (first) Civil War settled the question as to whether a state or political subdivision of the US may leave the Union of its own accord,

the question as to whether a state or political subdivision can be forcibly ejected remains tantalizingly unanswered.

It would seem that ceding the land to the feds for the purpose of building a military facility might just do the trick.
 
I'd rather cede Chicago to Canada, but I'm sure that Canada would return to sender in a heartbeat.

I hope this goes through for the sake of people in Illinois in general. Now if only New York could do something like this to handle NYC...
 
Seceding from Chicago would not be as easy as it sounds although according to the Article IV of the US Constitution it is possible:

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Click to expand...

The best hope for Illinois is to have a constitutional convention and make the needed changes that way. You might note from the news article that most people in Illinois government oppose this. They know it would be the end of the gravy train they are riding. To quote Mel Brooks in that classic of American politics, Blazing Saddles: "We have to save our phony baloney jobs!"

The big problem as I see it is voter apathy. Unless people are involved in state government, they don't care about it. A vote on a constitutional convention isn't going to get much national media attention and that's where the majority of the people seem to get their news.

Jeff
 
I don't see how making Chicago a Federal district would count as leaving the Union, leaving Illinois I can see though. It's still U.S. territory just not Illinois territory anymore, but it's still one heck of a can of worms either way.

Now if your saying that Chicago trying to secede from Illinois of its own accord would fly like a lead balloon then I would agree with you, I'm not sure how it getting kicked out by the rest of the state would go, but it would probably not do so hot either.

[Edit]
I don't see why a state having a constitutional convention wouldn't get media attention at least it very well should because such a change would be quite newsworthy in my opinion, or are you saying it would be buried?
[/Edit]
 
Last edited:
I don't see why a state having a constitutional convention wouldn't get media attention at least it very well should because such a change would be quite newsworthy in my opinion, or are you saying it would be buried?
Click to expand...

Yes it's being buried. I would imagine that most voters in Illinois have no idea that it will be on the ballot in November. Now there could be groups who are either for or against it waiting for the election to get closer and then they will start a media blitz. I can't remember any talk of it at all the last time it was on the ballot in 1988.

Jeff
 
The idea of one senator per county is a good one.

Two things could be done with a house of representatives. One would be to gerrymander the districts around Chicago to corral the liberals into as few districts as possible, and the other would be to find the center of the liberal population and construct pie-shaped districts - as many as would be needed, radiating out from that center as far as needed - to dilute that liberal population with the outlying conservative population.

One or the other method could work depending upon how large that liberal population is and how large it is geographically. If the liberal population is too large, neither system will work on a house of representatives, and all you can hope for is a senate with one senator chosen from each county to hold such a liberal house in check.

Unless any one of the forgoing options is effective and actually put in play, there will be no hope in Illinois.

I feel your pain. I used to live in Massachusetts.

Woody
 
I have a lot of the same misgivings as the rest of you, but we can choose between a fight and the status quo. Do we like the status quo?
 
We also need to break the stranglehold Chicago has on the rest of the state. A redistribution of senate seats so they are based on geography would accomplish that.
Click to expand...

It would also be patently unconstitutional under Reynolds v. Sims. SCOTUS will strike down at least a portion, if not the entire state constitution if Reynolds is violated. There are better ways to deal with the problem, such as a commission system similar to California Voters First, which would deal with the gerrymandering problem in CA that makes seats uncompetitive.
 
Lonnie,
This is how Senate seats are distributed now:

From the Illinois Constitution:

SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION
(a) One Senator shall be elected from each Legislative
District. Immediately following each decennial redistricting,
the General Assembly by law shall divide the Legislative
Districts as equally as possible into three groups. Senators
from one group shall be elected for terms of four years, four
years and two years; Senators from the second group, for
terms of four years, two years and four years; and Senators
from the third group, for terms of two years, four years and
four years. The Legislative Districts in each group shall be
distributed substantially equally over the State.
Click to expand...

With one senate seat per district and the districts changing every 10 years, it guarantees Chicago (or the the area with the biggest population) control of the legislature. A far cry from our federal constitution that balanced the power of the states with more representatives because of a larger population by giving each state and equal vote in the senate. You could almost make a case for taxation without representation, because even though downstate elects representatives to the general assembly and senate, their numbers are so small that they are nearly powerless to act in the direct interest of their constituents. The only time downstaters have any real power is when their vote is needed to settle a fight between Chicago politicians.

For example, the governor and the legislature (Democrats all, the republicans aren't a large enough voting block to do anything) have been at odds with each other for the last two years. Things at the capitol have been at a standstill, the governor has sued the speaker of the general assembly...it's been an embarrassing mess. Legislation was introduced to put a petition to amend the state constitution to allow a recall of office holders. This legislation was aimed squarely at the governor. it passed overwhelmingly in the general assembly. The vote got close in the senate. Senator Gary Forby, (D) Benton, voted with the senate president and the governor to kill the recall legislation. A day or so later it was announced by the governor that the Traffic Safety Division of the Department of Transportation was being moved to Benton from the state capitol. Benton is a town of about 5000 people in Franklin County. Unemployment in this part of the state is over 7%. Benton doesn't even have a building big enough to house the Traffic Safety Division, but Gary Forby brought home the bacon by voting with the governor. Of course it's not a done deal, Springfield says they will sue.

Yes things need to change big time...

Jeff
 
With one senate seat per district and the districts changing every 10 years, it guarantees Chicago (or the the area with the biggest population) control of the legislature. A far cry from our federal constitution that balanced the power of the states with more representatives because of a larger population by giving each state and equal vote in the senate. You could almost make a case for taxation without representation, because even though downstate elects representatives to the general assembly and senate, their numbers are so small that they are nearly powerless to act in the direct interest of their constituents. The only time downstaters have any real power is when their vote is needed to settle a fight between Chicago politicians.
Click to expand...

This is all well and nice for the history lesson, but the SCOTUS and the lower courts will strike down the suggestion in the constitution, so there's no point unless you intend the state of Illinois to fund the lawsuit that WILL be filed and somehow find a way to overturn Reynolds. California Voters First's initiative is probably the one way to prevent the gerrymandering that's occurring in Illinois.
 
You could almost make a case for taxation without representation, because even though downstate elects representatives to the general assembly and senate, their numbers are so small that they are nearly powerless to act in the direct interest of their constituents. The only time downstaters have any real power is when their vote is needed to settle a fight between Chicago politicians.
Click to expand...

I think that this is very much the case. Look at the Chicago Transit Authority debacle last fall. I don't understand how a city system (which should turn a profit anyway) needs millions and millions of dollars from the state. I don't understand the justificatin for state support of a system which services such a small population within the state.

In any event, how does one keep Chicago from strong arming the process?

Who gets to choose how delegates to the convention will be chosen and when does that happen?
 
Sure, I'm game. But how do we keep the Chicagoons from dominating a new constitutional convention?
 
We have to make sure that the rest of the state is informed, understands the vital issues, and resolves to be firm in the face of clear Chicago strong-arming. Personally, I am from Cook County, and I would be willing to be a delegate. But my loyalties are far from Chicago. However, I would be willing to act like I was playing along with the Chicagoons just to get elected to the convention, then vote for what I know is best for the state.:neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Illinois Members; Constitutional Convention?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
illini52
I
M
  • Locked
Second Amendment And a Call For Constitutional Convention?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Al Thompson
A
O
  • Locked
Of Interest To Our Illinois Members
Replies
3
Views
323
Kingcreek
K
M
  • Locked
Constitutional convention over this?!
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Byron Quick
B
jawman
  • Locked
Illinois Concealed Carry HB 183 passes
Replies
8
Views
907
Blue .45
B
Back
Top