Rebutting the best arguments of the anti-Con-Con crowd
Illinoisans are asked every 20 years whether they want to call a constitutional convention. I firmly believe that our gridlocked, broken state government is in such desperate need of change and reform that a "Yes" vote is self-evident.
The points below are taken directly from the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution's Website. APIC is funded mainly by big business and labor unions.
APIC: The total cost of a convention is predicted to approach at least
$80 million at a time when the state is running budget deficits and having
a tough time funding schools and roads.
Response: The cost could be far lower, but that's not the point. The current constitution has a huge loophole which allows for those big budget deficits. And there is no plan to fund schools and roads because too much power is too concentrated in the hands of a few people who have been fighting each other for years. A constitutional convention could address those absolutely crucial issues. It's worth every dime.
APIC:There is no question there has been too much inaction and
infighting in Springfield. But it's the politicians, not the system,
that are at fault. The best way to deal with political issues and address
problems in state government is to pick new elected officials, not tinker
with a proven document full of protections for people's rights.
Response: The powerful interest groups which are funding this push against a constitutional convention have also been responsible for bankrolling those very same politicians' campaigns. Also, since the parties in power totally control the legislative redistricting process, politicians end up choosing their voters, not the other way around.
APIC: A constitutional
convention opens the door to more political mischief. The General Assembly,
by law, gets to decide how a constitutional convention would be run. And
the constitution is unclear about who would get to pick delegates to a
constitutional convention, voters or politicians in Springfield.
Regardless, special interests and single-issue groups would fight hard to
get their people sent to the convention to advance their own narrow
Response: The constitution is very clear about who chooses delegates: The voters. Also, it's ironic that the special interests funding APIC are worried about special interests getting involved in delegate elections.
APIC:Scheduling a convention for 2010 would give politicians a pass to
do nothing until then to address the state's problems. There will be
primary and general elections between now and the time a new constitution
would even go into effect. Those elections are the best way to bring about
real change and pressure elected officials into action.
Response: My own belief is that politicians will be so frightened at what a constitutional convention might do to them that they'll try and correct some of the state's problems, like, for instance, public employee pensions, before the delegates are ever seated. I think that's as likely as the other side's argument. Nothing is certain, but the anti-constitutional convention folks sure act like it.
APIC:The uncertainty of a constitutional convention more than two
years away could make it very difficult to attract and retain businesses
and jobs at a time when the state's economy is already struggling.
Our neighbors offer certainty and stability to businesses we would lose by
asking companies to gamble on us.
Response: Illinois is
currently the laughingstock of the nation when it comes to attracting and
retaining businesses and jobs. A constitutional convention might offer some
much-needed encouragement to out-of-state business owners that change is on
Rich Miller publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.