Kadner comes out swinging
Thursday, Sep 18, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Phil Kadner writes today about the controversial language inserted into the constitutional convention ballot question by a bipartisan legislative committee. The language, which Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn wants removed, points out that the last time the voters were asked an overwhelming majority voted against it…
Just about every major special interest group (unions and businesses) is opposed to the convention.
So are the most powerful elected leaders of this most corrupt state.
In other words, the people who can buy influence and the people who sell their influence don’t want a constitutional convention. They’re worried that real political reform might take place, such as a recall amendment.
But instead of talking about that, they’re telling teachers they could lose their pensions and scaring women with stories of anti-abortion laws.
They’re probably going to spend millions of dollars before November telling people to vote “no” on the convention.
Yet, despite their money and their power, they still felt the need to corrupt the very language of the ballot question.
They don’t trust the voters. But they fear the voters.
In more than 30 years of reporting, I can’t remember any referendum question including the vote totals of a previous referendum.
“Are you for calling a constitutional convention?”
“Yes” or “No.”
That’s all that’s really needed. The state already is required to mail a pamphlet explaining the pros and cons to all registered voters.
White’s legal staff is reviewing the wording.
If it stands, a court challenge is inevitable.
This may seem like a small thing, but it is the very reason voters need to vote “yes” for the constitutional convention.
* Meanwhile, Ramsin Canon writes about a debate earlier this week over whether to hold a constitutional convention…
Organized by the UIC United chapter of the State Universities Annuitants Association (SUAA), a panel debated the pros and cons of the once-a-generation Constitutional Convention vote on Tuesday night. Representing pro were populist Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn and ethics crusader state Representative John Fritchey (D-Chicago); on the con side were former state Senator, comptroller, and gubernatorial candidate Dawn Clark Netsch and League of Women Voters official Kathryn Nesburg. Over two hours of debate and question-and-answer led to a neat and simple line between the two sides:
Pro: If we have a constitutional convention, we could make things better.
Con: If we have a constitutional convention, we could make things worse.
I’m still waiting for anybody to point to any con-con within the last 50 years in any state that has resulted in a significantly worse document.
* There’s yet another debate today. This is from a Pat Quinn press release..
On Thursday, September 18, at 12:00 p.m., Just one day after Constitution Day, Lt. Governor Pat Quinn will participate in a panel discussion on the topic of a Constitutional Convention, hosted by The Chicago Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society, The John Marshall Law School Faculty and The Chicago Council of Lawyers at John Marshall Law School, 315 South Plymouth Court, Room 300. […]
Lt. Governor Quinn will be joined by Dawn Clark Netsch, former State Senator and former Illinois State Comptroller; State Rep. Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago); and Ronald C. Smith, Professor at The John Marshall Law School. The event will be moderated by Wayne W. Whalen, Managing Partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom.
I may go to that. I haven’t been to any of these debates yet, so it might be interesting.
- county clerk - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 9:52 am:
It is a little late folks with ballots being mailed out to the military and overseas.
Getting ready to vote absentee.
Pat , you should have yelled alot sooner.
- Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 9:56 am:
“I’m still waiting for anybody to point to any con-con within the last 50 years in any state that has resulted in a significantly worse document.”
True, but this is Illinois, after all.
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:03 am:
Kadner makes great points. The question should be. Shall a constitutional convention be called? It’s that simple.
- countryboy - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:11 am:
It would be considerably easier to vote yes on the concon question if I had any confidence that the two delegates from each Senate district would be anything other than GA members or their sponsored clones.
That’s where the process breaks down in my view - it reeks of ‘more of the same’ for me.
- Karen Silkwood - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:17 am:
Interesting in much the the same way the reading of a perfunctory session is interesting
- Tom B. - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:18 am:
Oh for crying out loud, get off your soapbox.
- Leroy - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:21 am:
Well, the anti-conventions ads that have been running here at Capitol Fax have convinced me it is a bad idea.
I’m voting against it. The ads here have made a strong case in my mind.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:24 am:
I’ve resided in a few other states and another country after having grown up in Illinois, where I now live.
What I have always questioned about Illinois in comparison to these other states was how it’s government and state leaders could be so elitist and closed to it’s citizens. When I was a young college student I answered this question to myself by believing that Illinois, due to it’s size and wealth, was a different case in comparison to other states.
Since returning however, I was forced to recognize that our state government and it’s leaders are archaic industrial-age throwbacks more suitable for the Illinois boom years between 1868 and 1958 than suitable for the 21st Century.
The closed-door decision making, the lack of citizen initiatives or recall, the various governmental reforms implemented in other states during the 20th Century are lacking here. The Illinois Constitution of 1970 was a needed revision, but still didn’t empower citizens. Worse, it empowered cliques, as though they were modeling 1950’s businesses - they centralized power just as professional businesses were abandoning that model as too slow to respond to changes and too inefficient.
So it isn’t surprising that personalities within these cliques have locked up our government’s ability to do it’s job. The current constitution gave these guys the power to dither and play political games, because playing political games at this level of government wasn’t done. The writers of our current constitution are a generation that learned teamwork and unity during WWII and Korea. They naturally assumed that whomever was sitting in the positions of the Four Tops would place duty over division. That generation is gone.
No wonder oldies like Netch and Mikva still support our current constitution. They just don’t think like today’s politicians.
We have a great need for a new constitution. One that shows we recognize that personal pettiness and partisanship can exist. One that reforms our government so that political squabbles don’t stop our government from doing our job.
It is OUR government - Not theirs! When will this state reaffirm it’s faith in self government and turn away from self-annointed cliques?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:26 am:
Is there any organized support for the convention? Where can I get a yard-sign??
- Deep Water - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:26 am:
Rich, please watch this video thanks pat http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/
pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=CD9A61
A48A7BFB367AE0FFE7EF4DF30E
?contentId=7455019&versio
n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pa
geId=1.1.1&sflg=1 It is about Donald Tomczak Victor Reyes and Robert Sorich and Daley. Thanks
- countryboy - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:29 am:
VM, please share how you intend your district to overpower the self-appointed cliques and elect as delegates a couple of clear thinking 21st century types.
- Captain America - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:32 am:
The endemic bipartisan corruption in Illinois, the ineptitude and irrelevance of Republican Party leadership, the fraudulent selection of Todd Stroger to replace his father as the Democratic nominee, and the complete functional meltdown of the Democratic triumvirate/three stooges - Governor Pinnochio, Godfather Jones, and Speaker Machiavelli - have convinced me that a vote for Con-Con is the only sane alternative available to protest the corruption, arrogance, and incompetence in Illinois politics and government.
Too bad the pro-Con-Con forces can not find a sugar-daddy to combat the well-funded anti-Con-Con establishment.
- Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:42 am:
I received my pamphlet from SOS Whites office in the mail yesterday. The bottom line is you vote yes or no, I will vote YES.
- Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 10:51 am:
They really should delete that objectionable language. The implication seems to be: “Your parents know more than you, and they voted against this. Do you really think you’re smarter than your parents?”
FWIW, I voted against it last time, too.
- Bruno Behrend - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 11:31 am:
Rich,
If you are still the Chicago Metro area tonight (Thurs.), you can watch a debate between me and Murnane on the convention question.
50 S Emerson St
Mt Prospect, IL 60056
- Pat Collins - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 11:33 am:
Well, the anti-conventions ads that have been running here at Capitol Fax
Really? Or are we just saying that to pump up the ads? Not that I am opposed to or against such a thing.
various governmental reforms implemented in other state
Such as?
For me the reforms needed are :
1) Term limits
2) Limits on consecutive years spent in ANY elected state office
3) A candidate can only spend money on his campaign that HE raised. None of this transfer BS. Any excess on retirement goes to the general fund.
- Bruno Behrend - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 11:33 am:
Leroy,
The arguments here by the “No” side are weak, and at times, downright silly.
More “due diligence” please.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 11:38 am:
===Well, the anti-conventions ads that have been running here at Capitol Fax have convinced me it is a bad idea.===
I’ll make sure the advertisers see this comment. lol
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 11:40 am:
==VM, please share how you intend your district to overpower the self-appointed cliques and elect as delegates a couple of clear thinking 21st century types. ==
Ye of little faith! Everytime we had a constitutional convention we got a better constitution that reflected the times in which it was crafted.
Current state legislators cannot draw a paycheck if they are con-con representatives, so said the courts during the previous conventions, and so shall it reaffirm this in the next.
Cliques are too small to have sufficient numbers to control the process. Your wonderment suggests that self government cannot beat cliques, or that every government process open to the public somehow automatically wants a clique to run it.
That didn’t happen before, why would it now?
Perhaps you have become so cynical over how our state government currently operates, you assume that a con-con would run the same way. Nope, they don’t!
So like the guy who saw his first automobile and wondered just how his horse could pull such a heavy thing, you may not be completely aware of what we are discussing here and how it has worked, and will work for you if you simply vote “yes”. You don’t have to buy it if you don’t like it, but I bet you will!
- Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 12:19 pm:
Bruno,
Why always the condescending demeanor and stance that anyone who disagrees with you is either “silly,” stupid or up to no good?
I have yet to hear you present a viable plan for electing independent delegates to the convention. You keep stating that current legislators won’t be paid if they attend, and pooh-poohing the point that they powers that be will do their best to manipulate the process, but you don’t offer anything but your own biased and unfounded conclusions about delegate election.
After all, isn’t a convention only as good as the delegates who comprise it?
- Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 12:22 pm:
VM,
Gotta direct the same comment to your last post, sir. They will fight a convention, but if the question passes, they will put their own candidates into the mix, and in every district.
- Leroy - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 12:45 pm:
Yo Bruno -
How much money will a con-con gonna cost me as a taxpayer over the next two decades?
If you can’t answer those questions, you shouldn’t be voting for it.
Don’t get me wrong…I want to believe in fairies and rainbows too, but I’m not betting my own (and my childrens’) money on it.
Would you agree to buy a car if you didn’t know how much it cost? Especially if the salesman was the one that determined the final price tag?
Silly indeed, old boy.
- Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 12:47 pm:
Show me the rules on delegate selection before asking me to vote yes or no.
- Jechislo - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 12:49 pm:
My, my, notice how all of a sudden Pat Quinn is everywhere in the news? That’s because come January 1, 2009 he will be Illinois’ next Governor. Blagojevich will resign by the end of this year.
- Truthful James - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 12:51 pm:
Snidely –
You asked the Vanilla Man to prove the unprovable. Let delegates be elected as the people wish. That is the way the last Con-Con worked. There were machines then.
And therein lies the rub. Any elected official attempting to game the Convention for the best interests of the machine will have to do it in the open and face the consequences.
If the press is doing its job we will see it all happen. That in itself will be a gain for governance in Illinois.
The opposition to a convention comes from people who have a vested interest in the status quo — the morass in which we find ourselves.
Let us give Democracy a fighting chance.
- Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 12:59 pm:
“Let us give Democracy a fighting chance.”
I would hardly call unilaterally authorizing Illinois Democrats to blindly choose the rules by which delegates who will propose changes to the Illinois Constitution will be selected, which is what we’re REALLY talking about here. If they’re truly interested in democracy, let them publish the rules in ADVANCE, so the people really can decide if they want to move forward with this process.
- Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 1:00 pm:
James,
Well, I don’t have a vested interest in the status quo, but like Bruno, you say I do, so therefore I must.
Here’s Bruno’s “plan” for electing delegates, as taken from his latest Illinoize post Rich linked to:
“Also, find 2 good delegates in you senate district, and have them start the process of running by advocating for this NOW!”
Ok, where’s the funding/organizing part? Note also Bruno’s implication that if you didn’t advocate FOR a convention, you should not run as a delegate, i.e., if you don’t agree with Bruno, you’re silly, stupid or ill-intentioned, and therefore an undesirable candidate.
You can bet your bippy that there are many like me who are opposed to giving the powers that be a chance to solidify their hold on things by controlling a convention, and would consider running as a delegate to prevent this from happening if the question passes.
But, such people will be painted as “hacks” because they didn’t agree with Bruno that we should have a convention to begin with.
One-sided, circular logic that you just can’t reason with.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 1:03 pm:
Why not ask the question straight forward like,
You don’t want another State Convention, do you?
or
Do you know how much State Conventions cost? Do we really want another one?
or
Does Illinois have enough laws or do you want another State Convention?
or just really tell the truth and ask
Should lobbyists continue to control Illinois and even write the questions appearing on ballot resolutions so we don’t have another State Convention?
- Truthful James - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 1:12 pm:
Snidely,
‘Splain to me just how things can get much worse.
I trust the people to elect some good delegates, some lousy ones, some machine hacks, some altruists.
And don’t forget that the new Constitution must then be approved at an election.
- Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 1:51 pm:
James,
Can it get much worse? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on your point of view. Again, the only real positive that could come out of a cc would be computerized redistricting. There really isn’t much wrong with our current constitution, just in its implementation.
You want recall? Well, we have one … it’s called the next election! All the current players in the statehouse fiasco have been reelected, even Blago, and fairly recently.
How do you fix it? Well, vote responsibly for your legislators and constitutional officers. Push for an amendment to provide for computerized redistricting. Vote against cadidates who oppose it.
Many of the con-con proponents argue that it’ll never happen with the legislators we have. Well, I thought you guys said “trust in democracy?”!!! You don’t trust the voters to vote for good legislators, but you trust them to vote for a constitution. It’s a very hypocritical position, don’t you agree?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 2:03 pm:
I’m for it for redistricting, if nothing else.
Curious that education funding hasn’t popped up.
- Ahh Reporters - Thursday, Sep 18, 08 @ 2:12 pm:
Who are they going to take to court the General Assembly that passed the resolution and approved it? Someone should ask Mr. Crusader Fritchey why he allowed such terrible wording on his resolution. Quinn come lately
- Bruno Behrend - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 7:58 pm:
Snidely,
Thanks for the questions.
Implied in your questions is a demand for a guarantee of sorts. I’ve never made one.
If we get a “yes” vote, and every one sits on their butt, we may not get very good delegates. I just don’t think that will be the case, but I do agree with you that a convention is only as good as its delegates.
My view is that, a) whatever the risk, it can’t be any worse than what we have now, and b) if it is, their work product won’t be ratified.
As for the rest of your critiques of my “demeanor” or arguments, they are pretty much YOUR interpretation of them, and not really my view.
You call my arguments “condescending,” but seem to ignore the worldview enshrined in the current Constitution, (and of many of it’s supporters). The document seethes with condescention.
It virtually enshrines the notion that governing should be left only to those elected, and not to the ‘little people.’
The legislature can impeach, but the citizens can’t recall. The school board can throw a tax increase on the ballot in every election, but the citizens can’t roll them back. The county board can raise your sales taxes, but the citizens can’t get a ballot initiative to roll them back.
Why not just chalk it up to a disagreement among reasonable people?
As for my “plan” to get good delegates elected…
First things first. Given the meager resources we’ve gotten to get a “yes” vote, We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. It isn’t as if we haven’t laid some ground work.
We HAVE found about 40-60 people who said they’d be interested in running, and we will identify more before 11/4. Should we be fortunate to get a “yes” vote, we think many more will look into running. Some will win, some won’t.
Do we have a strategy? Yes. Will it become more clear after a “yes” vote. Of course.
As for my “demeanor”… much of that is in your head. I’ve debated Proft, Salvi, Kaszak, Lousin, Murnane, Whitley, Preckwinkle, Jim Reed, and Jeff Mays.
All are seemingly decent sorts with more than a few brain cells to rub together. They just happen to be wrong on this issue. (Ooooh, how condescending of me to say so!!!)
Here is our view.
There is very little danger for ANYBODY in a convention, and a great deal of potential good for EVERYBODY.
If I’ve been so zealous in my debating the issue here that I’ve made implications about you that you found insulting, I apologize.
There are many reasonable people who are (mistakenly) voting “no” who would make good delegates if we get a yes vote. If we are lucky enough to get a convention, and we are lucky (or skilled) enough to develop the kind of organization we have envisioned, we’d be glad to support those people.
- Bruno Behrend - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 8:29 pm:
Again, the only real positive that could come out of a cc would be computerized redistricting. There really isn’t much wrong with our current constitution, just in its implementation.
While fixing redistricting alone would be a huge improvement, there is so much wrong with the current constitution that one doesn’t know where to start.
How about defining “funds available” (revenue article) tightly enough to exclude debt (or $$ in designated accounts).
In effect, the “balanced budget clause” in our Constitution is a sieve. Fixing it is easy, but it’ll only happen in a Convention.
______
Many of the con-con proponents argue that it’ll never happen with the legislators we have. Well, I thought you guys said “trust in democracy?”!!! You don’t trust the voters to vote for good legislators, but you trust them to vote for a constitution. It’s a very hypocritical position, don’t you agree?
No. It isn’t hypocritical at all. You yourself admit that gerrymandering is a problem.
Couple that with the nearly feudal party system, and the theoretical argument that “all we need is better leaders” collapses> You may be a great candidate, and if we had 20-30 Snidely’s, we may not need a convention.
But wait! How does Snidely get elected? First, he has to move to a district where his party has a gerrymandered seat. (fewer and fewer of those for a leaderless and devoid-of-ideas Republican Party)
Next s/he has to wait for the hack (oooh condescending again!!!) occupying that seat to sit long enough to qualify for their pension.(assuming they don’t want it for life)
Next, you have to wait in line for the ‘next-in-line’ to rinse and repeat the party process.
Or you could just vote for a convention and work to open up the electoral process.
_____
At the end of the day, Snideley, there are benefits and limitations to “democracy” as-well-as representative “republicanism”.
Term limits ARE arguably ‘anti-democratic’, in that they force the electorate to pick some one new every 8-12 years. OTOH, they also protect against the machinery that politicians can build around themselves to get re-elected ad nauseum.
On the same token, ballot initiative is “democratic” (and therefore anti-”republican”), in that it allows for circumventing representative government at a certain threshold.
I’d argue that both are “good policy”, as is Recall. Reasonable people can disagree, but are we really going to argue that there isn’t ANYBODY in Chicago who might have done as well (or better) than Daley, or that Stroger ought not be limited to 2 terms?
Of course, we could just go another 20 years in this direction, and soon EVERYBODY can had down their offices to their off-spring. The unlucky 2nd born can colonize Indiana or Iowa.
- Bruno Behrend - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 8:38 pm:
Squideshi,
Your point about publishing rules in advance is an EXCELLENT one, but sadly, not in the substandard and poorly drafted 1970 TP Constitution.
Vote ‘yes’, run for delegate, and get on the committee that re-writes the poorly drafted (by intent, IMO) Article 14.
First, create a mechanism that FUNDS the convention automatically, so that the argument about “cost” disappears.
Second, define the process of electing delegates more tightly, so that voters know what process they are voting for.
Take note of the fact that Article 14 was drafted so as to allow for all of these pitfalls. The big print (CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION) giveth, but the small print (process? what process?) taketh away.
This was by design, folks. Vote “Yes” and fix it (along with all the other things that need fixing)