* My latest syndicated newspaper column takes a look at some of the false information being spread about the constitutional convention referendum…
I’m a member of a union. My father was a proud union member. His father was a union member and, for a time, a union organizer. I own a business. My maternal grandparents, whom I cherished more than anyone else when I was a kid, were farmers. My mother was a public school teacher for several years. Both of my parents are now retired and rely heavily on their government pensions.
What the heck does any of that have to do with anything?
Well, unions, business groups, the Illinois Farm Bureau and, most of all, groups representing retired public employees and retirees are all up in arms about the upcoming state constitutional convention referendum.
Every 20 years, Illinois voters are given the right to call for a constitutional convention. And all those aforementioned groups want you to vote “no” next month for various reasons.
I’m on the other side. I want you to vote “yes,” but because of my personal history, I’m often a bit puzzled to find myself on the other side of this issue.
The union people are worried about the introduction of a right-to-work provision, or other erosions of their hard-fought gains in this state.
Business groups fret that a constitutional convention could come up with crazy liberal ideas, or mess with the way income taxes can be levied on businesses.
The farm bureau sees reason for concern in the very nature of Illinois politics. The convention, they warn, would be “stacked in favor of urban areas.” Farmers’ property taxes are lower than residential rates, for instance, and that might go out the window.
Public employee and teachers unions and associated retiree groups are probably the most intense in their opposition, however. That’s probably because their members may have the most to lose.
Two years ago, Gov. Rod Blagojevich attempted to reduce pension benefits for future state and local public employees and teachers. Senate President Emil Jones, his only real ally, backed him up. House Speaker Michael Madigan, who doesn’t get along with Blagojevich, announced his keen interest in the governor’s plan. The unions freaked, and it took a huge effort to defeat the proposal.
The unions and retirees figured that if “friendly” politicians who had accepted millions of dollars in campaign contributions from them had turned against their interests so quickly, then a constitutional convention, which can’t possibly be controlled as easily as the General Assembly, would be an absolute nightmare.
They’re right. The state’s underfunded pension systems are draining the state budget at an alarming rate, causing outcries of reform from numerous corners. And then there are those who regularly whip up public resentment by pointing to the average Joe taxpayer, who has no guaranteed pension benefits for life. A constitutional convention may very well address this issue.
However, some of the retirees have unfortunately resorted to distortions, brazen fear tactics and outright lies to frighten pensioners into voting “no.”
Let me clear up a few things.
No matter what happens at the constitutional convention, state and local governments cannot legally reduce pension payments to current retirees. A convention cannot legally take away pension payment benefits already earned by current employees. The chances are nil that the delegates would do anything weird such as force the combination of the Chicago teachers pension fund and the downstate teachers pension fund.
And, of course, everything decided at the constitutional convention would have to then be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum.
A convention could, however, change a few words in the current constitution that would allow the General Assembly to eventually make changes, such as reduce future pension benefits, including health care benefits, for current workers or workers yet to be hired. But it’s highly improbable that the convention delegates themselves would micromanage pension funding proposals.
Personally, I wouldn’t blame public employees and teachers for voting “no” on the constitutional convention question. On the other hand, I think most, maybe not all, of those other groups mentioned above are probably overstating their case.
But, for me, there are just too many other issues - like the power hoarded by the very few at the expense of the many - which so desperately need addressing in this state to pass on this once in a generation opportunity. The people need to take back their constitution for themselves. So, please, vote “yes” on the constitutional convention. Thanks.
* Scott Reeder also examines the upcoming battle over the pension issue in his latest newspaper column…
Public-sector retirement benefits are not as rosy as one might think. After all, many public employees, such as teachers, are not eligible for Social Security and government employees oftentimes have paid in more toward their retirements than others.
But in a world of sound bite political campaigns, expect those facts to get lost in the mix.
The perceived retirement disparities between government workers and everyone else are ripe for political exploitation. (The only other option would be for politicians to own up to their own irresponsibility — which will happen when pigs fly.)
Illinois taxpayers owe almost $10,000 per household in teacher and state employees’ pension payments. That shortfall will have to be made up somehow.
It’s a sad situation, but one ripe for political exploitation.
* The proponents of the convention referendum are trying to leapfrog the appellate court and go right to the Illinois Supremes…
Undeterred by a Cook County judge’s ruling that the constitutional convention question will appear on the Illinois ballot as drafted — mistakes and all — Con-Con proponents have appealed to the state’s highest court to intervene on behalf of voters.
With only three weeks until Election Day, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and the Chicago Bar Association (CBA) are petitioning both the Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court to reverse Cook County Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr.’s recent decision on the matter. Howse found the Con-Con ballot language to be both “misleading and false,” but decided it was too late to do anything but distribute flyers at the polling places with better wording, as well as a warning to disregard the language on the ballot.
The plaintiffs would rather see a separate paper ballot issued for the Con-Con question. This idea, however, has drawn opposition from state election authorities who say that dealing with a hand-count of upwards of 8 million ballots would be a nightmare.
A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow.
* And here’s an interesting thought…
Contrary to articles written by Shaw Newspapers in recent weeks, the question as to whether voters want a constitutional convention will not be on a separate ballot, but on the same ballot as everything else.
Where did the newspaper get the incorrect information on the procedure for amending the 1970 Illinois Constitution? The 1970 Illinois Constitution, Article 14, Section 1(c): “The vote on whether to call a Convention shall be on a separate ballot.”
The straightforward statement in the document where the buck stops for Illinois law and government begs an important question — could the losing side challenge the constitutionality of the vote? […]
Everyone interviewed for this story — all of whom have law degrees — agreed that the language of Article 14 opens up the possibility of a legal challenge. But they said they hoped no one would do that.
“Any citizen can challenge anything they want on a convention or an election,” said Nancy Kaszak, spokeswoman for the anti-convention Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution. “But the question is, would they get past the motion to dismiss?”