As required by the current constitution, in 2008 there will be a referenda that will ask voters if they want to convene a constitutional convention to rewrite our current constitution. There has been some preliminary talk about pushing for this, usually based on one issue or another. Here are some items I think would be good additions to our current constitution...
- The ability to recall any politician
- The ability to put binding referenda on the ballot
- Term Limits
- Equal ballot access regardless of political affiliation or non-affiliation
- Open primaries (i.e. voters don't have to declare party to get a ballot) w/ run-offs
What a con-con shouldn't be is an attempt to enshrine a pet issue into the constitution.
What are your thoughts? Con-Con good or bad idea? What changes?
I'd rather be able to elected the director of the MTD. :)
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Abolition of property taxes.
I think you could get an "Abolition of property Taxes" but because the make up of the Con Con will be overwhelmingly democrats the state tax increase will be huge. Loss of the property tax also means loss of local control.
There is no control when local property taxes are completely out of control.
"Loss of the property tax also means loss of local control."
This is a joke right? There is no local control over property taxes. All those on your property tax bill are maxing it out every chance they get. If if wasn't for the increased annexations of new areas which require small outlays of money verses how much tax they contribute, your tax bill would have doubled already.
I am strongly opposed to Open primaries. I would actually be more likely to support a pre-election registration, so people can't just decide to grab a GOP or Dem ballot on primary day. Party candidates should be decided by party members.
Bring back cummulative voting - 3 reps in each Senate district.
Term limits - hmmm???? I could be convinced.
smaller parties do get screwed under current rules - they deserve a break
Downstaters should be cautious when considering binding referenda - remember how many votes are in Cook county. It could be worse than what we already see from the GA.
Recall? Can we do it to Blago right now?
B, LV, "This is a joke right? There is no local control over property taxes." --- If you don't like the property tax increases you will have to go to the school board and city council meetings while they are putting the budgets together and tell them not to spend so much. Then when it is time to vote on the tax rate you will have a much easier time convincing them that they should lower the rate per 100 dollars of accessed evaluations, so that when the property values in your city go up the tax's on your bill stay the same. I can tell you there is a much greater chance of that happening and you have a much better chance electing and talking to your local elected official then you do all those GA members. You can talk to your local board members about a whole host of things on those local elected boards, I can tell you Emil Jones does not know who the hell you are, and does not care if he ever send your tax money back here.
John,
Great Post.
A New Constitution (the current one is trash) should contain;
Further, Strike "except as limited by Police Power" from the Gun rights language (IL has NO GUN RIGHTS) and drive as stake through the heart of the 100% vile and corrupt "Pension Guarantee" - which has become a license to steal by bankrupting the future.
As you read through these, you become more and more aware that this state is run by a class of kleptocrats (both parties) that have gamed the 1970 Const. (written with the intent to create what we have today) Once the income tax was passed and 3 member district were abolished, it was off to the races.
Hilarious!
All the bullet points show up on another part of the screen. Here they are again. for those with the same formatting problems...
Binding Ballot initiative allowing for legislative change (lower signature threshold), Const. Change (higher signature threshold), and recall of any and all elected official AND Administrator (lowest threshold)
Blue Sky provisions repealing most of the current exceptions to FOIA, as well as mandate for all Gov. Entities to post activity AND checkbook on-line in 48 hour turnaround (following this, the legislature should be directed to specify fines for officials' failure to comply , one of which (IMO) should be loss of pension benefits)
Eminent domain protection specifying that “public use” means public use. It should specifically repeal KELO in Illinois (allowed under KELO, BTW)
Balanced Budget defined - clear language on the limits of the use of “debt” to be classified as “revenue.”
End Gerrymandering permanently - import Iowa's process.
Election Reform - Ballot access. 2 party dominance should be Unconstitutional as to the US Const, as it is a clear violation of the “Equal Protection Clause.” Illinois can lead in this regard.
Spending Limits on ALL Gov. Entities (Infl. + Population growth) from school districts to General Fund. Include a 60% supermajority vote to raise taxes and referenda ONLY on Nov. elections. If a referendum fails, no second bite for 2 years. Include Specific language that ANY “work around” any cap is Unconstitutional on its face.
Open Primaries
Abolition of all “Defined Benefit” pensions. 403(b) and 401(k) style pensions only.
Structurally shift Senate to 2 senators from each County, and expand the House to about 240 members (1 rep for 50,000 people instead of current 100,000) Senators can represent the region while house represents smaller number people. This mimics the US Const. while dramatically expanding representation of citizens.
Constitutionally abolish the Leg. committee system. Any bill that gets 10 or 20 co-signers gets an up or down vote.
Mandate that No bill can be voted on until it is out for public review for 60 days.
___
Run4,
Anything that is mandated and controlled by the state legislature isn't "local control." While you have some control over your town trustees and park districts, the average school board and district voter has virtually NO LOCAL CONTROL. This means that 60% or so of your property tax bill is not locally controlled at all, but controlled by the IASB, IASBO, IASS, and their allies in the Teachers Unions who basically write nearly all school legislation and then tell their purchased minions to pass it.
Local control would mean you can change curriculum. You can't (on paper, it looks as if you can, but it's impossible) 1000s of districts across the nation with next to no variation of content.
Can you choose your Superintendent? Sure, from the same class of people who have the same credentials from the same training (passing tax referenda).
Can you vote down a Nov tax increase. Yes, but you can't circulate petitions to cut your taxes or your levy. Can you vote down a tax increase in April? Yes, but you can't reduce them. Can your school board keep coming twice a year for tax increases with NO LOCAL INPUT IN CUTTING TAXES ( try to get a 4 seat majority with the guts to precipitate a teacher's strike - BTW). If you do get a teacher's strike, can local citizens enter the classrooms to teach the kids and break the strike. Nope! No local control.
Can a local school board bring in a group of certified teachers to break a strike. The language is unclear, but it would almost certainly be tossed out in the courts (purchased as a gift for the education establishment by their friends the trial lawyers, who golf with the judges).
So. You are 35-40% right about local control. OTOH, anything involving schools is controlled by the cabal of administrators and teachers, who use the "district" scam to provide the appearance of local control. Regarding 60% of your property tax bill, there is next to no control what so ever. Your school district is as "local" as your local McDonald's Franchise.
Party candidates should be decided by party members.
Yet liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike depend on moderates such as myself who don't wear party labels to get their candidates elected at the general election...why shouldn't I be allowed to pick and choose in a primary?
why shouldn't I be allowed to pick and choose in a primary?
Because you are not part of the party, and primaries are for the parties to select their candidates. There were a bunch of Urbana Dems upset that Republicans pulled Dem ballots to vote for Mayor Todd in the last primary - I agree with them. I didn't like JBT or McCain urging crossover votes in primaries either.
Because you are not part of the party, and primaries are for the parties to select their candidate
Why not have an open primary where all candidates run against each other and then have a run off at the general election between the highest vote getters regardless of party affiliation?
I don't want party panderers as my only choice. I don't want Rs appealling to the hard right, then moderating. I don't want Ds appealling to hard lefts, then moderating. I want to know the candidate, not filter out their pandering and hoping I can figure out where they will be in the general election.
If I think the Ds offer the best choice in a race I should be able to vote for a D to run for that office (as opposed to wacko Ds on the same primary ballot) in the hope that that D will be a good choice against a good R in that race, and I don't want to forfeit my right to select a quality R in a different race, to hopefully run against a quality D.
Instead of primary candidates appealling to special interests they should appeal to all voters from the beginning and that means taking positions and KEEPING THEM.
On balance, the open primary argument is the stronger one. The current system may have worked for a period of time, but it is clearly breaking down, not only in IL, but nationally as well.
The 2 party du-opoly, with the increasing stridency of the extremes and resulting burn-out/tune out of the middle is killing informed debate in our politics.
The best solution is to have open ballot access for any and all parties or independent candidates (same signature threshold). Put them all on one ballot in the primary with party affiliation noted by their names. If some one gets more than 50%, they win, if not, it goes to a top 2 run off.
Red state,
I know where you are coming from, but I've soured on the 'party line'. I think an intelligent and informed electorate should vote for the best basket of policies promoted by the people with the most talent in getting those policies elected. In my view, the current system is actively retarding that process by putting forth party loyalists over principled promoters of good policy.
Find me a Democrat who is for school choice, low taxes, and reasonable spending, (whom I trust) and they will get my vote over a pasty former school administrator with an R after his name any day of the week.
The best solution is to have open ballot access for any and all parties or independent candidates (same signature threshold). Put them all on one ballot in the primary with party affiliation noted by their names. If some one gets more than 50%, they win, if not, it goes to a top 2 run off.
So, imagine if you will, an Urbana county board race. The GOP picks 1 candidate, the Greens pick 1 candidate, and the Dems exert no control over their candidates and 8 decide to run. Which 2 will likely advance? Does this scenario give the parties more or less influence than they currently have?
GOP picks 1 candidate, the Greens pick 1 candidate, and the Dems exert no control over their candidates and 8 decide to run.
What would stop the parties from caucusing and selecting a single candidate to represent their party in a multi-candidate primary race that includes several people who have no party affiliation?
if they did, doesn't that defeat part of your argument? That would give the back room party guys more power than they have now. At least now some rogue candidate can run without party support in the primary.
(or maybe that was Extrawise's argument)
What would stop the parties from caucusing and selecting a single candidate to represent their party...
You mean kind of like having a closed party primary? :-)
(I just thought of this - probably should have posted it first)
if they did, doesn't that defeat part of your argument?
Possibly, but I don't think so, if one chooses to wear a party label to the open primary one could pursue the caucus route and wear the party mantle. It would certainly help identify them to people who identify with their politics.
You mean kind of like having a closed party primary? :-)
I think the closed primary system excludes too many people. I think that an open primary system would encourage participation. Allowing party caucuses beforehand might accomodate those who rely more heavily on party affiliation in making their voting decisions.
IMHO the bottom line is participation, which is woefully inadequate considering the many, many issues this State faces. Both major parties have failed miserably in the leadership category. Perhaps it is time to consider something outside the current partisan framework.
extrawise,
You make some excellent points. Two of them I'd like to address. Candidate access to ballots definitely needs to be improved. The current process is (unconstitutionally) stacked against independent and third party candidates. This is simply ridiculous. I personally think if this was fixed, the primary problem might cure itself to an extent.
The second is your wish for protections from a KELO type eminent domain action. I agree there should be protection to an extent, but I think you've mis-cited. The earliest case that KELO really hearkens to BERMAN v. PARKER about a similar redevelopment plan that was executed in Washington DC in the early 50's. KELO was actually nothing new under the sun, BERMAN was just under the radar.
Pr. Biker,
Thanks for the information re: Kelo. I will have to research the case as I organize for the convention and the improved language.
As for the "party/primary" debate, the current system may not be as easily gamed with improvements in the processes, but I think the argument exposes the misdirection caused by 2 party system.
Do we really care about the Dem or the Rep PARTY? Why? The parties, and the people who populate them, are the folks that got us into this mess.
I care about lower taxes and limited government (the IL Rep party certainly does NOT)
A decent ideological Dem cares about access to health care for the poor (The DEM party seems to, but is more interested in creating a patronage health bureaucracy over actually providing health care.)
The ideological Dem and me could craft much better solutions (building clinics, providing subsidies to the working poor for better insurance, developing prevention over treatment, etc. etc) that moved toward both of our goals if we shrugged off the insipid "party" structures that work more for growing the "party" than solving problems.
If you picked the first 177 (118 reps and 59 senators) names out of the phone book and gave them 3 months and $59 billion, they would solve IL issues much better than the stinking minions that spent the last 25-30 years destroying a perfectly good state.
There is a far bigger percentage of decent independents, Dems, Repubs, progressives, etc. than there are decent people in the Legislature. Breaking the 2 party monopoly is one way to unleash their decency, which is currently bottled up by Illinois gamed and funtionally un-reformable government.
Red State makes some great points, but I think holds too dearly to the idea that parties mean something. Here in IL, I don't think they mean any more than what we read in the headlines every day - and that isn't much.
Policy, not parties.
Only problem with the 2 Senators per county is that its against the Voting Rights Act requiring "one person one vote". It will never fly as long as our state Capitol is in Chicago anyway, with the rest of the power in the state.
I like the concept, but as I recall the Voting Rights Act specifically forbids it.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"If you don't like the property tax increases you will have to go to the school board and city council meetings while they are putting the budgets together and tell them not to spend so much."
Been there---done that. It did not do any good. I am becoming more convinced that fiscal responsibility is just as dead as good business sense with our elected politicians. The locals seem are just as greedy as the state and federal politicians. Although the locals may be doing it for just the "power".
I have even been to the CU MTD Board meetings. At least that group was honest and did not even pretend to listen to the wishes of the people who pay their tax.
run4cvrlib, If you really believe what you posted, it appears you have either not lived in Illinois very long or don't get out much.
There comes a point where you put your name on a ballot or run a campaign to "throw the bums out"... those two never seem to make it on the radar...
If you don't like how Unit 4 is doing, by all means, run. We'd be better served having a wider cross-section of society to choose from on the ballot... hence ballot access and open primaries being key issues.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
John,
If the voting rights act prohibits that idea, how can it square with the US Const.
We should LIKE the fact that Alaska and Wyoming have 2 senators, just like New York and California. Similarly I LIKE that Cook Co. gets 2 senators, just like Jersey and Champaign Counties.
Send me that language. I need to see it.
As for your point about Chicago, I tend to agree, but it only strengthens the case for a convention. We need numerous ways to neuter Chicago, and there is NO LEGISLATIVE nor LEGAL way to do so. They are too powerful to defeat because they have so effectively gamed the existing Const.
An effective campaign exposing Chicago corruption and greed as the source of many of Illinois problems will be effective in many places, with Chicago itself being a possible source of support. Chicago taxpayers are getting just as ripped off as everyone else.
_
John says, "There comes a point where you put your name on a ballot or run a campaign to "throw the bums out"... those two never seem to make it on the radar..."
I am ready John, but the CU MTD Board positions are not on the ballot. So how does a citizen of the District have an impact? Like LV, I too have gone to a CU MTD Board meeting and several of their public hearings. Unless you get off on hearing yourself talk, there is NO communication with these people.
I am optimistic about the new members of Unit #4's Board, expecially the leadership.
I would run for CC Board but there are way too many Board members to be effective now.
Extrawise-
Most of the case law I believe is in 412 U.S. 755, which basically requires population equality among representatives in government (of both chambers). In the end, it kinda makes bicameral legislatures on the state level rather pointless, but so be it. Since the US Congress is defined in the Constitution and has never been amended specifically to have population equality, that's why we get away with it on the federal level. I think regional representation makes sense, but the courts have consistently viewed that as diluting the vote of minorities and is unconstituional under the 14 amendment. That case was what I found on a quick findlaw search (I can search more when I'm at the office next week using real resources).
OM-
Likewise, I'm optimistic about Unit 4. MTD is a special case which basically requires getting good people on the Board that will represent the legitimate views of the entire county. The main problem is that the statutory law (which I think is ripe for a constitutional challenge) explicitly limits board member to those covered by the district currently, but gives them the power to annex basically anyone they want. Basically, taxation without representation. Unforunately, that's mostly a state law problem. However, having good relationships with county board members and running for a seat where appropriate can also help with those problems. I know someone on the board, I think he's a reasonable guy, but the problem right now is Bill Volk proper... and I have something I'm working on in that regard.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
John & Extrawise --
Rather than looking at solely at WHITE v. REGESTER, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), I would go back a decade and look at two 1964 cases before the US Supreme Court: REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (wiki, FindLaw) and WESBERRY v. SANDERS, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (wiki, FindLaw). REYNOLDS v. SIMS held, in part, the following:
This, to me, is the beginning of the "one person, one vote" idea. Later that same year, the same Court decided WESBERRY v. SANDERS; that case was the first, i believe, to put down in writing the idea of "one person, one vote". From the decision: "3. The constitutional requirement in Art. I, 2, [of the US Constitution] that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that as nearly as is practicable one person's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. Pp. 7-8, 18." With the Voting Rights Act of 1965 following closely on the heels of these two court decisions (thus putting into practice the decisions of the court), I would offer REYNOLDS v. SIMS and WESBERRY v. SANDERS as better examples.
Also, while the US Constitution has never been specifically amended to codify the election of the House on the grounds of "one person, one vote", I would offer the Seventeenth Amendment as doing precisely that for Senators. Senatorial elections are every six years, with only one senator from a particular state running at a time. Since the Seventeenth Amendment provides for the direct election of Senators by "the people [of]" that particular state, thus making the election essentially state-wide, one person's vote counts just as much as the next. Essentially, the "Congressional District" of a Senator is the entire state, not a precinct on a map. There's no need to "balance out" the population of the Senator's district, because the entire population of the state votes in that election.
One could also look at the WESBERRY v. SANDERS as a legal basis for "one person, one vote" for House elections, but i'm not as comfortable making that argument (versus the Senate one above); it seems a bit too much of "the cart before the horse" to me...
Course, i'm not a lawyer, never been to law school, so all this just amounts to my two cents :)
HG
run4cvrlib, If you really believe what you posted, it appears you have either not lived in Illinois very long or don't get out much.
Local Voter--If you beleive that, you don't know me very well and you have never sat down and talked to me, I you would like to talk, let me know. I think what you mean is that you have given up trying to get your elected officails to cut spending or hold the line on spending and would like to try a different way to control spending. The problem you have is more people that want to spend money then not, are in charge. So this just means that the current system is not working the best for us right now. If you want to make a change you have to convince people to make that change, you may not be successful if you are by yourself, I might suggest getting some freinds and trying again.
I have already taken up your suggestion by banning with some friends/business owners. I have already done the elected and appointed government jobs. So I'll give this group effort three years to show signs of success, however, if this approach fails, I will move myself and my business out of my birth state in 2010. I have fought corrupt, business illiterate, elected/appointed, ego massive, politians from both parties in this state for almost 40 years. I am getting a bit tired but have one more effort left, which I hope works.
The answer is coming via WDWS AM 1400 nxt week. The solution to the countries problems, removing politics from the system and implementing term limits. Uniting the country under common leadership, working together in a mutually beneficial structure. A slight tweak to the curent system, yet bold initiative to remove corruption from the system. Listen for it. A grass rootscampaign to unite the men and women of this great country, and to remove the career politicians from office, handing the country back to the people. WE CAN DO IT
Instant Run-off Voting at all levels of government, for both primary and general elections.
www.fairvote.org/
www.irvforurbana.net/
I would love to abolish the state's monopoly on education.
ractivist -
Has it aired yet?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I must say, there are some pretty good ideas here.
Who would like to take the bull by the horns and describe the constitutional process as it will occur. Gordy, you would be my choice, but John, you have handled this thread with great integrity.
Anybody?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
What part of the process? Getting it to happen or the process as it unfolds when there is a convention?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"Who would like to take the bull by the horns and describe the constitutional process as it will occur. Gordy, you would be my choice, but John, you have handled this thread with great integrity."
I'm not all that familiar with the process.
If the referendum to hold a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) passes in November 2008, then it's my understanding that each State Senate district will elect two delegates to the ConCon. The 52nd District contains the UI and many, many people that would be excellent delegates to a ConCon - which, IIRC, is a full-time position for one year, with a salary in the $50,000 to $60,000 range.
The basic process is that next year, the ILGA will decide how the question will appear on the ballot and then for a few weeks leading up to the election put in a bunch of papers throughout the state the official "pro"/"con" cases for it. The ILGA does make an advisory vote to the people on where the legislature stands on the question. (5 ILCS 25). In November, if 60% of the voters say yes, a Con-Con will be convened. At this point, the ILGA will pass laws that provides for the election of 2 delegates per legislative district (I think Senate legislative), set pay, set the first meeting, and so on (IL Const. Art 14). Within three months of the election of delegates, they meet for the first time and they can revise, amend, or slash,burn, and start over. Lastly, any changes must be approved by 50% +1 of voters on a seperate ballot 1-2 months when the Con-Con is done.
That's about it.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Lastly, any changes must be approved by 50% +1 of voters on a seperate ballot 1-2 months when the Con-Con is done.
No, it must be approved by a majority, which is "more than half", not "50% +1". See the previous "Constitutional Convention" thread where I explained the difference. It seems like semantics, but if you study parliamentary procedure and voting rules/definitions as much as I do in my spare time, it's really not.