Today's News-Gazette published a guest commentary from me on the question of an Illinois Constitution Convention which I am in support of (N-G doesn't put guest columns online, sorry)...
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has done something remarkable in Illinois. He has managed to unite people across the political spectrum to create consensus that he absolutely stinks as a governor. Illinois deserves better than Rod Blagojevich. Because of his low approval in both parties and the budget fiasco of last year, legislators (even those in his own party) are talking about amending the constitution to allow recall votes of sitting politicians. The timing for such talk is opportune because on the November ballot this year there will be a question on whether to have a constitutional convention for Illinois to rewrite or amend the state constitution.
The ability to throw a politician out of office after he or she has been shown unwilling or unable to govern according to the public interest is popular among the voters and is growing popular among politicians who want to take revenge against Blagojevich. Yet a convention should include more than just recalls. While throwing public officials out of office that have shown themselves to be a complete failure is a good start; revising the constitution should produce an overall solid framework for good governance.
Discuss.
I read your guest commentary with interest as I too favor a Constitutional Convention. And I also favor "good governance". The problem with this statement has been the word "good". In the past and currently Illinois has governed focused on what is "good" for special interest groups, corrupt politicians (Dem & GOP), state contractors, and political "Power" mogals of both major parties.
My hope for a Constitutional Convention would be a re-focus of "good governance" favoring the people of Illinois by enacting changes to allow for this as the prime objective.
I think more important than a recall provision is some modifications to the amendatory veto. Rod has used this to just write in new appropriations and programs out of thin air - this just cannot be allowed to continue.
What a horrible idea. So much more damage will be done to Illinois' already fairly good constituion that it is incredible that folks would want to reopen all of it for rewriting. How naive to think that all the good parts will be kept and only improvements will be made.
How about Article 3, Section 5? Section 5 establishes rules for the state board of election, requiring that no political party have a majority on the board. Would this be weakened? Would we abandon Home Rule and let guys like Blago and Emil wield more power?
"How about Article 3, Section 5? Section 5 establishes rules for the state board of election, requiring that no political party have a majority on the board. Would this be weakened?"
I'm not sure it's possible for the State Board of Elections to be weakened.
No, my fear is that the section would be weakened and then the SBE would be strengthened and become a political tool for whomever is in power.
Of all the things wrong with the Illinois Constitution, that seems like a strange reason to avoid fixing the real problems that do exist.
In fact, I'd support a constitutional convention if for no other reason than to abolish the State Board of Elections.
I think the real problem is the governor and some of the leadership of the GA which ignore the IL constitution or at least it's intent and so changing it won't fix the real problem. So we get the government we ask for.
The state constitution requires a balanced budget. We're $106B in debt. That should say all you need to know about the "sufficiency" of our current constitution.
Yes, the Illinois Constitution needs revisions and improvements. To answer why the current state constitution is seemingly ignored by the elected or appears totally insufficient, you just have to look into how the Illinois Supreme Court handles violations of the Illinois Consitiution.
Anon 1:07 wrote:
So much more damage will be done to Illinois' already fairly good constituion that it is incredible that folks would want to reopen all of it for rewriting. How naive to think that all the good parts will be kept and only improvements will be made.
How about Article 3, Section 5? Section 5 establishes rules for the state board of election, requiring that no political party have a majority on the board. Would this be weakened? Would we abandon Home Rule and let guys like Blago and Emil wield more power?
HOME RULE !!!! Again, a dead bang argument FOR a convention.
See this page for more info...
Illinois' version of Home Rule empowers local political Hacks, not Illinois Citizens.
Anon 2:31 PM,
Bingo!
A brilliant illustration of the point I am trying to make.
"The state constitution requires a balanced budget. We're $106B in debt. That should say all you need to know about the "sufficiency" of our current constitution."
So the state constitution currently requires a balanced budget and it isn't. How are you going to rewrite the constitution to compel the governor or GA to follow the state constitution, won't they ignore the re-write also?
I'd start by changing the structure of the government. A unicameral legislature with drastically limited session times and severe checks-and-balances would be a good place to start discussions.
I have said before I like your ideas especially the one you have mentioned IP. The people in charge right now wouldn't like it, even when Blago stomped all over the GA when he pulled 10 million in stem cell research out of legislation that didn’t include it and ignored the current checks and balances it meant nothing. The GA did nothing to correct the problem.
The risk with a constitutional convention is, of course, that the current powers will work to make a new constitution even worse.
I think we're at a point where our state government is broken badly enough that the risk of a new constitution is worth it, if for no other reason than to develop a different mechanism for school funding.
What form of school funding would you prefer to see?
As far as a unicameral legislature, up until recently I supported it because two houses don't make sense when they are representing the same people. If the districts weren't identically drawn, maybe, but it makes sense on the US level where you have one representing states and another people. However, the fighting between Madigan and Jones has slowed down lots of really bad ideas which has been a net plus. Even though the districts overlap, it still has produce a balancing effect.
As far as the current constitution and debt, the constitution allows the legislature complete freedom in how they define a balanced budget so they've been taking debt as "income". To any rational person that is absurd. Additionally, it is very hard to bring the state to court based on violations of the state constitution which also should change. Lastly, as Bruno mentioned, many of the provisions simply allow the legislature to trump the constitution so a clause saying the constitution is supreme over any laws is also needed.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"The risk with a constitutional convention is, of course, that the current powers will work to make a new constitution even worse. "
I think there is also a serious risk of the voters in Illinois themselves being overly left-leaning at this point in history. This could allow the powers that be to really take Illinois down a sharp left turn that would go way beyond what this liberal could stand, let alone you conservative types. It makes me very nervous. I can understand the desire to change it, but I don't know why the timing doesn't scare the dickens out of the right wingers.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Because 20 years from now it won't matter, and the reforms I'm pushing aren't partisan, they're simple good governance.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Semi-seriously here, looking at the current Illinois government, good government isn't what Illinois voters are voting for. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I would dispute that statement. Especially with Blago's approval numbers. There is a high bar of entry, but there are things that can be done to make that bar lower. Term limits, open ballot access, recalls, etc.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Sorry John I don't think so. We just had the governor beat the heck out of all the best charitable groups that help folks though out the state. He took funding from them for his own pet projects and they put huge pressure on Emil Jones to bring Blago's vetos to the senate floor to be over turned. Those folks could not bring enough pressure on those senators to force Jones to vote. Jones and Blago and his freinds will fight you and rather then term limits put more limits on third parties and new candidates.
"Semi-seriously here, looking at the current Illinois government, good government isn't what Illinois voters are voting for. :-) "
I agree. On the list of priorities of Illinois voters, good government isn't even a blip.
When was the last time that the clear "good government" candidate won a contested statewide election or primary?
When was the last time someone tried to run for office as a "good government" candidate? What are those lists of priorities and by all means, tell me a state-wide candidate who is running on them and actually doing something about them?
If you really think nothing can be done about Jones and Blago (and of course they'll fight it, but the good news is neither will be a delegate to a con-con), then why are we still living here? I don't mean that flippantly, hell, why even bother being a Republican at this point? Why push for even getting our guys elected? Sure, locally we do an ok job, but I mean state wide. Why not just pack it in? What's the point?
As far as putting more limits on third parties, aspects of the current law have been nailed by the federal courts about a half-dozen times as too strict... they COULD do worse, but the federal courts won't let it stand.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"When was the last time someone tried to run for office as a "good government" candidate? What are those lists of priorities and by all means, tell me a state-wide candidate who is running on them and actually doing something about them?"
Nobody has in my memory, which should tell you how ineffective such issues are in garnering votes.
A small list of priorities - truth in budgeting, transparency in campaign funding, balanced budgets, respect for process, belief that the constitution of Illinois actually matters.
"If you really think nothing can be done about Jones and Blago (and of course they'll fight it, but the good news is neither will be a delegate to a con-con), then why are we still living here? I don't mean that flippantly, hell, why even bother being a Republican at this point? Why push for even getting our guys elected? Sure, locally we do an ok job, but I mean state wide. Why not just pack it in? What's the point?"
I'm not sure if you're responding to me. If so, you've misundertood - I don't support a ConCon to rein in Blago or Jones. I support a ConCon because our system isn't working, and hasn't been for longer than they've been in office.
I think the same people who elect our representatives will elect the delegates to a ConCon. Will they elect people much different ideas then they elect to the GA or with much different priorities? In this case they will have the power to change things that they have not been able to change though the legislative process.
I have more faith than you do, I guess, that the people of Illinois realize their government is broken, and there's a difference between sending someone to be a caretaker of a broken system and sending someone to come up with a better system.
The question was probably more at run4cvr than you, but the fact that a candidate hasn't run on the "good government" platform doesn't mean the platform sucks. Surely as a political consultant you see the selection bias inherent for people putting their name on a ballot. As far as reforms, your list resembles my list of things that would go into a constitution (albeit not all). We SHOULD have truth in budgeting, balanced budgets and something in the constitution that says the document is the standard by which laws are judged (not vice versa). Those are just as much good government as anything else. Maybe I mean something different than you do when I say good government. I mean open, responsive and accountable with the bar of entry of fresh blood as low as possible.
And sure, the system has been broken long before Blago, they just happen to be jumping on the wreckage which makes me think that a concon may be a foregone conclusion at this point.
Run4cvr, you assume the same people will put their name on a ballot as they do in a general election. I doubt I could ever be convinced to run for ILGA (not with the 4 tops basically controlling it), but I sure as hell will run for delegate. The last convention had a fair number of non-establishment types get elected too. Bear in mind no executive office could run, and probably no one in the legislature could do so without resigning their seat (though this is speculation considering the ILGA writes the rules and could make allowances). A concon would likely draw in lots of people, far more than those who would run for an ILGA seat to be a bought-and-paid-for-whore-of-madigan-or-jones.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"The question was probably more at run4cvr than you, but the fact that a candidate hasn't run on the "good government" platform doesn't mean the platform sucks. "
No - it means that no candidates, for whom professional survival depends on reacting to public desires, thinks that the issue is important enough to the public to make it a centerpiece of their campaign.
John that assumes you will win and that the people who normally are elected won't want a to have control of the process and run against you putting in money and their organization to beat you.
IP-
Right now there is no real conservative candidate for President. Does that mean voters stopped being conservative? At least in the limited government sense?
run4cvrlib-
The people who normally run for ILGA have almost complete control over the process in how delegates are elected. However, I can't see how they can serve both offices simulatenously, but that's another problem all together. In short, that's exactly why I and the ICC are (1) identifying delegates and trying to run a slate statewide, and (2) getting money now for both the yes vote and the delegate races later. I'm not pie-in-the-sky'ing this... I'm helping to build an organization that will not only push the yes vote, but push and hopefully fund delegates who are committed to the change too.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"Right now there is no real conservative candidate for President. Does that mean voters stopped being conservative? At least in the limited government sense?"
Yes. That's half my gripe. We have no candidates showing leadership, and a large swath of the electorate that is demanding handouts rather than responsibility.
a large swath of the electorate that is demanding handouts rather than responsibility
This is a rather large gripe of mine with conservatives who spout talking points like this: the perception that just about every governmental progra is a handout. It's a wonderful twist that the conservative, limited-government people have been using for years, like calling the estate tax the "death tax", and turning "progressive" and "liberal" into bad words.
The large swath of the electorate is seeing that limited government and Reaganomics don't really do much to help the country as a whole, only a certain part of it. It's easy to preach "personal responsibility" from the position of already having yours and being part of the dominant majority. Many of these programs you so quickly decry as a "handout" are more of a hand-up. Why is it ok for the government to constantly give a hand-up to business and industry, but not for the person actually working the front lines of said businesses and industries?
"Why is it ok for the government to constantly give a hand-up to business and industry, but not for the person actually working the front lines of said businesses and industries?"
It's not really OK in either case. Mitt Romney's "conservative" pander of a $20 billion handout to the American auto industry was absolutely disgusting, and widely praised.
I think what John and IP discussing about the Republican Party is still far from being "progressive" or "liberal" and that includes my friend Rudy.
John I wish you luck but if you help open the door for them, and they wipe you out things could be much worse.
Think of the last few posts about the political bent of Illinois voter.
I'd dispute the political bent of the Illinois voter, at least when it comes to this. I think if you present the right platform of reform, it could get enough of the right people in as delegates and we can effect real change. I could be wrong, and if I am, I'll be the first to campaign to not ratify the Constitution that gets passed to make things worse.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit