Two con-con articles

This article from sjr.com discusses those who are in favor of the con-con and those against one:

Supporters of a “con-con” said state government’s gridlock can’t get much worse and that a convention could help.

“I don’t see how it’s going to get better unless we do something drastic,” said Rep. Jack Franks, D-Woodstock, and a backer of the constitutional convention.

“The process is broken,” said Bruno Behrend, a Chicago-area attorney and radio talk show host who supports a constitutional convention. “There’s no new people getting into the process,” he said.

Opponents of a con-con said that lawmakers could act on recall, taxes and other issues without a constitutional convention.

They also said the existing document is fundamentally sound and that state government’s problems are largely caused by personality conflicts among top state leaders. A con-con would cost millions of dollars, they added.

Kevin Semlow of the Illinois Farm Bureau, which opposes a constitutional convention, said that calling one now would be akin to replacing every part on a car just because it got a flat tire.

“You’re probably going to break something that works pretty well,” he said.

Behrend countered that Semlow’s comparison isn’t valid.

“This is a jalopy that has broken down all over the place,” Behrend said.

The next article discusses interest groups' support for a con-con and check out the Q&A's when you follow the link:

At issue is whether the state should elect delegates to redraft a constitution that will be sent back to voters for approval. 

Franks and his Con-Con Yes organization are hoping to install term limits, reconfigure districting rules, revamp property tax and income tax measures and offer voters a way to kick elected officials out of office before their term expires. 

Franks considers a constitutional convention process as a way to give citizens a voice. But opponents argue it will only lead to horse-trading and shenanigans by the same political players who are causing havoc at the state Capitol. 

"It may do more harm than good," says Paula Lawson, president of the League of Women Voters.

Voters can also change the constitution through individual amendments to the constitution. Opponents of the convention argue that this is the appropriate course for some of Franks' proposals, but supporters say such referendums end up getting killed in the legislature before they get to the voters. 

"You have to trust the voters," Franks says.

Some of the news about interest groups' opposition I've seen involves a chain e-mail that seeks to influence people especially retired public employees to vote against this convention. Public employees are up in arms about the con-con because they're concerned about their pensions. Of course the arguments against this whole idea that a con-con can play around with pensions is that the provision in the current state constitution can't just be magically eliminated leaving retirees or current state public employees from getting their pension.

Thus any future pension provision in a future state constitution, indeed if they choose to amend the constitutional provision for pensions it's probably safe so say that this can only effect future state public employees. Not those who are current and certainly not those who are retired.

Honestly the issues about pensions as I understand it is about either underfunding them or raiding the pension funds. In that case there is some work that needs to be done on them. Is the con-con a place for that? Can this be worked about by state government in the current environment? Both are good questions.