RCHA newsletter on the Con-Con

Well back in their October newsletter they urged their neighbors to vote NO on the Con-Con. Of course this referendum didn't win in the Sixth in any event:

This election Illinois voters will be asked to vote on weather the state should hold a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) to rewrite the Constitution. Vote NO, as this would threaten benefits like public employee pensions, would be costly to the tax payers and would further delay education funding reform and funding for public services.

In addition to that the Roseland Heights Community Association gave an overwheling endorsement to the now President-elect of the United States.

Con-con voting in black wards

Even tho the Con-Con was defeated on Election Day, Ramsin Canon over at Mechanics has some analysis nestled in his latest post asking if Chicago is ready for reform. This analysis is according to the racial make-up of particular wards:

First, there is the Constitutional Convention vote from this past election. The Con Con was a good government issue in its most distilled form; a vote for the Con Con was a vote against the status quo. Given that there was little effective organized support for a "yes" vote and a well-financed disinformation campaign for a "no" vote, it is surprising that Chicago over-performed the rest of Illinois by 13 percent. Particularly considering that Illinois' entire power structure comes from Chicago — every constitutional officer, and both legislative leaders — that Chicagoans expressed a greater will for reform than the rest of the state indicates something.

"Yes" won eight wards: all of them majority black or Latino. A total of 18 wards came in within two and half points. All 16 are majority black or Latino. The First Ward, which is plurality Latino, was within six. The Yes vote's best white ward was the Lakefront liberally-est of them all, the 49th Ward, East Rogers Park. It went 53-46 against. But city-wide, only two wards didn't over-perform the state's yes vote: the 41st Ward, which is represented by the City Council's only Republican, and the old Machine's holdout ward, the far southwest side 19th. (Surprisingly, Mike Madigan's 13th Ward over-performed the state). Looking at suburban Cook County, the pattern holds; the strongest "Yes" townships Cicero, Calumet and Thornton, all three with large minority populations.

Is there a reasonable conclusion to draw from these results? One interpretation is that minority voters are ahead of a generational and demographic shift in the city electorate that is less constrained by traditional voting patterns and willing if not eager to remake the political establishment. This is amplified by the results of the 2007 aldermanic elections, which saw incumbents lose at a greater clip than they had in a decade. The Readers' Ben Joravsky, in a short exploration of the results of the Con Con vote, points out that only two thirds of voters who voted in the city even bothered to vote on the Con Con issue. Considering the lopsided spending of the two sides of the issue, and the heavy-hitters pushing for a No (not to mention the natural constituency the anti- forces had: pensioners), it is even more surprising that Chicago voters voted for reform at a greater rate than Illinoisans generally.

Second, though less compelling, are the results of the Forrest Claypool/John Stroger primary. In that case, we can expect black wards to have come in strong for Stroger, a pillar of the black political establishment in Chicago for a generation. Stroger also had the backing of the then-still-kind of popular governor and the nominal support of the mayor. But Stroger was utterly rejected at the polls in 17 wards, where he lost to Claypool by a 60-40 margin or worse — in 10 wards, the difference was 70-30 or greater. Overall, Claypool won 20 wards — including three majority or plurality Latino wards, and was competitive in another three, two of which are majority Latino. It is not possible to simply attribute Stroger's losses in these wards to voting along racial lines; of the "ethnic white" wards, Stroger won two and was competitive in two more.

Voting "Yes" on Con Con and voting for Claypool against Stroger are both acts of a sort of political leap of faith. In both cases, voters were acting more as a rejection of the status quo than in support of a positive alternative. They were willing to invite the unknown out of disgust with what they saw.

Looking at the totals for the 6th on the Con-Con I didn't see anything resembling over performance.In fact the Con-Con lost bad in the 6th having only won about 42% of the vote.

I see it won in these black wards the 3rd, 15th, 16th, & 20th. In other wards well the vote was very close but lost in the 7th, 17th, 28th, & 37th wards.You can check citywide results here. Just realized it'll take you to a page for online results go under "Select the Contest from the List Box Below - November, 2008 General" then click on the down arrow and look for "Proposed Call Convention".

If Quinn was successful in his lawsuit in challenging these results even if the defeat was resounding outside of Chicago, I wonder if it was possible to flip certain groups to the cause?

Con on the con-con

I was diasappointed to find out last week that the Con-Con referendum was defeated heavily in Illinois. It would be suspected that it had something to do with the approved Con-Con question and the remedy to correct the original question that seemed biased. The remedy being that the corrected question was to be handed on a flyer.

The reason for that was more or less economical. When that ruling came down from Cook County Circuit Court the idea was certainly to use the ballots that were already printed. The idea was that it might be expensive or indeed cutting it too close to just print new ballots with the corrected and improved question.

Well there might have been a number of reasons for it's absolute defeat at the polls. Perhaps the people of Illinois wasn't ready to make any revisions. Of course that's not to say there aren't those who are still whining about it. There could be another lawsuit because of the results although there are those who will say that's not likely because of how the results aren't even close.

Either way I want to point out this post from Clout City about the Con-Con vote in Chicago...

The referendum lost statewide, so there will be no convention, thus ending my never-really-existed political career.

In Chicago it wasn't so much that it lost -- which it did -- but that relatively few people bothered to vote one way or another. Citywide, roughly 66 percent of the voters who took a ballot voted on the referendum.

The I-couldn't-care-less-one-way-or-the-other totals were particularly high in the 14th Ward (76 percent), the 12 th Ward (70 percent) and the 15th Ward (69 percent).

I know that vote totals generally fall with referendum questions, if for no other reason than that they're buried at the bottom of the ballot, beneath all those freaking judges. But this issue had draw considerable media attention -- it was the subject of rallies and ads both pro and con. And the vote came as poll after poll showed that voters in Illinois and Chicago are hugely dissatisfied with the general drift of politics in state government. So you'd figure folks would at least venture an opinion on things.

By the way, the "no" vote was highest in southwest- and northwest-side wards, most likely because seniors on fixed income in those parts didn't trust the convention delegates -- whoever they might be -- to convene without somehow or other mucking up their pensions.

Well it had to boil down to the pensions. Well for many reasons the pensions aren't doing well in this state. They are said to be underfunded anyway, yet those who were in the employ of state government still expect theirs. It's probably another issue that could use some work.

Of course pensions probably aren't the only reason we're not going to have a con-con in 2010. There are those who didn't believe that the state constitution didn't need to be changed and it had nothing to do with pensions. Either way if anyone believes in reform in Illinois, it's going to be an uphill battle, unfortunately.

Voters reject constitutional convention

This was certainly the biggest dissapointment of the night from Crain's:

Illinois voters decided against a constitutional convention referendum Tuesday, but the question may live on in the courts. 

With 92 percent of precincts reporting, the referendum has 2,761,831 "no" votes, or 68 percent, and 1,313,853 "yes" votes, or 32 percent.

The referendum asked voters whether the state should call a constitutional convention, which would allow officials to examine and rewrite the constitution. Voters would have to approve any proposed changes. State law requires the question to be on the ballot every 20 years.

Proponents of the measure said Tuesday night they might sue over the way the referendum was worded on the ballot.

Cook County Circuit County Judge Nathaniel Howse last month ruled the language on the ballot was unconstitutional. Howse said the explanation of the referendum had false and biased information.
Howse ordered poll workers to hand out blue fliers about the misleading wording.

But Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, one of the referendum's most fervent supporters, said many voters called him reporting county clerks who refused to pass out the fliers.

"We didn't have much of a chance," he said. "The point is every election should be fair and equal. I think that's a principle worth fighting for."

Vallas: Vote 'yes' on constitutional convention

Indications are that he isn't going to run for any office in 2010 given the fact that he signed an extension to continue running the school system in New Orleans, but he was back home to talk about a constitution convention:

Sunday, he joined with Lt. Governor Pat Quinn in supporting Tuesday's referendum to force a constitutional convention, or "con-con," in Illinois.

Vallas says Illinoisans should vote "yes" so that work can get started to reform school funding and ethics laws.

"We're entering the 21st century with a 20th century document. If you want to effectuate real change a con-con will allow you to do that," said Vallas.

Eye on Chicago: Illinois Constitutional Convention

This aired on CBS2 this morning apparently a debate between Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn & former state Treasurer Dawn Clark Netsch.

EDIT: Another CBS2 report with such people as Pat Quinn, Paul Vallas and Dawn Clark Netsch talking about a con-con.

FAQ about a con-con

BND answers some frequently asked questions about a state constitutional convention as Illinois will consider the current ballot question about whether to hold on to make revisions to the current state constitution.

Quinn Says Relationship with Gov is 'Frosty'

CPR:

Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn had some sharp words for Governor Rod Blagojevich today. Blagojevich yesterday came out against a referendum on Tuesday's ballot asking voters if they want a constitutional convention. Quinn says Blagojevich is flat-out wrong.

QUINN: The ludicrous idea that somehow the governor's powers might be in jeopardy through a constitutional convention is a lot of balogna.

The lieutenant governor says he thinks Blagojevich opposes the constitutional convention because it could result in a recall provision. That would let voters remove officials from office before their terms expire. Quinn admits his relationship with Blagojevich is "frosty."

And yet the Governor is honored to get his "ass kicked for the people". All the while alienating the very people (his fellow Democrats) who have already been cool to some of his objectives anyway. It also doesn't help if the people he claims to be champion of doesn't really see him as their champion anyway.

Excuse the language, BTW.

Pro con-con commercial

Also via CapFax! You can check out a negative con-con ad.

Roland Burris cut's an anti-con-con ad for the radio

Listen to it here. Via CapFax.

Blagojevich Opposes Constitutional Convention

Well this isn't a big surprise is it?

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Thursday came out against a referendum asking voters if they want a constitutional convention. Blagojevich says Illinois' tax code needs to be changed. But he says there are better ways to do that.

BLAGOJEVICH: You can do that legislatively, and you can do that by referenendum, and you can do it without opening up a whole constitutional convention, which, from my point of view, could be costly and could upset the delicate balance between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

Question: Does he actually think anybody is listening to him?

More from Clout St:

The governor said he likes the "concept" of a constitutional convention, but said it could be a costly endeavor that "could upset the delicate balance between the executive branch and the legislative branch."

Critics have accused Blagojevich of doing a lot himself to upset that balance by going around the General Assembly to push his pet-causes, such as health care expansion.

Blagojevich, however, defends his governing style.

"Thank God that the constitution gives the executive branch a lot of power to get around the legislative branch," Blagojevich said, adding that without his ability to issue executive orders or use his amendatory veto power there would be no free mass transit rides for seniors or free breast and cervical cancer exams for women.

"If the constitutional convention were to occur and there was an effort to erode the executive branch's ability to do those things, then I think less good things would happen for people," Blagojevich said. 

Or perhaps one less tool to be exploited by a grandstanding politician.

State Constitution: If it’s not broke . . .

Cheryl Jackson:

While both sides have valid arguments, we at Chicago Urban League feel it is important for voters to remember that the vast majority of the problems African Americans face do not stem from flaws in our state Constitution. A shortage of good-paying jobs, failing schools and lack of access to capital to fund businesses–none of these problems will go away by attacking our state Constitution with a red ballpoint pen. High crime rates, scarce affordable housing and deteriorating infrastructure in our neighborhoods–these are social ills that cannot be blamed on the Constitution. In fact, the estimated $40 million to $80 million cost of a Constitutional Convention could be better spent purchasing computers for public schools on the South and West sides, or hiring more highly skilled teachers in the toughest neighborhood schools.

As for education funding, the Constitution already clearly spells out the responsibility of the state to provide a high quality education to all of its citizens, and it's high time for Illinois lawmakers to honor that.

In 1808, the designers of the state's original Constitution wrote in a useful feature for making changes to the document: It's called an amendment. We, at the Urban League, believe the tools to lead Illinois forward are already in the hands–or certainly within reach–of our legislative leaders. The other tool lies in your hands. As a voter, you have the power to elect the candidates you believe will make the changes our community needs. If you're not informed about who you want to vote for, their policies and their track records, then I suggest you do your homework before Tuesday rolls around.

A couple of Con-Con items from CPR
Constitutional Convention Debate Draws Big Donors
Supporters of Constitutional Convention Push Forward 

Vote "Yes" for Illinois "Con-Con"

Via Marathon Pundit!

Also read this column by Phil Kadner!

Despite what people tell you, no changes in the constitution can be made without a final vote at the ballot box.

All the corrupt, powerful forces that have controlled this state oppose the constitutional convention.

If you trust them, vote "no" on Tuesday. If you don't, vote "yes."

If You Don't Want Change, Vote No

Rich Miller's syndicated column addressing the arguments against a con-con.

ADDITION: Also from the CapFax, US Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is in support of a con-con...

Today, Tuesday, October 28th at 1:30pm Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., and Alderman Sandi Jackson will join Lt. Governor Pat Quinn in endorsing a “yes” vote on the November 4 Constitutional Convention.

Awesome news!

Supporters Push Constitutional Question

WBBM-TV:

Supporters of the measure rallied two weeks ago to try to stir Illinois residents to vote "for" a measure to hold a state constitutional convention. They gathered again Sunday to push their message that future generations would benefit from revamping the state's constitution.

Some proponents want to be elected as delegates who would go to the state capitol and decide what changes should be made. They say it could be the most effective way to get things done.

"There is complete gridlock," one supporter said. "There is absolutely no ability to have any kind of amendments that have any substance to be put forward by legislators on our behalf."

Under the plan, supporters say delegates could vote to reform school funding and increase the amount the state pays school districts. They could also vote for property tax changes that could benefit homeowners.

"We need reform," said Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, one of the supporters. "We need property tax reform. We need more equitable funding for our schools. We need to do something about the high utility rates that are hurting so many families. We need to do something about the lack of ethics in state government and local government."

Quinn said he doesn't envision a broad rewrite, just changes in some articles of the constitution.

The Presidential race isn't the only important item on the ballot. A con-con is just as important.

Editorials on the con-con

All from RRStar.com. To start we look at a piece that says that the current state constitution works by former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar:

llinois government may not be working, but our constitution works.

Throughout most of the nearly four decades since voters approved the state constitution, several governors and hundreds of legislators found common ground to move Illinois forward.

I worked with Democratic and Republican lawmakers to put state finances on solid footing, balance the budget, make Chicago Public Schools more accountable and help thousands of people move from welfare to work. Under this constitution, we have seen major capital improvement programs and advances that enhanced our economy and quality of life.

Our constitution, regarded as one of the best in the nation, certainly does not require the sweeping rewrite that a convention could produce. Like the U.S. Constitution, it is an enduring, broadly worded document that protects our rights, lays out a sound framework for governing and is insulated from the passions of the moment.

Consider an alternative document in California. The California Constitution allows for the initiative and referendum process that resulted in powerful interest groups convincing uninformed citizens to support laws that have a significant impact on state and local budgets. This process, touted by many constitutional convention proponents in Illinois, has put California taxpayers in a precarious financial position and left them paying the bill.

Here's a piece in favor of a con-con:

Some say we shouldn’t change the rules that control the politicians, that we should just change the politicians. We can change politicians, but politicians don’t change. Expecting all politicians to suddenly become virtuous is like expecting wolves to suddenly become vegetarians.

Some say we can’t afford a convention because it would cost $78 million, as though all election costs have to be borne by the convention, as though delegate selection and amendment voting can’t be done at regular elections. The $78 million figure comes to about $336,500 per elected delegate. Perhaps that estimate tells us why the state borders on bankruptcy.

Some say delegates may interfere with public pensions.

Concern for public pensions actually is a reason to vote for con-con, not against it. State government mismanagement, which includes failure to fund public pensions, has brought the state to the brink of bankruptcy. When the state is insolvent, so are pension funds. Our next opportunity for reform like this doesn’t come around till 2028. Failure to act now makes it unlikely there will be any pension funds by then.

I was unwilling unfortunately to really excerpt this thing but this is pretty good and worth reading the whole thing. It answers a lot of fears and concerned about convening a con-con.

Another piece not in favor of a con-con:

From the staggering financial expense to the erosion of strong protections on issues such as discrimination and tax caps, the chamber board believes the constitutional rewrite would be a costly and ineffective measure to address our state’s real problems.

The public resources that would be allocated to the constitutional convention — approximately $100 million and countless hours of our politicians’ time — could be put to better use in addressing our state’s real issues: budget deficits, school funding and crumbling infrastructure. 

If approved by voters, the constitutional convention wouldn’t be held until 2010, giving legislators a pass to do nothing until that date to address the state’s problems. The problems and challenges within our state cannot be attributed to flaws in our constitution, when in fact, the Illinois Constitution is considered by many legal scholars to be a model for other states to follow. By allowing politicians, special-interest groups and single-issue groups to rewrite our constitution, we could face the possibility that these problems would amplify. 

A piece in favor of the con-con...

Illinois voters will be presented with a historical opportunity to fix the structural problems that plague Illinois government and fix deficiencies and loopholes in our current constitution. There are problems that can only be fixed in a constitution, but the entrenched interests have come out saying a convention is unnecessary. Here is why they are wrong.

There are two arguments that a constitutional convention is inadvisable: the necessary changes can be made through other means (i.e. electing better politicians) and that there is no way to ensure that reform-minded delegates get elected. Skipping past the individual merits of these arguments for a moment, the arguments perfectly illustrate the problem. On one hand, we need to elect better politicians (I agree); on the other hand, we can’t enough elect good politicians to make a difference (I also agree). The opposition to a convention presents no solutions, just another intractable problem.

Finally this next piece basically runs down the issues of the con-con and the fact that it's on the ballot. Some of this has already been seen from time-to-time:

Whether a convention happens depends on the vote totals on the referendum question. There will be a convention if 60 percent of the people voting on the question say “yes” or if a majority of the people voting in the entire election vote “yes.” Otherwise, there will be no convention.

If voters authorize a constitutional convention, two convention delegates would be elected from each of Illinois’ 59 state Senate districts — a total of 118 delegates. Whether those prospective delegates would run for office on a partisan basis or a nonpartisan basis would be up to the General Assembly to decide as it worked out the mechanics of conducting a con-con. To be eligible as a delegate, a person must be a U.S. citizen who is at least 21 years old and who has lived in his or her state Senate district for at least two years before the delegate election.

Supporters of a “con-con” say that voting yes will offer an opportunity to fix what ails state government. Opponents say a yes vote won’t repair the problems because they’re caused by the individuals currently in government, and not by the constitution, which remains fundamentally sound.

The two sides of the debate have attracted an unusual mishmash of individuals and groups.

Some things to consider before you go to the ballot box on Nov. 4th. That is if you haven't early voted already.

Con-Confusion: Ballot language still at issue

Clout St:

There seems to be some confusion about the revised language voters are supposed to get with their ballots on the question of whether to rewrite the Illinois Constitution.

A Cook County judge and an appellate court approved "corrective" language after critics said the ballot question seemed written to encourage votes against holding a constitutional convention.

But supporters of a convention say they are hearing the new language is not being distributed statewide, and that was indeed the case in St. Clair County this week.

County Clerk Bob Delaney said Thursday that he had not been distributing the “corrective notice” because he and the county state’s attorney didn’t think the original ruling applied statewide.

Apparently different interpretations of rulings.

State constitution battle unpredictable as Springfield

Clout St:

Voters will be asked Nov. 4 to decide whether to rewrite the Illinois Constitution, and the answer may depend in large part on how they feel about a state government plagued by scandal and dysfunction.

The campaigns to influence that decision have taken on all the trappings of a fight between arch-rival politicians, filled with misrepresentation, inflated rhetoric and viral e-mails. Even the way the question appears on the ballot was subject to court challenge and continued complaints about fairness.

At stake are the words of the 1970 Illinois Constitution—still regarded as one of the most progressive in the nation. Praised by Republican and Democrat alike, it banned sex discrimination before the warring over the federal Equal Rights Amendment, protected the rights of the disabled and condemned acts of hate based on religion, racial or ethnic background.

Still, even fans acknowledge the constitution's flaws.

Read the whole thing and while you're at it read up the con-con roundup over at the CapFax.

Responding to APIC's arguments against a con-con

Rich Miller responds to the Alliances to Protect the Illinois Constitution arguments against the Con-Con in his syndicated column.

Illinois Voters To Decide If Constitutional Convention Called

You've probably heard some of this over and over again on this blog, but I found another interesting article talking about what voting for this con-con entails. WKYX:

On Nov. 4, Illinois voters will determine if the state will have a convention to reconsider its Constitution. Every twenty years the present Constitution in Illinois requires the question to hold a convention be presented to the voters. There has been some controversy over ballot wording and in court action, Cook County Circuit Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. ordered the state to print notices to be given to voters to inform them about misleading language on the ballot. If, Illinois voters approve the question, the state legislature will be required to call and pay for a constitutional convention. The measure, as require in Article 14 of the Illinois Constitution, will require at least a 60-percent favorable vote on the question or a favorable vote by 50 percent of those who vote in the election to pass. Two delegates will be elected from each Senate district. Voters seeking more information about the question along with arguments for and against holding a constitutional convention may go to www.cyberdriveillinois.com. Secretary of State Jesse White has posted voter education material on that site.

I'm for it personally. I hope many of you have seen both the for and against and consider voting in favor of one in two weeks!