|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:50 PM CDT
OUR VIEW: Vote 'yes' for a constitutional convention
By the JG/T-C Editorial Board
editorial@jg-tc.com
One of the issues voters will face on the upcoming election ballot is whether or not the state should have a constitutional convention.
We think it’s time to consider changes to the constitution.
The purpose of the convention would be to allow a group of delegates to review and propose changes to Illinois’ current constitution, which was approved in 1970. Our state constitution requires that Illinoisans be given a chance to review the document every 20 years.
The last time voters were asked to approve a constitutional convention — in 1988 — they voted 3-1 against it. That same question will face voters again on Nov. 4. Sixty percent of voters must approve the referendum in order for a convention to take place.
There have been many vocal opponents to having a constitutional convention. They say the convention would be a waste of taxpayer money (those against a convention say it could cost up to $86 million, while supporters estimate $14 million to $23 million).
Opponents — including former Gov. Jim Edgar — also say that a convention would open up the constitution for manipulation by political players who already have too much influence in the statehouse. The current state constitution, they say, is a good document, and is not to blame for the corruption that has become commonplace in Springfield.
We agree that the current Illinois constitution is not the cause of the stink that has become Illinois politics. But residents of both political parties would agree that something needs to change in state government, and we believe a constitutional convention is a good place to start.
While it’s true that current members of the General Assembly could also be elected as delegates at the convention, this is not necessarily the case. In fact, at the last convention 40 years ago, only two of the 118 delegates were members of the Legislature.
We urge all Illinoisans of any political background or experience to consider being a delegate at the convention. It’s the average Illinois citizen — not the current political figureheads — who will bring about real change for our state.
Although a convention would, no doubt, be costly — no matter which estimate you choose to believe — we believe it would be money well spent if it results in real change for Illinois politics.
How could a change in the constitution help to end the many problems in government? State Rep. Jack Franks, a leader among those pushing for a convention, said delegates could approve ideas such as term limits for legislative leaders, campaign finance reform, education funding or a change in how legislative redistricting is done to allow newcomers a better chance to enter the political arena.
“We know what we’ve got now” in state political leadership, Franks says. “The system isn’t going to change unless the people have a say.”
But the strongest argument in favor of a convention is this: No matter who serves as delegates, or what ideas or changes they propose to make for the Illinois constitution, nothing about the document will change unless voters approve it.
The ultimate power, in the end, still lies with the people. If we don’t like the proposals made, we can vote them down, and we’re left with what most agree is a pretty strong constitution.
If nothing else, Franks says, the convention can give the people a “renewed hope” and “sense of empowerment” to make real changes that will affect their everyday lives.
We believe that democracy should be given a chance. Illinoisans have a right to review the constitution and make changes that could improve it.
We urge voters to vote “yes” for a constitutional convention for Illinois.
— JG/T-C Editorial Board
Add your comments
Not already registered?
Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike P wrote on Oct 27, 2008 5:53 PM:
Picking sides in editorials is fine. Doing it in informing readers, should be seen as propaganda, not news. A week prior to the last day to decide, they jump on a wagon, but say little to support their newly chosen parade ride. Do a factual report on what the constitution actually says, and what what it says means to groups using it as their guide on our behalf.
Some time ago a letter stated this was a model for other states. Illinios tends to be model after model, of what not to do, on pretty much every level and aspect of its government. If the constitution is their guide, it is obviously flawed, or being misinterpreted and ignored.
It is ultimately lawmakers failure, to act responsibly on our behalf. What is to stop them from amending changes, designed to set their rules, and curb what has become business as usual in this state. What has been changed since the last convention? What was the reason and benefit given for those amended changes? "