From the UIC Chicago Flame

Constitutional Convention debate held at UIC
By: Joel Ebert
Posted: 9/22/08
This November, Illinois voters will be faced with the chance to vote on whether to revisit the state constitution by calling for a constitutional convention. Voters will be required to make their decision while they cast their vote for president, leaving less than six weeks to decide whether they want a constitutional convention, or con-con, as it is often referred, to be held.
The 1970 Illinois Constitution requires that voters decide every 20 years whether it is necessary to revise or altogether rewrite the state constitution. The last vote was held in 1988 and was subsequently rejected. This year, there has been a significant amount of dialogue from supporters for and against the reconvening of a constitutional convention.
Last week, UIC held a panel discussion on the matter that featured proponents of both sides of the issue. Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn and State Representative John Fritchey appeared on the panel. Both offered up supporting statements for holding a constitutional convention. Quinn said that the politicians in Springfield are unable to pass any significant piece of legislation due to political gridlock. Fritchey continued saying significant issues such as education funding reform has not happened because "Springfield does not have a lot of profiles in courage."
Proponents such as Quinn and Fritchey supporting the convention say that it would allow time for the best chance for real change. Fritchey explained that the delegates that would attend the convention would be citizens without political backgrounds therefore they would be accountable to none other than their fellow citizens. One of the other benefits of holding the convention, according to Quinn, is that voters must approve of any changes to constitution after the convention takes place. This serves as a counterbalance to the influence that external forces such as lobbyists and special interests groups may have.
Although Quinn and Fritchey support efforts to hold the convention, there is strong opposition as well. Kathryn Nesburg of the League of Women Voters of Illinois and former State Senator and current Northwestern University Professor Dawn Clark Netsch appeared on last week's panel in opposition to the convention.
Netsch explained that the problem with the "dysfunctional system in Springfield is with the leadership, not the constitution." She warned that if the constitution was to be revisited, it would be open to powerful external forces that would insert their agendas. Netsch also said that "there will be large amounts of money spent on delegate selection."
Advocates of keeping the current constitution, even with its imperfections, say that there are risks with holding a constitutional convention. People that argue against holding a convention say that it would require too much taxpayer money. These people also argue that the current amendment process works.
According to proponents on both sides of the issue, the most important thing is that people are aware that they will be required to vote for or against the constitutional convention this fall and that voters understand the benefits and drawbacks of either side.
A blue booklet sent by Secretary of State Jesse White was recently mailed out to all registered voters. This book outlines the arguments in favor and against holding a convention as well as providing the actual text that will be found on the election ballot.
The booklet was created in an effort to inform the public about one of the lesser talked about, but no less important issues that will be decided when voters enter the booths this November. For a digital version of the book visit http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/index/conconenglish.pdf