Constitutional Convention for Illinois

A lot of progressives are coming out against a constitutional convention. Here is one such blog: http://progressillinois.com/2008/05/30/features/is-con-con-the-answer

Here is my response:

United Power for Action and Justice in Cook County has endorsed a new constitutional convention and is actively promoting it through its member institutions. Our goal is to talk with 100,000 people before November 4 to convince them that a yes vote is needed for the following reasons:

1. More democracy is better than less democracy. This point seems to be lost on many liberals, who like democracy in theory but not in practice, and on many conservatives, who like democracy in other countries but not so much here. What we need in this country and in this state is more discussion, more debate, more conversation about what we want and expect from our government and how that government should operate. There is nothing that will facilitate such public involvement than a constitutional convention. United Power is not afraid of differences of opinion or new ideas. What we are afraid of is what has been happening in Springfield over the past few years. Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison: "Every constitution...and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years [a generation]. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." If we don't want to exercise our rights as citizens, or if we are afraid of letting other citizens exercise their rights, then we ought to follow that to it's logical conclusion: some form of enlightened monarchy. (Maybe Nancy Kaszak would like to be named Queen of Illinois?)

2. Those of us who are for a constitutional convention cannot allow those who are against it to say how much it would cost. I think we could run a bang-up constitutional convention for a measly $40 million. (And since it has been forty years since we have had one, that is only $1 million a year in order to exercise our democratic rights and responsibilities.

3. "We can make the changes we need some other way." If you buy that one, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. While it is true that the legislature will have to set up the rules for a constitutional convention, they will do so under intense scrutiny (from United Power and everyone else). The writers (and voters) of our present constitution were wise enough to build in a vote every twenty years on whether or not we need a constitutional convention. They did so precisely because they did not trust the legislature to do so. If we don't take advantage of this opportunity, then shame on us.

If the majority of us vote "no" on a constitutional convention, those in power will say, "See, people aren't that upset with us. We can continue business as usual. Only a "yes" vote will send the message that needs to be sent: "What you are doing is NOT acceptable, and we are going to accept our constitutional right to change how you operate."