Constitutional Convention for Illinois

I received a letter from an Illinois judge friend of mine whom I had asked to support the constitutional convention. She had come to the conclusion that a constitutional convention was "unnecessary, costly, and ill-advised." Here is my response to her:

1. The argument that a constitutional convention is “unnecessary” is very narrowly drawn, usually (as in your letter) because “the amendment process is quite adequate to meet the people’s right to change the constitution.” The process is, on the contrary, quite onerous, especially (as in the recent debate about putting recall on the ballot) when the state legislature refuses to put a measure on the ballot. Then the only option is for citizens to get a large number of signatures to force a measure onto the ballot. The last time this was successfully done, I believe, was many years ago by Pat Quinn and others over the issue of changing the size of the legislature. But on a broader basis, I would argue that a constitutional convention is “necessary” because of the degradation of democracy itself in our country. Democracy only works when citizens are involved in their government, not just every two or four or six years but on a regular basis. The reason (as you point out) that there has been little work done in preparation for a constitutional convention this year is that people have been told that it is “unnecessary, costly, and ill-advised.” We need to change that perception.

2. The argument that a constitutional convention is “costly” is equally self-serving, in my opinion. According to a report released April 9th 2008 by the Legislative Research Unit (the chief research agency for the Illinois General Assembly) the cost of a Convention would likely be between 14 million and 23 million dollars. This estimate is based upon the costs of the 1970 Constitutional Convention and takes into account inflation, rise in wages and new technological costs. This cost estimate could be higher should the convention require special elections, which it shouldn't. So even at the higher end, we are talking about $500,000 a year for the last forty years, not a high price to pay for exercising our muscles as a democracy. The writers of our present constitution (which you rightly praise) put in the clause to require a referendum every twenty years precisely because they did not trust the legislature to do so. To then argue that for us to exercise that right is somehow “wasting” money that could be used elsewhere seems facetious. It is the cost of democracy. (In fact, the first amendment that I will propose should the constitutional convention vote win in November is that the legislature and governor be required to put $1 million per year in a special account that can only be used to fund future constitutional conventions. The cost of having a constitutional convention should never be the reason for not having one.)

3. The argument that a constitutional convention is “ill-advised” is, in my opinion, the most offensive of your arguments. Not one person whom I have met that is supporting the constitutional convention is proposing that we totally rewrite the Illinois state constitution or attached any of the civil rights it guarantees. We are merely proposing that we look at a document that has served us well for forty years and see if there are changes that need to be made. You yourself admit that you would make some changes, but you don’t want to try to do so because you cannot control the democratic process. This is true, and this is good. You shouldn’t be able to control the democratic process, and neither should I. Yes, we would have to have good people run as delegates. Yes, the delegates would have to do their work and present their recommendations to the electorate. Yes, some single-interest groups (many of whom are not opposing a constitutional convention) would lobby for their interests. Let democracy bloom! It is the alternative that we have now (with three or four families controlling our governments) that should scare us, not the possibility that citizens could make a mistake if they vote for a constitutional convention.