By Stephen Anderson

Editor

ConCon: pro or con?

Forty years ago, discerning Illinois voters were well versed on the reasons for whether a Constitutional Convention should be called – much better informed, in fact, than they could be today.

The legislature created a Constitutional Study Commission in 1965 to determine if, just by chance, things had changed enough in the preceding century that a new Illinois Constitution might more accurately reflect government and society in 1970 than what had existed since 1870.

Voters approved the 1968 call for a Constitutional Con-vention, three to one, and the product that resulted from two years of thoughtful deliberation and debate was adopted in December 1970 by 56 percent of voters in a special election.

Twenty years ago, a now-defunct Illinois Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation prepared background research, and a legislated Committee of 50 conducted public hearings, met with surviving 1970 delegates, and commissioned academics to compose a series of informative papers.

Adequately informed but largely disinterested, three-fourths of 3.6 million voters rejected the call for a 1990 ConCon. Business and labor groups had opposed it, and the Chicago Tribune editorialized for a “No” vote.

On our November ballots, the question of calling a 2010 Constitutional Convention will face an electorate that until now, less than seven months before decision day, has felt no organized momentum, pro or con.

That seems unusual, given the panoply of issues that special interest groups might propose for inclusion: recall, term limits, campaign finance, graduated income tax, school funding, the death penalty, gay marriage, universal health care, and reparation of dysfunctional government, for instance.

During a ConCon forum last month at the Union League Club of Chicago, author and political historian Jim Nowlan traced the history of conventions held since the original Illinois Constitution was written by farmers in 1818, and revised in 1848 and 1870. Attempts failed in 1862 and 1922.

Nowlan suggested a “risk/reward” analysis be made in recognition of the political give and take that would dominate revision of the Constitution, which he called “the ballpark where the game of politics is played.”

Chicago attorney Steven Flaum chipped in with a short list of possible changes to the judicial article, in addition to resurrection of the concept of appointive selection of judges.

Among others: provision of temporary substitution for a Supreme Court justice who can’t participate because of a conflict or some other reason; sub-districting the three seats in the 1st District; creating more subcircuits; establishing minimum qualifications for judicial candidates.

Flaum offered a hypothesis of four questions that might be considered in advance of the big ConCon question in November. 1. Is the status quo really so bad? 2. Is something important to be gained? 3. What are the odds of getting desired improvements? 4. Are there other ways to accomplish the same thing?

The ISBA Assembly is slated to review the issues, and perhaps take a position, during its June meeting in St. Louis. Section councils and committees have been asked to provide input.

To be decided ultimately is whether the financial burden of conducting a Constitutional Convention, estimated as high as $78 million, is justified by demonstrably strong reasons why a redraft may be necessary.

Much can happen, during the interim before Nov. 4, that could arouse the interest of indifferent voters. At the very least, the situation clamors for an orchestrated attempt to disseminate accurate statements of the pros and cons.

Question 4: Asked and answered

Is there a way to change portions of the Illinois Constitution without spending two years and millions of dollars to overhaul the whole thing at a quasi-political convention? Sure, and one is in the works right now.

House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 28, introduced Aug. 1 by State Rep. Jack Franks, would create a process for the recall of executive branch officers, members of the General Assembly, Supreme and Appellate Court justices, and circuit court judges.

But getting an HJRCA to the plebiscite stage is a laborious venture, requiring three-fifths majorities of both House and Senate for a place on the ballot. If passed, the recall of a governor, for instance, would require more than 400,000 signatures on a petition.

But HJRCA 28 added 16 co-sponsors in seven months, received a unanimous "do pass" vote from the State Government Administration Committee, and on April 2 gained a preliminary 80-25 "yes" vote in the House. Don't underestimate the current level of disillusionment in Springfield.