By Stephen Anderson Editor

Changing, or enfeebling?

The law has no power to command obedience except that of habit, which can only be given by time, so that a readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the law.

• • •

Those translated words from Aristotle, written 23 centuries ago in his “Politics: Book II,” may most succinctly articulate the concerns of thoughtful opposition to the call for a constitutional convention that appears on the general election ballot next month.

Among the opponents are the Illinois State Bar Association and the League of Women Voters of Illinois. Joining the anti-ConCon chorus in print, on newspaper editorial pages, are two respected students of government: Abner Mikva and Jim Edgar.

“The risks of a constitutional convention driven by the special interests are real,” Mikva wrote. That mirrors sentiments of ISBA Board and Assembly members, in deliberations earlier this year, that connivers could “hijack” a convention “to create all kinds of unforeseen mischief.”

Mikva expresses a mutual fear that “the casualties could include the power of local governments, an independent judiciary, civil rights for minorities, women and gay people, and the rights of gun owners and gun victims, alike…”

His view that the pro-ConCon lobby’s arguments are rooted “as a reaction to the perception that government leaders have failed and as an opportunity to advance various special interests from across the political spectrum” conforms with Edgar’s perspective.

“Our politics are broken, but the constitution works,” Edgar wrote, calling it “an enduring, broadly worded document that protects our rights, lays out a sound framework for governing and is insulated from the passions of the moment.”

He restates the “real risk” of laying the constitution “open to a convention manipulated by the same political players, interest groups and single-issue zealots that have wielded undue influence in the Statehouse.”

Concluding that “a constitutional convention requires political cooperation, strong leadership and a growing consensus about what’s good for Illinois,” Mikva states unequivocally: “None of these factors exists today…”

The League of Women Voters adds two more concerns, not the least of which is that the cost of such a tedious, rancorous convening is “at least $78 million and this money can be put to better use.”

But, more tellingly: “Proponents should also recognize it is the same legislature and governor we have now who would be setting the parameters and funding the convention. Do we really think they would do this expeditiously and in a nonpartisan manner?”

Change, for the sake of politics

Candidates of the two major political parties seem to have agreed on “change” as a propelling motivation in campaign speeches, but few practical issues have come forth to convince an electorate that ready solutions exist for real problems.

Change has been an undefined term on the national scene in 2008, but it may become the mantra of Illinois politics in 2010. Words such as “recall” and “impeachment” are heard with growing regularity, and “indictment” often creeps into the same rhetoric.

Recall, in fact, has been cited as a primary reason for tossing out the 1970 constitution and rewriting articles that relate to the tenures of elected officials.

That such an overhaul would necessarily apply in kind to elected members of the judiciary - as well as to constitutional officers, legislators, mayors, etc. - is ample reason for the bench and bar to take to the hustings and campaign vigorously against that November ballot issue.

The threat to the independence of circuit judges, appellate justices and even our Supreme Court far outweighs any balancing hope that a constitutional convention might result in a more effective, less political way of selecting the judiciary.

Despite arguments and judgments to the contrary, the anonymous authors of the November ballot language may have given the anti-ConCon effort an advantage by noting that the issue failed 20 years ago by a three-to-one margin. A true statement, but unseemly in what should be a sterile environment.

At least, the remedial handouts by election officials on election day could tend to confuse voters to the point of ignoring the issue entirely. But such a portent might seem as valid as foretelling the outcome of a Chicago baseball game.

Aristotle referred to “man” (generically) as “by nature a political animal.” Carl Sandburg wrote about the people, for better or worse, as “a reservoir of the human reserves that shape history.” Polling places can harbor the “elements of surprise” that Sandburg warned about.

Vote “No” and tell your friends why.