Another constitutional convention: voters to decide November 8

This proposal deals with a call for a state constitutional convention. The last such convention was held in 1969-1970, and a new constitution was adopted in 1970. That document requires that the question of calling a convention be placed before the voters every 20 years. This is your opportunity to vote on that question. If you believe the 1970 Illinois Constitution needs to be revised through the calling of a convention, you should vote YES. If you believe that a call for a constitutional convention is unnecessary, or that changes can be accomplished through other means, you should vote NO.

The answer is yes or no. The issue is not black or white. On November 8 the citizens of Illinois will decide whether to call a constitutional convention that could change the state's fundamental law.

With a month to go before the vote, Patrick Quinn is mounting a grass-roots campaign for approval with the populist slogan, "Trust the People." The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois AFL-CIO have teamed up and joined most of the political establishment to oppose the call for a constitutional convention. Supporters say that a convention would breathe fresh air into state government. Opponents claim that a convention would put citizens at risk of political opportunists and extremists.

The vote comes because of a provision in the 1970 Constitution that requires that voters be asked at least every 20 years whether a convention should be called. The provision was included, in part, because reluctance to call a convention or to propose amendments had left the 1870 Constitution in place for 100 years. That had forced Illinois to labor under an out-of-date document. The 20-year call was also a check that the legislature would amend the Constitution as needed.

In 1986 state lawmakers saw the possibility of the question being decided by voters ignorant of the issues. To combat that they created a 50-member committee to study the question and promote open and reasonable debate. Gov. James R. Thompson and Samuel W. Witwer, president of the 1969-1970 convention, were named to the committee along with 12 members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders. The Committee of 50 to Reexamine the Illinois Constitution began in earnest. It met in April of 1987, commissioned a series of background papers and set out a busy agenda. It was to hold public hearings across the state and sponsor seminars at Illinois State University. Then commission members were to gather at Northern Illinois University in April of 1988 to formulate a final recommendation. The highest visibility activity of the Committee of 50 came in September of 1987 when it reconvened 60 surviving delegates to the 1969-1970 convention. Delegates talked about their experiences and their expectations, both frustrated and fulfilled. In the end the former delegates, with a single dissent, passed a resolution saying they thought no new convention was needed.

The Committee of 50 immediately ran into money problems. Lawmakers who could not find money for human and social services could not justify spending for the Committee of 50. The seminars and the final assembly were cancelled. Hearings were scaled back, and those members who could make particular hearings attended. In the end 19 members of the committee ended up attending none of the nine hearings that were held.

And the hearings failed to arouse general interest. "There just wasn't a whole lot of interest anyplace that we went," says Lt. Gov. George H. Ryan, chairman of the Committee of 50. "It's kind of tough to get their attention, the general public's, on that issue," Ryan says. In all, about 100 persons testified at hearings held in Chicago (twice), Peoria, Urbana, Carbondale, Wheaton, Springfield, Rockford and Collinsville. By a two-to-one margin those testifying favored calling a convention, for an assortment of reasons. Zale Glauberman, a Republican political consultant and Committee of 50 member, detected a certain kind of disaffected citizen who testified at the hearings. The committee met on June 6 and decided to delay its recommendation until after a conference on September 7 and September 8. That was cancelled for financial considerations, and the members of the committee were to be polled and those results and a summary of the hearings submitted as the final report. Only seven committee members indicated their support for calling a convention.

Even before the committee began its work in earnest, the notion of a convention was drawing supporters and opposition. Those who favor a new convention see issues that the General Assembly cannot or will not tackle. "I think from the beginning we set out themes of constitutional stature," says Quinn. "Reforming the court system, cleaning up the court system, that's a constitutional issue. So is mandating that Illinois fund

October 1988 | Illinois Issues | 12

Sister Candida Lund, chancellor of Rosary College in River Forest, was vice chair of the Committee of 50 to Reexamine the Illinois Constitution, and Lt. Gov. George H. Ryan was chair.

at least half the cost of schools, which many people thought was done in 1970." Quinn objects to the current constitutional stricture that corporate income tax rates be not more than 1.6 times the individual rates: "If any tax ought to be limited constitutionally, you should take Illinois' most regressive tax, the property tax. Instead we take the progressive tax and put a limitation on it."

The Committee of 50 anticipated that Quinn would use the opportunity to push initiative and referendum and fretted plenty about him. He did. Still, some members have joined with him in supporting a convention, but for other reasons. DuPage County Board Chairman Jack Knuepfer sees two-and-a-half reasons for a convention. He argues that the Judicial Inquiry Board created in the 1970 Constitution to deal with judicial corruption has not worked: "The only one able to deal with it so far has been the federal government." Knuepfer says the delegates in 1969 and 1970 failed to address the proliferation of local governments: "With the exception of home rule, which I very strongly support, they made very little progress in getting local government organized on a better basis." The half issue that Kneupfer sees is the amendatory veto, a power he thinks should be limited so that the governor cannot replace the legislature.

Another group advocating a convention are lawyers who want to see appointive judges. Banded together in Con-Con for Court Reform are lawyers, the deans of the state's eight largest law schools and two former U.S. attorneys for the Northern District of Illinois, Republican Dan Webb and Democrat Thomas Sullivan. "I believe it is critical that we change to an appointive system rather than an elective system, particularly in Cook County," says John R. Schmidt, a member of the Committee of 50. Schmidt favors a two-step process that would allow voters to decide county-by-county whether to keep elective judges or move to an appointive system. He believes that Cook County voters would ditch the elected system. "When you get down to it, it's a fundamental question of power. The elective system gives them [the politicians] the power," Schmidt says. Frederick J. Sperling, president of the Chicago Council of Lawyers, says much the same thing: "We think the reality is that much of the opposition to merit selection comes from legislators who do not want to give up power to put their friends on the bench."

Similarly frustrated by the legislature and turning to a constitutional convention is the Citizens Utility Board (CUB). The group has been unable to pass a bill creating an elected commerce commission, and any successful legislative effort faces a promised gubernatorial veto. "We see Con-Con as a possible vehicle to get the elected commerce commission into law through putting it in the constitution," says Sam Cahnman, co-chairman of CUB's issues committee. The group is also interested in initiative and referendum as a means of pursuing other utility reforms. "My own personal view is that there are certain things, the initiative is one, on which you would probably never get a proposed amendment to the state constitution because that would lessen the power of the legislature. . . . It's just an institutional fact of life," Cahnman says.

Some advocates favor an amendment to force the state to spend more money. G. Alan Hickrod, director of the Center for the Study of Educational Finance at Illinois State University, has tracked the deterioration of state funding for public schools since 1978. His studies show that increasingly the amount spent on a child's education is dependent upon the personal income and the property wealth of a given district. As a result, the quality of education can vary between school districts. Hickrod favors changes in the education article to give some constitutional underpinning to the notion that students have a right to an adequate education. "I'd put a strong emphasis on a basic or adequate education," Hickrod says. With such a statement the General Assembly could be pressured to properly fund schools. "That's probably why they're not going to do it," he says.

Other advocates would use the convention to limit the size of government. James Tobin, president of National Taxpayers United of Illinois (NTU), says his members want initiative and referendum included in the Constitution so that they can roll back both state and local taxes. "It's the most important thing on the ballot this fall," Tobin says. And he says his members will be among the most active in the state. He would like the ability to undertake campaigns like the 1978 Proposition 13 effort in California to cut taxes in Illinois. The NTU pushed in the General Assembly this year for the Liberty Amendment that would allow petition drives to force votes to roll back state or local taxes. Their bills died in committees. Tobin says his members also favor rollback or elimination of the state income tax.

Tobin's and Quinn's call for initiative and referendum would mean fundamental change in the legislative process. The opponents fear that change. Lester W. Brann Jr., president of the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, says the businesses that he represents would spend too much time and money fighting anti-business initiatives. "It's not uncommon for business interests in California to spend $3 to $8 and $10 million in opposing or seeking passage of a particular issue." The chamber has other worries about divorcing funding from the legislative process. Brann says that some would favor spelling out the state's responsibility for education: "The problem there is that the Constitution provides that the state shall give X amount of money to local school districts, the General Assembly then has the responsibility of finding those dollars, and the Consttution doesn't tell them how to do that. All they've got to do is pass a tax increase. It could be a massive one."

October 1988 | Illinois Issues | 13

Joining with Brann's business group is organized labor. Robert C. Gibson, president of the Illinois State AFL-CIO, is cochairman with Brann of the Committee to Preserve the Illinois Constitution. Gibson makes three points. He fears that initiative could be used to introduce anti-labor legislation like right-to-work laws and elimination of prevailing wage rates. He believes that basic rights for women, minorities and the handicapped now guaranteed by the Constitution could be threatened. And he says the $31 million that it could cost to run a convention could be better spent on other needs. Nor is Gibson enthusiastic about the cost of initiative and referendum: "It would take all the money away from a legitimate campaign to support your friends of labor and spend it either defeating or promoting a legislative referendum."

Gibson and his members have pushed, unsuccessfully, two years running for a tax increase. They have lost two straight battles, but he finds no fault with the legislative process. Neither does Stanley O. Ikenberry, president of the University of Illinois. Ikenberry says he sees no relationship between education's money problems and the Constitution: "Ultimately that's a political problem. If the will is there to amend the state Constitution, the will ought to be there to increase funding for education."

Chief opponents Brann and Gibson argue that the Constitution is not broken and need not be fixed. They and other opponents universally cite the strengths of the 1970 document. Lt. Gov. Ryan says it is too soon to rewrite the Constitution: "You've got to give it a little time to work. There are no real blatant, glaring errors in the Constitution that need to be corrected at this point." Nearly all members of the League of Women Voters of Illinois agree with Ryan. On a survey done by the league 96 percent opposed a convention, a response that surprised even League President Mary Ellen Barry. The league was involved in the 1970 Constitution, and Barry says, "I think our members have not forgotten how difficult that was."

Some opponents worry that a convention would open up the Constitution to single-issue groups. Ann Lousin, a professor at John Marshall Law School and a research associate at the 1970 convention, is a merit selection advocate, but not a convention supporter. Lousin is convinced attempts to enact merit selection would be doomed, because most citizens oppose it. She says that overwhelming black opposition would doom merit selection in Chicago: "It's become a rich white lawyer type of thing. The majority of the blacks would see it that way." Likewise Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D-4, Chicago) believes that merit selection is the only issue that merits attention, and she is unsure that a constitutional convention could get it adopted. Issues like a progressive income tax, she says, she fought and lost when she served as a delegate to the 1969-1970 convention. She expects debate on abortion and gun control: "On the negative side, it seems to me it opens up the agenda for some very divisive issues that are very emotional, that we don't need

October 1988 | Illinois Issues | 14

now." Another former delegate similarly sees potential one-issue delegates. Mary Lee Leahy, now a Springfield attorney but in 1969 and 1970 a delegate from Chicago, says a convention now could draw many one-issue participants. "That was not true in 1969. With a few exceptions there were no one-issue people," she says.

Knuepfer says that former delegates, with pride of authorship, are one group that sees no need for a convention. The other fears the lunatic fringe, he says. Knuepfer does not: "I don't think there are any more fringe characters around today than there were 20 years ago or 40 years ago. Nor does Rep. David Harris (R-53, Arlington Heights) fear extremists. He says political documents tend to be in the mainstream. "I don't know what they're scared about. There's no reason to think those people who are elected to a constitutional convention would be any different from those we send to the legislature." But if Harris is right and delegates tend to think like, or even be, legislators, what difference will a convention make? One of the features of the 1969-1970 convention was the independents, says Leahy, one of seven from Chicago. "It was the home of the newly wed and nearly dead," she jokes, referring to delegates for whom the convention was the first public service or would be the last. Netsch suggests that Quinn's call for delegate elections to be held at the same time as general elections will increase establishment control of the convention. Quinn counters with "trust the people" and says general election turnout is higher. Labor's Gibson picks at that point, too: "This is the way to bypass the politicians. This is what Quinn is promoting. Who do they think are going to be the delegates to this thing? It's going to be politicians."

Quinn gets a lot of criticism. One of the groups that decided that the potential gains were not worth the risks of a convention was the Illinois Public Action Council. John Cameron, spokesman for the council, says that he thinks that Quinn lost some credibility with the council's board over the Cutback Amendment. Members see loss of influence as the minority legislators have been removed and the leadership has been able to consolidate its power. Former House Speaker Ryan similarly argues, "If the General Assembly isn't responsive, in part he [Quinn] can be blamed because he was responsible for the Cutback, which was a mistake."

Quinn is himself an issue. Some opponents recall the Cutback Ammendment campaign and charge him with being a demagogue. Others suggest that anyone who once doled out patronage for Gov. Dan Walker ought to be less critical of government. Quinn counters that he is not a demagogue but an organizer who stirs resentment among those comfortable with the status quo. Is Quinn a demagogue? Lt. Gov. Ryan was asked and replied, "Aren't we all?"

But Quinn should not be the issue. The issue is whether a convention should be called to rewrite all or part of the state's most basic law. Most of the regular players are against it. Knuepfer explains that by quoting the Irish: "The devil you know is better than the devil you do not know." Supporters of a convention will overstate the benefits. Opponents will overstate the dangers. Voters must weigh the choices. It may come down to how disaffected they feel this November.□

October 1988 | Illinois Issues | 15

To call or not to call a convention: Who's ahead in the campaign? Most of the regular political players oppose convening a constitutional convention, as the efforts to promote and to defeat the call began to gather steam after Labor Day. Despite overwhelming establishment opposition, few ruled out the possibility that a convention could be called. Many said a favorable vote was likely. Lt. Gov. George H. Ryan, chairman of the Committee of 50, unhesitatingly predicts an overwhelming favorable vote: "I think the people will vote for a constitutional convention because it gives them a chance to strike out against government in some fashion or to at least have some input that they feel they don't have." Ryan sees a repeat of the successful effort on the Cutback Amendment. But he predicts few changes from the convention where he says elected delegates will mirror the lawmakers sent to the General Assembly. Patrick Quinn Others are less sure that voters are inclined to support a new convention. Rep. David Harris (R-53, Arlington Heights) sees trouble getting the required 60 percent vote for a convention. "I'm not sure voters really have a reason to take a slap at the legislature," he says. He contrasts 1988 with the 1969 convention call, when citizens could understand that the Constitution was clearly outdated, and with the 1980 Cutback Amendment, when citizens were sore about a lame duck pay increase lawmakers gave themselves. Former delegate Mary Lee Leahy says the few people she has talked with seem to think a convention is worth the expense. Besides Ryan's and others' seat-of-the-pants assessments, there have been two formal polls done of voter attitude. In late 1987 the lawyers who formed Con-Con for Court Reform hired a pollster to measure support for the cause. The firm found 62 percent of all voters "support" a convention. Quinn and others find solace in the poll showing that 35 percent of all voters "strongly supported" a convention. That poll identified merit selection and education as the issues and found support among both black and white voters. "I think you've got to try to convince people not to have a constitutional convention," says John R. Schmidt, one of the merit selection activists. In August the Committee to Preserve the Illinois Constitution polled residents to measure sentiment for a convention call and to gauge the effort needed to defeat it. The committee has chosen not to make the results public. However, cochairman Lester W. Brann Jr. describes those in favor as somewhere between 50 and 60 percent. "It appears that the natural tendency of people is to say 'why not?' . . . Interestingly people don't know all the arguments for or against; it just seems like a good idea for some very basic reasons." Robert Gibson says the poll initially shows something like 58 percent support the calling of a convention. When issues like cost and the possibilities of extremists were added, the support dropped to 48 percent, Gibson says. "Once it's explained, I don't see any great groundswell for it," Gibson adds. The message that both Brann and Gibson take from the poll is that they have some work to do. Brann, who spent nine months lobbying the 1969-1970 convention, says the tendency to vote yes has to be overcome: "The day after the election is too late. Then we're into an expensive, full-fledged constitutional convention, and we went through that 18 years ago." Brann and Gibson think the problem is largely one of communications. They are trying to raise $200,000 to get their message across in radio and newspaper ads. Quinn's effort is more modest. He's selling bumper stickers and campaign buttons at a dollar each and hopes to raise $10,000 for some radio advertising. He is also traveling across the state seeking free exposure for the cause through public debates and press conferences. But Quinn says he is having trouble convincing state officials to take him on in a debate. He bangs on Secy. of State Jim Edgar, who came out in January against a convention. Edgar spokesman Mike Lawrence calls Quinn's charge that Edgar is hiding "pure poppycock." That has not and will not get him a joint appearance. "We don't see a whole lot constructive that can come out of it. Mr. Quinn wants a joint appearance to bring more attention to himself," Lawrence charges. Quinn also says the media must take an interest in the issue. "If the media treats this as a page 20 story, I think they deserve some pretty good criticism." He suggests Proposition 13 may never have passed in California had the media decided it was "boring." Other interests will work on a more modest scale. National Taxpayers United of Illinois will make a strong push for a vote from its members and associates, says James Tobin, president of the group. Tobin says his organization represents about 5,000 members and associates. NTU will also recruit candidates to run for election as delegates. The Citizens Utility Board will alert its 100,000 members through its newsletter. Sam Cahnman, cochairman of CUB's issues committee, is optimistic. "I think the chances are good that it will pass," he says. And the Chicago Council of Lawyers will include a "yes" vote on the 400,000 sample ballots it sends out with its advice on judicial candidates running in November. The council will attempt to convince people that the risks of a convention have been greatly overstated, says Frederick J. Sperling, president of the 1,400 member group. Interest in the convention call has been slow to develop, and it is still unlikely to overshadow the presidential contest in this pivotal state. The final month will see opponents target the uncertain, trying to convince them to vote no. Quinn and other supporters will seek forums to promote their ideas and rally the disaffected to vote yes. Michael D. Klemens

October 1988 | Illinois Issues | 16