 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Letters 
The Initiative EDITOR: The recent article, "Should Illinois take the initiative?" was well done and fairly presented both sides of the case. My only criticism would be the somewhat cavalier reaction to what I consider a patent misuse of Section 3 of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution. I agree that "the skies will not fall," yet I think that since the authors had concluded earlier that the proposals were most probably unconstitutional, their final paragraph seemingly made light of that conclusion. In view of the Gertz case [Gertz v. State Board of Elections — Coalition for Political Action v. State Board of Elections, 1976] in the Illinois Supreme Court and the court's interpretation of the constitutional initiative, it is difficult for me to view as other than a ploy the effort by the sponsors of the Quinn and Hersted petitions to convert Illinois overnight into a statutory initiative state. In Gertz, the court made clear that Section 3 of Article XIV could not be used as a "window" to accomplish legislative enactments as distinguished from constitutional changes involving structural and procedural subjects of Article IV, the Legislative Article. I would be the last one to criticize the effort of people who wish to amend the Constitution, for I spent most of my adult years in such a quest. However, I feel that it is of the utmost importance that revision efforts proceed in good faith in accordance with the methods of revision specified in the Constitution itself. The pending petitions on the initiative seem to make it all a matter of gamesmanship. Such an attitude strikes at the very heart of constitutionalism. Samuel W. Witwer Rostrum by DeLand EDITOR: It is understandable that Mr. DeLand, executive secretary of Illinois Association of Community Action Agencies, should employ drama in his plea for unabated spending on social programs. But I am usually wary of those who epithetically cast the views of others as simplistic: Reagan's simplistic budgetary perspective. Sure enough, in the very next breath, he appeals to history: ". . .Reagan. . .is destroying the structure of federalism which was initiated when Jefferson and Hamilton debated each other over 200 years ago." I submit that what Jefferson and Hamilton were debating about is a far cry from Mr. DeLand's quarrel. Those respected gentlemen would turn over in their turbans if they should be so tortured as to learn what we have come to in the perversion of the federalism which was honored only until recently. E. Ray Fosse Cutback Amendment EDITOR: Your Cutback Special and the recent initiative article by Dave Everson were great. Greater understanding of these issues can make the response of our politicians more constructive. However, before a constructive response can be achieved, the attitude toward Pat Quinn expressed in your letters column by Paul Green of Governor's State University must be dealt with. Those who seek to personalize important issues like the initiative, the cutback amendment, the open primary, and legislative ethics, by name-calling at Pat Quinn are partisans in defense of the status quo. They can never respond to legitimate grievances of the political reform movement gaining steam outside the two major political parties and outside much of the academic community. Pat Quinn is one of that movement's key leaders, and certainly its most effective leader. For that, he deserves praise, respect, and understanding. But to attempt to characterize his movement and its accomplishments as simply Pat Quinn showmanship is to ignore both its leadership base and its broad base of support. To call it names, be it in the legislature, make fun of it, and attempt to drown it in technicalities only clouds understanding it. The efforts to eliminate it by such tactics have long since failed. It has withstood numerous challenges; its demand for constructive reform remains. How that constructive reform comes about and how its reform movement is assimilated into the political status quo will be an interesting story for years to come and one I hope you will continue to cover. David Vaught EDITOR: I found the Illinois Issues "Special Report — The Cutback Amendment" interesting and valuable but biased. I do not question the statistics presented, but I find the crucial question of representative government controlled by a cooperative two-party system as opposed to representative government controlled by the electorate not being given any credence. I do not think it any coincidence that only three candidates ran for the General Assembly in many legislative districts allowing no choice to the voters between 1870 and 1920 which is the same approximate period as the Populist and Progressive reform movements. Since the percentage of eligible voters voting has been declining nationally since the 1880's, it might be interesting to study if there were any significant declines as the possible result of disillusionment with the political process in periods following a reform seemingly achieved or promised and then thwarted through subsequent procedural maneuvers by vested political interests. I also find the short discussion of the Political Honesty Amendments and their subsequent dismissal from the ballot by a divided decision of the Illinois Supreme Court revolving around the argument of whether the conjunction "and" is exclusive or inclusive in common English usage to ignore the outrage caused among its supporters and the organizing machine and resources it left waiting for just the sort of political opportunity the pay raise issue provided. While the recent redistricting of Illinois Legislative Districts has been resolved as apparently fair as possible, I do not feel the resulting filing for nomination in which the Democrats have 13 and the Republicans 10 free rides in the Senate and the Democrats have 28 and the Republicans 23 free rides in the House was adequately discussed with respect to any underlying reasons and possible political psychology at work. At the very least, the late filing date and confusion over district boundaries had to have a significant impact. Finally, the future question is not one between "advocates of representative government'' and advocates against representative government but of how the fundamental process of democracy by which vested and unvested interests resolve their differences functions for the general public good. Michael J. Schussele EDITOR: I found your report on the Cutback Amendment of special interest since I was a Con-Con delegate in 1970 when the Constitutional initiative was adopted which eventually led to the elimination of cumulative voting. Although I personally opposed the passage of the Cutback Amendment for many of the reasons discussed in your report, I am very interested to see what the effects will be in the years ahead. Virginia B. Macdonald EDITOR: All in all, I regard the special repot on the "cutback amendment" as a first-rate piece of work of its sort, being both intellectually sophisticated (notably in the concluding chapter) and providing the basic historical and referendum data in a concise and accessible way. "Minority representation," of course, found its origins in a polarized civil-war era politics, and the north-south polarizations were more intense in Illinois that in most other states. That was a long time ago, and today's politics have little to do with long-dead issues of this sort. At the same time, I do wonder what possibly unanticipated consequences for the motivations and structures of local parties might be in the abolition of Illinois' unique system. I shall certainly place this special report on my shelf of essential references on American state politics. Walter Dean Burnham 4 | July 1982 | Illinois Issues |
|
|