Con-Con: the big question

Eight years after the Cutback Amendment battle that reduced the size of the Illinois House by one-third and eliminated cumulative voting for House members, another constitutional question is on the ballot. Once again most Illinois public officials are urging the public to vote no. And once again Patrick Quinn is out in front, leading the charge for approval. This time the stakes are much higher. The question of whether Illinois should convene a constitutional convention will be on the November ballot, due to a provision in the current Constitution.

Quinn, whose Coalition for Political Honesty spearheaded the effort for the Cutback Amendment, is confident that his new group, Citizens for Constitutional Reform, will be able to achieve the three-fifths vote required to convene Illinois' seventh constitutional convention.

While it is not unusual for Quinn to be involved in such a campaign, it is unusual for legislators to be on his side. Sens. Bob Kustra (R-28, Des Plaines) and Greg Zito (D-26, Melrose Park) and Reps. E.J. "Zeke" Giorgi (D-68, Rockford) and David Harris (R-53, Arlington Heights) have all endorsed a convention. A top concern of these lawmakers is judicial selection. A proposal by Kustra and Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D-4, Chicago) that provided for appointed judges failed early this session, leading several advocates of so-called merit selection to endorse the call for a constitutional convention.

In fact a committee called "Con-Con for Court Reform" was formed by several lawyers and the deans of nearly every law school in the state. "We believe that the need for change in the method of judicial selection is the overriding constitutional issue facing the State of Illinois today and that a constitutional convention is the only way to bring about that change," says Gary T. Johnson, a Chicago lawyer and a co-chairperson of the committee. "Because the politicians in Springfield have refused to act, the people of the State of Illinois must take advantage of that opportunity in 1988."

David Kenney, a delegate to the 1970 convention from Carbondale, says if the legislature makes no commitment on merit selection by November, he will endorse the call, making him the first 1970 delegate to do so. Other 1970 delegates, like Netsch, support merit selection but oppose calling a convention.

Giorgi, the dean of the Illinois House, supports appointed judges but says expanding citizen initiative should be a top priority at a convention: "I would think citizens would be outraged that they can only amend one article of their constitution." Currently that process is limited to structural and procedural changes in the legislative article. Giorgi says he is toying with an idea of having the 10 senior members of each party in each chamber of the legislature serve as at-large delegates to a convention, a proposal Quinn calls unconstitutional. If Giorgi cannot be an at-large delegate to a convention, he says he will run in a delegate election.

July 1988 | Illinois Issues | 10

Yet most state officials and interest groups oppose a convention. In fact, opposition has led to renewal of an unusual alliance between the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois AFL-CIO. They have reactivated their Committee to Preserve the Illinois Constitution, formed in 1982 to oppose an unsuccessful Quinn push for unlimited citizen initiative.

After holding nine public hearings throughout the state, the Committee of 50 to Re-Examine the Illinois Constitution met June 6 and agreed to make a definite yes or no recommendation in September. It is unlikely the committee, created by the General Assembly in 1986 to research the question and educate the public, will endorse the call, although at the public hearings 66 people testified in favor of a convention and 34 against one. Lt. Gov. George H. Ryan, the committee's chairman, said Quinn's coalition was present in some fashion at every hearing so these results were skewed. In evaluating the public hearings, Netsch said many things people suggested, such as changes in the criminal code, should not be dealt with at a convention or put into any constitution. "People don't understand what a constitution is," she said. Sen. Harlan Rigney (R-35, Freeport) suggested the committee recommend that the General Assembly list in the official explanation of the ballot question possible topics that a convention might deal with, such as gun control and abortion.

The committee spent most of the June 6 meeting debating whether arguments presented to voters should include the possible cost of a convention. Estimates have ranged from Pat Quinn's $5 million figure for a "no frills" convention to the Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation's $31 million. But not all proponents want a cheap convention, and not all opponents consider cost a main point. Secy. of State Jim Edgar, who has used the cost of a convention in his arguments against the call, says that if someone really thinks a convention is needed, $31 million is not too much to pay.

Although several issues have evolved concerning the call, several facts have escaped attention. Consider the following:

• Ultimately it will be up to the General Assembly to decide how much to spend on a convention, should one be called. Cost would depend mainly on whether separate elections are held for delegates. Quinn says delegate elections should be held at regular elections, but that is up to the General Assembly, and Quinn has little influence there. Legislators will likely, as they should, provide for background reports, research staff and enough time for a convention to give the constitution a complete review.
• Any amendments proposed by a convention need only a simple majority of the electorate's vote to be approved. Amendments proposed by the General Assembly or by the limited citizen initiative require the extraordinary majority of three-fifths voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election. Some amendments in the past, like the veterans' organization property tax exemption, have been able to receive a majority vote, but not the extraordinary.
• From the time a convention is called until any proposed amendments resulting from one are voted on, the legislature cannot place amendments on the ballot. The only amendments allowed in 1990 would be those approved by a convention.

July 1988 | Illinois Issues | 11

• The Constitution specifies that two delegates be elected from each legislative (Senate) district. Before 1982 these districts elected three representatives. But with the adoption of the Cutback Amendment and elimination of cumulative voting, each Senate district was split into two representative (House) districts. Although little attention has been given to the issue, the General Assembly may be able to specify that one delegate be elected from each House district instead of two at large from each Senate district. Under the current maps election from House districts could give Democrats and Chicago an advantage in delegate selection.
• Amendments proposed by a convention would be voted on before the 1991 redistricting. It is likely some change would be proposed to the current redistricting system that basically provides selecting by lot which party will benefit if lawmakers cannot agree on a proposal.
• Rights or protections not clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution but defined by the U.S. Supreme Court are not necessarily absolute. As justices on the nation's highest court are replaced, changes in decisions occur. Therefore it is important that protections, such as privacy and equal rights, remain in the Illinois Constitution.

During the 1970 Con-Con debate on the provision in the Constitution that automatically places this call for a convention on the ballot every 20 years, Delegate Peter Andrew Tomei of Chicago stressed that it did not mean there should be a convention every 20 years. "We are perfectly confident that if the legislature does do the amending process job over the years, the people will turn down — in fact should turn down — a Constitutional Convention proposal," he said. "This periodic submission question is one that gives the people the most direct opportunity in which to exercise their voice. Otherwise, they of course would exercise their voice through their representatives, but I think the history has been in this state that the legislature has not always responded."

Illinois voters in 1988 need to decide if in the history of the last 20 years the legislature has responded to the needs of the state. And despite the cost of a convention or what topics might be discussed, that is the central question. □

July 1988 | Illinois Issues | 12