Constitutional Convention for Illinois

The Chicago Tribune is considering it's position on a new constitutional convention and has invited comments by readers at http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/vox_pop/2008/09/the-edit-boar-1.html

Here is what I posted:

Honestly, a constitutional convention should be a no brainer for the Tribune editorial board to endorse. Here are ten good reason why you should do so:

1. You have documented the mess in Springfield and have pushed for a constitutional amendment allowing recall of our public officials.

2. The opposition will say anything to defeat a constitutional convention and will have the power of $3 million plus in ads to scare people.

3. Virtually every group supporting a constitutional convention has said that they are not interested in rewriting the entire constitution or attacking basic liberties or protections in the present constitution but rather proposing a series of amendments to the voters on how to improve how state government operates.

4. That kind of convention would not take anywhere near the amount of money claimed by opponents.

5. The idea that any major structural change amendments would be put on the ballot later by the legislature is simply ludicrous.

6. The fear that the present power brokers will control a constitutional convention is all the more reason to have one: to prove that they cannot. (Also, if they are so sure they can control it, why are they so against it?)

7. The fear by progressives and good government types that "the people" cannot be trusted to vote for good delegates and consider their recommendations on their merits is another reason we need a constitutional convention. The cure for the problems of democracy is not less democracy but more democracy.

8. We need some new, fresh faces in Illinois politics. A constitutional convention would allow new (and younger) people to show what they can do.

9. The coalition against the constitutional convention only agree on one thing. The day after the election they will be back to politics as usual, and all their claims that they will work for serious changes will be a joke.

10. If you are afraid of backing something that "can't win," then you are part of the reason it can't. And if a new constitutional convention should win, the Tribune will have much more credibility in setting the agenda for it than if you join the "who's who" in the power structure list of opponents.