Full Text of HJR0137 95th General Assembly
HJ0137eng 95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
|
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 137
| 2 |
| WHEREAS, Article XIV of the 1970 Illinois Constitution | 3 |
| requires that if the question of whether a constitutional | 4 |
| convention should be called is not submitted during any 20-year | 5 |
| period, that question shall be submitted at the general | 6 |
| election in the 20th year following the last submission; and
| 7 |
| WHEREAS, The question of the convening of a constitutional | 8 |
| convention was submitted to the electorate in 1988, and that | 9 |
| question has not been submitted during the past 20-year period; | 10 |
| and
| 11 |
| WHEREAS, The 1970 Illinois Constitution requires that the | 12 |
| question of whether to call a constitutional convention be | 13 |
| submitted to the electorate at the general election in 2008; | 14 |
| and
| 15 |
| WHEREAS, The Constitutional Convention Act authorizes the | 16 |
| procedure for preparing voter education materials to accompany | 17 |
| the question of calling a convention and requires the General | 18 |
| Assembly to prepare those materials; and
| 19 |
| WHEREAS, The General Assembly, by House Joint Resolution | 20 |
| 111, has created a Joint Committee for the Constitutional | 21 |
| Convention Proposal to prepare, for adoption by both houses, a |
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 2 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| report which provides a brief explanation and arguments in | 2 |
| favor of and against a constitutional convention, as well as | 3 |
| the form in which the question will appear on the ballot; | 4 |
| therefore, be it
| 5 |
| RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE | 6 |
| NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE | 7 |
| SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the report of the Joint | 8 |
| Committee for the Constitutional Convention Proposal, as set | 9 |
| out in this Resolution, is hereby adopted and shall be | 10 |
| certified to the Secretary of State:
|
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 3 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| PROPOSED CALL | 2 |
| FOR A | 3 |
| STATE
| 4 |
| CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
| 5 |
| That will be submitted to the voters | 6 |
| November 4, 2008 | 7 |
| This pamphlet includes | 8 |
| EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED CALL
| 9 |
| ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF HOLDING A CONVENTION
| 10 |
| ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOLDING A CONVENTION
| 11 |
| FORM OF BALLOT
|
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 4 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| To the Electors of the State of Illinois: | 2 |
| The 1970 Illinois Constitution requires the electors of the | 3 |
| State to decide, every 20 years, if it is necessary to revise | 4 |
| or rewrite the Illinois Constitution. In 1988 the electors | 5 |
| rejected the call for a constitutional convention, with 75% | 6 |
| voting against and 25% voting in favor of convening a | 7 |
| convention. At the general election to be held on November 4, | 8 |
| 2008, the voters will be called upon to decide whether Illinois | 9 |
| should convene a constitutional convention. | 10 |
| EXPLANATION
| 11 |
| The purpose of a state constitution is to establish a structure | 12 |
| for government and laws. The Illinois Constitution provides | 13 |
| citizens with rights and protections; creates the executive, | 14 |
| judicial, and legislative branches of government; clarifies | 15 |
| the powers given to local governments; limits the taxing power | 16 |
| of the State; and imposes certain restrictions on the use of | 17 |
| taxpayer dollars. There are three ways to initiate change to | 18 |
| the Illinois Constitution: (1) a constitutional convention may | 19 |
| propose changes to any part; (2) the General Assembly may | 20 |
| propose changes to any part; or (3) the people of the State by | 21 |
| referendum may propose changes to the Legislative Article. | 22 |
| Regardless of the method of initiating change, the people of | 23 |
| Illinois must approve any changes to the Constitution before |
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 5 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| they become effective.
| 2 |
| A constitutional convention is a meeting of delegates elected | 3 |
| by the people to review the Constitution. During a convention, | 4 |
| the delegates may propose changes to parts of the current | 5 |
| Constitution, write a new Constitution, or make no changes | 6 |
| whatsoever. If the people of the State on November 4, 2008 | 7 |
| decide it is necessary to call a convention, a separate | 8 |
| election will be held to elect delegates to represent the | 9 |
| voters during the constitutional convention. The elected | 10 |
| delegates will meet to review the current constitution and | 11 |
| decide whether the constitution should be revised or rewritten. | 12 |
| There is no limit as to how long a constitutional convention | 13 |
| may meet. The last constitutional convention met for nine | 14 |
| months. Once the delegates complete their work, the voters will | 15 |
| have an opportunity to approve or reject proposed changes.
| 16 |
| The call for a constitutional convention will be on the | 17 |
| November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Voters that believe | 18 |
| the 1970 Illinois Constitution should be reviewed, revised, or | 19 |
| rewritten through the convention process should vote "YES" on | 20 |
| the question of calling a constitutional convention. | 21 |
| Three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of | 22 |
| those voting in the election must vote "yes" in order for a | 23 |
| constitutional convention to be called. Voters that believe | 24 |
| that a constitutional convention is not necessary, or that |
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 6 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| changes can be accomplished through other means, should vote | 2 |
| "NO" on the calling of a constitutional convention.
| 3 |
| Summary of Arguments In Favor of Holding a Constitutional | 4 |
| Convention | 5 |
| 1. A constitutional convention allows delegates to | 6 |
| consider important substantive issues that have failed to | 7 |
| advance in the legislative process.
| 8 |
| 2. Changes to our state and local governments are best | 9 |
| addressed by delegates elected solely to review the | 10 |
| Constitution.
| 11 |
| 3. A constitutional convention would provide the first | 12 |
| comprehensive review of the Illinois Constitution since its | 13 |
| adoption in 1970.
| 14 |
| 4. Any proposed changes to the Constitution must be | 15 |
| ratified by the voters before they become effective.
| 16 |
| Summary of Arguments Against Holding a Constitutional | 17 |
| Convention | 18 |
| 1. A constitutional convention could cost as much as $78 | 19 |
| million.
| 20 |
| 2. The current Illinois Constitution could be changed | 21 |
| without a constitutional convention, and in fact has been | 22 |
| changed 10 times since the last convention.
|
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 7 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| 3. A constitutional convention could be controlled by | 2 |
| special interest groups and lobbyists, and there is no way to | 3 |
| limit the issues discussed.
| 4 |
| 4. A convention could threaten the economy by creating an | 5 |
| unstable business climate.
| 6 |
| Arguments In Favor of Holding a Constitutional Convention | 7 |
| Address Important Issues That Have Failed to Advance in the | 8 |
| Legislative Process
| 9 |
| Amendments proposed by the General Assembly must be approved by | 10 |
| both the Illinois Senate and the Illinois House of | 11 |
| Representatives before they are submitted to the voters. If one | 12 |
| chamber does not like an amendment, or both chambers cannot | 13 |
| agree on the language of the proposed amendment, the voters | 14 |
| will never have an opportunity to vote on the proposed change. | 15 |
| State Senators and Representatives have proposed hundreds of | 16 |
| constitutional amendments, but only six have made it to the | 17 |
| ballot since the 1988 vote on whether to call a constitutional | 18 |
| convention. Many of the proposals that have failed to advance | 19 |
| in the legislative process address important issues such as | 20 |
| education funding, state and local taxes, electing judges, and | 21 |
| ethics reform to reduce the influence of special interest | 22 |
| groups and lobbyists.
|
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 8 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| Best Chance for Real Change
| 2 |
| Illinois has over 6,900 units of government, far more than any | 3 |
| other state in the nation. Delegates to a constitutional | 4 |
| convention could propose ideas to consolidate state and local | 5 |
| governments to provide citizens with more responsive and | 6 |
| cost-effective government services. A convention could restore | 7 |
| the confidence of citizens in the political process. Delegates | 8 |
| could discuss important issues including term limits for | 9 |
| elected officials, citizen initiatives for changes to the | 10 |
| Constitution, and a new process for drawing representative | 11 |
| boundaries designed to provide fair representation. A | 12 |
| constitutional convention with independent-minded delegates is | 13 |
| the best opportunity to address the issues and bring about real | 14 |
| change.
| 15 |
| Periodic Review Is Important
| 16 |
| The delegates to the 1970 Constitutional Convention wanted to | 17 |
| make sure the voters have the opportunity to review the | 18 |
| Constitution every 20 years. As one delegate stated during | 19 |
| debate at the last Constitutional Convention, "The voters ought | 20 |
| to have that chance to express themselves every 20 years." | 21 |
| Holding a constitutional convention does not mean that | 22 |
| delegates will automatically change the whole document. It is | 23 |
| up to the delegates to decide if it is necessary to write a new |
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 9 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| Constitution, update certain portions, or leave the document | 2 |
| unchanged.
| 3 |
| Voters Must Approve Any Changes
| 4 |
| Opponents to a constitutional convention argue that special | 5 |
| interest groups and lobbyists will influence delegates and | 6 |
| dominate the convention for the benefit of their clients, but a | 7 |
| strong argument exists that these same groups presently have | 8 |
| disproportionate influence over the legislative process. While | 9 |
| elected representatives approve any changes to the laws of our | 10 |
| State, any changes proposed at a constitutional convention must | 11 |
| be approved by the citizens. This approval process gives voters | 12 |
| an opportunity to participate directly in any revision of the | 13 |
| Constitution, countering the influence of special interest | 14 |
| groups and lobbyists.
| 15 |
| Arguments Against Holding a Constitutional Convention | 16 |
| Convention Expenses Could Be High
| 17 |
| Estimates of the total cost for a constitutional convention | 18 |
| range from $58 to $78 million. Illinois is in the midst of a | 19 |
| financial crisis that would be made worse by holding a | 20 |
| constitutional convention. Instead of paying for important | 21 |
| services, your tax dollars would be diverted to pay for the |
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 10 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| cost of electing delegates, salaries for delegates and staff, | 2 |
| printing and publication, and other administrative expenses. | 3 |
| Considering that there are two inexpensive ways to initiate | 4 |
| change if necessary through an amendment process, a convention | 5 |
| is a major expense that taxpayers do not need.
| 6 |
| Current Amendment Process Works
| 7 |
| The Constitution can be changed through an amendment process | 8 |
| and any changes must be approved by the voters. State Senators | 9 |
| and Representatives have the ability to propose changes to any | 10 |
| Article of the Constitution, and citizens may propose changes | 11 |
| to the structure and procedures of the Legislature. Since 1970, | 12 |
| voters have approved 10 of 18 proposed amendments to the | 13 |
| Constitution. Amendments encourage the same level of public | 14 |
| debate that proponents believe can only be achieved during a | 15 |
| constitutional convention. The amendment process is also less | 16 |
| costly and it ensures that citizens have an opportunity to | 17 |
| approve any change before it becomes effective.
| 18 |
| Influence of Special Interests
| 19 |
| There is no way to keep delegates to a constitutional | 20 |
| convention from the influence of special interest groups and | 21 |
| lobbyists. To be a delegate, candidates would need to raise | 22 |
| funds to run a campaign and win an election. Special interest |
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 11 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| groups and lobbyists will contribute money to these campaigns, | 2 |
| and if elected, a delegate may feel indebted to those who made | 3 |
| contributions. Delegates are not subject to the same ethical | 4 |
| standards as constitutional and legislative officers and do not | 5 |
| have to run for re-election, making them less accountable to | 6 |
| the voters for their actions. Additionally, there is no way to | 7 |
| control the issues debated during a constitutional convention. | 8 |
| The convention could be dominated by current controversial | 9 |
| issues like abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, gun | 10 |
| control, public education, and state and local taxes. | 11 |
| Convention delegates might ultimately spend months or years, | 12 |
| and millions of taxpayer dollars, debating policy issues that | 13 |
| should be decided by legislators accountable to the people.
| 14 |
| Negative Impact on the State Economy
| 15 |
| Holding a convention at this time could negatively impact the | 16 |
| economy. To grow economically and attract new jobs, the State | 17 |
| must provide a stable climate for business and labor. An | 18 |
| important part of this is a clear, predictable tax structure. | 19 |
| Business leaders are worried that the uncertainty created by a | 20 |
| convention could make it difficult to keep businesses in | 21 |
| Illinois or attract new businesses.
| 22 |
| FORM OF BALLOT |
|
|
|
HJ0137 Engrossed |
- 12 - |
LRB095 20976 RCE 51642 r |
|
| 1 |
| Proposed call for a Constitutional Convention
| 2 |
| Explanation of Proposed Call
| 3 |
| This proposal deals with a call for a state constitutional | 4 |
| convention. The last such convention was held in 1969-70, and a | 5 |
| new Constitution was adopted in 1970. The 1970 Illinois | 6 |
| Constitution requires that the question of calling a convention | 7 |
| be placed before the voters every 20 years. In 1988 the | 8 |
| electors rejected the call for a constitutional convention, | 9 |
| with 75% voting against calling a convention and 25% voting in | 10 |
| favor of calling a convention. If you believe the 1970 Illinois | 11 |
| Constitution needs to be revised through the convention | 12 |
| process, vote "YES" on the question of calling a constitutional | 13 |
| convention. If you believe that a constitutional convention is | 14 |
| not necessary, or that changes can be accomplished through | 15 |
| other means, vote "NO" on the calling of a constitutional | 16 |
| convention.
| 17 |
| -------------------------------------------------------------
| 18 |
| YES For the calling
- | 19 |
| ---------- of a Constitutional
| 20 |
| NO Convention.
| 21 |
| -------------------------------------------------------------
|
|