Say No to a Con-Con!

 

The current Illinois Constitution mandates that voters be asked whether or not to hold a constitutional convention at least once every 20 years. This assembly of elected statewide delegates would meet in 2010 to consider changes to the state constitution, adopted in 1970.

 

Anything and everything about the current state constitution is up for grabs at a Con-Con — delegates can simply tweak the document or throw it out and start over. However, any changes must then be approved by the voters.

 

IEA is urging members to say “no” to Con-Con. Here’s why:

State revenues are down, unemployment rates are up, the stock market is fluctuating, oil prices are skyrocketing and the housing market is the worst it’s been in years. The 1970 Con-Con cost $78 million in today’s dollars. Some estimates place the cost of a 2010 Con-Con at more than $80 million, a big chunk of change for a state that is essentially flat broke.

The current constitution guarantees that a public pension “shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” That means the security of ALL public pensions including the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), State Universities Retirement System (SURS) and the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) could be at risk at a Con-Con if delegates removed or modified that language. The constitution protects pension benefits that have already been earned, but lawmakers can change future benefits.

 

The risk of losing the current constitutional protection stems primarily from the financial drain of the unfunded liability of the five state-funded pensions on the state budget. But that unfunded liability - $42.2 billion as of June 30, 2007 is due primarily to almost perpetual state underfunding.

 

The five state-funded systems include TRS and SURS, as well as pensions for state employees, law- makers and judges. IMRF is not a state-funded pension, but it is a public employee pension currently protected by the constitution.

Rewriting the constitution won’t change behaviors or personalities. Besides, the Illinois General Assembly will set up any election of statewide delegates to a constitutional convention. With the current toxic political climate, do you really want to entrust the responsibility of a Con-Con to the legislature?

Under the current constitution, the legislature can propose constitutional amendments, which, if passed, must then be approved by the voters. Ten amendments have been added to the constitution since 1970, so why place human, civil and pension rights at risk?

To prepare for the 1970 Con-Con, the legislature created a commission to study whether the 1870 constitution needed revision. The commission’s recommendation for a Con-Con was put to the voters, who approved the idea in November 1968.

 

To prepare for the 1988 Con-Con referendum, the legislature created a “Committee of 50” to conduct statewide public hearings, convened a meeting of 1970 Con-Con delegates, and commissioned several academic background papers. In November 1988, Illinois voters defeated the Con-Con question by a 3-1 margin.

 

No commissions have been convened and no academic papers have been written to prepare for the November 2008 referendum. The legislature has simply appropriated up to $4 million to the Illinois secretary of state’s office to print and mail a required informational Con-Con pamphlet to voters.

 

A constitutional convention is serious business. Illinois is clearly not prepared for another Con-Con.

 

TRS, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, League of Women Voters of Illinois, Illinois Association of Chambers of Commerce Executives, Illinois Business Roundtable, Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois and the Illinois Civil Justice League all oppose a constitutional convention.  Visit the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Consitution.