Vote 'no' on constitutional convention

The people of Illinois have a chance to pursue an ideal. It's an opportunity to elect honest and open-minded political outsiders who would respectfully debate the state's toughest issues: term limits, funding education, the death penalty. And, most importantly, it would toss out the state's problem leadership and make room for new ideas from everyday folks committed to what's best for all people.

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Time for a reality check: This is Illinois, where three governors have gone to jail and legislative leaders hold onto power like a dead Chicagoan holds onto the right to vote.

The General Assembly, which has been ineffective under leadership like Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President Emil Jones, ultimately would set the rules if voters agree to call for a convention to review the state's 1970 constitution.

We're certain Governor Rod Blagojevich's political machine also would be involved.

Under that direction, it's more likely citizen delegates would just sit around while hand-picked leaders make backroom deals with special interests. With the fox guarding the hen house, there's no reason to think a constitutional convention would work any differently than the current General Assembly.

If anything happens at all, the deals would be cut, the votes would line up. Any debate, if allowed, would be pure theater.

A cost estimate of up to $90 million makes this even less attractive. That figure, offered by the consortium of groups urging people to vote no, might be inflated. But even the estimate of under $20 million put forward by advocates sounds like far too much money at a time when the state's budget is so far out of balance.

The groups advocating a yes vote offer some convincing populist rhetoric. What's the harm in opening up the discussion? Even if we get one thing accomplished, isn't it worth it? This will energized disenfranchised youth.

Well, there is very real harm in opening up a solid document to special interests.

That one accomplishment could come at the cost of reduced civil rights.

And, in terms of energizing young people ... really? The Illinois constitution is not the issue to bring voters under 30 into the political fold. Young people get involved because they like a candidate. We are seeing that happen now, most notably with Barack Obama's candidacy.

There's no doubt the 1970 constitution could be improved.

We would most like to see changes to redistricting, which is guided only by a call for "compact and contiguous" districts.

Leaving redistricting in the hands of the legislature with these vague guidelines is a mistake. This is the reason we have districts that almost guarantee re-election to the great majority of incumbents.

It's hard to vote the rascals out of office when the only real contest is during the primary and challengers fail to surface.

To change this, other states have turned to computer models and rules that prohibit using election results or the address of incumbents. Term limits also would guarantee new blood. These are some options that might be worth considering.

But we don't need a convention to make this difficult fix. We have the amendment process.

Poor leadership is the cause of the problems in Springfield. The best way to change that leadership is to vote against them and their supporters.

The state constitution drafted in 1970 by nonpartisan delegates provides a reliable framework to govern the state.

Let's not ruin it.

We urge a no vote on Nov. 4.