SPRINGFIELD – Although voters last month rejected holding a constitutional convention, sentiment remains strong among some lawmakers that changes need to be made to the state constitution.

But the political prognosis for amending the constitution is uncertain at best.

"Folks who opposed a constitutional convention said that reform could happen by simply amending the constitution. I guess now is the time to see if they were serious about that or if they were just making excuses for not having a constitutional convention," said Bruno Behrend, co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition, which advocated for a constitutional conventional.

His skepticism of future constitution reform after the Con-Con defeat was answered with outright cynicism by another supporter of a convention -- Judy Baar Topinka.

The former state treasurer and GOP gubernatorial candidate described efforts to bring political reform through amending the constitution as futile.

Topinka’s reason for the grim forecast is simple: changing the constitution is largely in the hands of those who have succeeded politically under the current constitution.

There are two paths to amending the state constitution:

• Three-fifths of the Illinois House and Senate have to vote to place the issue on the ballot, where it must be approved by 60 percent of those voting.
• If the amendment is related changing the structure or procedure of the legislature, it can be placed on the ballot without a legislative vote through a petition drive collecting signatures equal to 8 percent of those voting in the most recent gubernatorial election. It must then be approved by 60 percent of those voting.

The legislature’s role in screening constitutional amendments to present to the voters stands as the greatest impediment to meaningful constitutional reform, Topinka said

"Come on, do you really think these guys are going to vote to put restrictions on their own power? They could have passed a constitutional amendment for political reform anytime in the last twenty years -- but they haven’t," she said.

State Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, said he is shutting the door on amending the state constitution.

"The voters have spoken. They don’t want the constitution changed. I think we should focus on getting good people elected and address many of the problems of the state legislatively," he said.

Still, some lawmakers, such as state Rep. Jack Franks, D-Woodstock, continue to seek constitutional change.

Recall Amendment



"I’m going to reintroduce the Recall Amendment next year," Franks said. "I think with a new Senate president, it has a good chance of passing."

Earlier this year, the House approved and the Senate rejected placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot that would have allowed voters to give themselves the power to recall elected officials from office.

When it was debated in the legislature it was widely considered a referendum on Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s performance.

"The governor said he favored the Recall Amendment but then lobbied aggressively behind the scenes against it and his ally (Senate President) Emil Jones helped him defeat the bill. With Emil leaving and new leadership coming in, I think there is a good chance we can pass this and get it on the ballot," said Franks, who also pushed to hold a constitutional convention.

Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn agreed saying a Recall Amendment stands a good chance for passage if voters are given a chance to weigh in on it.

"I think a very healthy majority of voters are in favor of recall. It’s a very strong tonic or prescription for whatever ails Illinois government," he said. "If the public has the power to recall, I think a lot of the daily abuses we see in Illinois state government will come to an end."

Term limits and redistricting



But Franks said there are many constitutional reforms that simply cannot succeed without a constitutional convention.

"I’d like to see term limits imposed on how long someone can serve as a legislative leader, but if I were to introduce that legislatively it would never make it out of the Rules Committee," he said.

"I’d also like to see something done with redistricting. Half of the people in the Legislature don’t have opposition in elections and many of the rest only have nominal opposition. Legislative districts have been gerrymandered to the point that voters aren’t choosing legislators. Legislators are choosing their voters," Rep. Franks said.

Amendatory veto



One area of the persistent legislative gripes about the state constitution centers on the governor’s power to rewrite legislation through his amendatory veto powers.

"When the Illinois Constitution was drafted, the idea was that this would only be used to correct Scribner errors or merge two similar bills – not wholesale rewrites of legislation, as this governor has done," Franks said.

But Rep. Franks sees little potential for such a measure to gain political traction without a constitutional convention.

"It’s very much ‘inside baseball.’ I have trouble seeing it being an issue that resonates with voters," he said.

Quinn agreed, adding that much of the controversy stems from the vague wording in the 1970 state constitution.

"It’s poorly worded. In the hands of Gov. Blagojevich, it has the potential of nullifying the will of the legislature," Quinn said

Progressive income tax



Of course, no public-policy debate would be complete in Illinois without pondering taxation.

Currently the state taxes its residents at a 3 percent rate, regardless of their incomes.

The state constitution mandates the income tax be a flat rate, which some contend places too much of a burden on the poor and middle class to pay for state services.

Among the concerns is that much of state’s income growth has been experienced disproportionately by upper-income individuals. By taxing everyone at the same rate, regardless of their income, state government is not receiving revenue proportionate to the income growth experienced in the state.

A constitutional amendment creating a progressive income tax to replace the existing flat rate also has potential for passing, said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Illinois-based Center for Tax and Budget Accountability.

A progressive income tax would mean upper-income individuals would pay a higher percentage of their earnings to the state than those being paid less.

"I think there is the potential for this issue to get a fair hearing in the next year or two," Mr. Martire said. "There is a growing recognition that the state’s fiscal system is so badly broken, that fixing it is on the agenda for everyone in both parties. One way of fixing it is to create a progressive tax rate structure that allows the flexibility for the tax system to respond to how economic growth gets shared across different income classes."

Same-sex marriage



In other states, such as California, much of the attention toward changing the constitution has focused on social issues, particularly banning same-sex marriage.

In fact, since 1996, 30 states have amended their constitutions to prevent same-sex couples from wedding.

But little headway has been made by Illinois social conservatives to pass an amendment to the state constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

"They won’t even let it have a hearing in a legislative committee," said David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute. "The reason is clear: legislative leaders are driven by political correctness and don’t want this matter heard."

For Rick Garcia, political director for the gay-rights group Equality Illinois, the reason the proposed constitutional amendment languishes in committee is simple: politics.

"These amendments are put on the ballot all over the country as a way to get socially conservative voters to polling places where they will vote for the amendment – and for conservative candidates," he said. "I believe that is why the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate don’t want this on the ballot – because they fear it will hurt their legislative candidates, not because they want same-sex marriage."

For Charles N. Wheeler III, a professor of public affairs reporting at the University of Illinois at Springfield and a longtime observer of state government, the issue goes beyond political calculations.

"Illinois is a moderate state and really doesn’t have much stomach for these types of measures," he said.