Constitutional convention for IL?

[of the seas]

I am curious about how people are going to vote yes or no in Illinois for a constitution convention, and why are you voting the way you are.

 

[castleview]

Can't speak for IL, but we are voting on it in CT too. I'm against it because it will leave too much power in the hands of special interest groups. Here it's being driven by the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-binding arbitration groups.

 

[of the seas]

Anyone else have any input?

 

[Chicago526]

I voted no. It's $80M we don't have. And those yahoos can't run the state, let alone write a constitution. I don't want the special interests getting their hands on it.

 

[freckles and boo]

I haven't decided, to be honest. I wish I knew more about who supported this and who is opposed to it. I do know that it would cost the state a LOT of money to hold a Constitutional Convention and we are strapped as it is. I will probably do some more research on it before I head out to vote in a bit.

 

[Minnie824]

I voted No as well as previous poster said..$80 million? We have other things that could be spent on.

 

[of the seas]

I do know that the League of Women Voters has said to vote no.

It would be a lot of $$, but somethings do need to be changed, i'm just not sure.

 

[SpecialK]

I voted NO. Too much money that we don't have. I think our state gov't will recover once Blago's corrupt administration gets the boot. (I did vote yes on the recall amendment.)

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

Ugh, we really could use a Con Con to fix some of the problems with the constitution -- school access and funding in particular. But as others pointed out, it's $80 million we don't have, and it would quickly fall into the hands of social extremists who would want to extend the document to infringe on personal social issues like civil unions and gay marriage. It's sad enough that we were one of the first states with a DOMA; we don't need to extend it to our state constitution. Regretably, I will have to vote no.

 

[KarenC]

I voted no. We have a crisis of leadership--not of the constitution.

 

[RitaE]

I voted yes.

The State needs to change. Our current form of government does not work.

I don't expect it to pass however.

 

[Val]

If I thought it would fix the problems we have in this state, I would have voted yes. Unfortunately, as a voter who is NOT originally from Illinois, I continue to be absolutely amazed at the corrupt political machine that runs Illinois....so I voted NO! We could use the 80 million somewhere more productive!

 

[of the seas]

I ended up voting no....it's just to much $$.

 

[EthansMom]

Another CT voter here who voted "no" for a constitutional convention. The League of Women Voters recommended voting "no" with the reasoning that anyone who wanted changes to the constitution could go through the voting/ballot process to have that item considered individually without throwing out the whole constitution.

Here the folks who are pushing for "yes" are mostly against gay marriage.

It seems to me that a constitutional convention would be an expensive way to make changes to government.... not to mention inefficient. Can you imagine all of the pro-and-anti- folks wasting our gov't funds to argue their positions with each other?

Also, my understanding is that with a constitutional convention, the new constitution would be decided by representatives, whereas any individual changes to our current constitution would be voted on by citizens. I'd prefer to have the ability to vote on individual issues... especially the hot-topic ones.

 

[crz4mm2]

Voted no.
You kidding me? 80million of MY tax dollars to do WHAT?

Nope, they got enough of my tax money that they have blown on god knows what... I am not volunteering more.