by Ralf Seiffe
Illinois Deserves Better: The Ironclad Case FOR An Illinois Constitutional Convention by Bruno Behrend and John C. A. Bambenek provides an immense service to Illinois voters. In this short, easily digested book, the authors make the case that there is no “intellectually sound” reason to vote against a constitutional convention with enough force to convince this skeptic. It explains the purpose of a constitution, the fundamental conditions that demand a convention, the process to call one and it proposes several reforms that a convention should contemplate.
The authors are both conservatives but do not take an overly partisan approach. Instead, they help bridge the gaps between the “right” and “left” by explaining the purpose of a constitution and develop the reasons both sides should be interested in better government. They help readers understand that a constitution is the framework of government and that it should be as limited as the government it authorizes. In this, readers suspicious of calling a convention will start to understand the risks of a “runaway convention” are less than they might suspect.
One never tires of reading the first page of The Federalist, on which Publius explains the venality of politicians. Nowhere is that 1787 observation is that more evident than in Twenty-first Century Illinois where our pols are both venal and self-absorbed. In the last part of Bambenek and Behrend’s book, the authors engage this eternal truth with proposals for four major constitutional reforms and the outlines for several more. Each are good government proposals that create incentives for public servants to consider the interests of voters by providing a new check and balance on our representatives. Every one of these ideas should appeal to thoughtful voters of any political philosophy who would prefer a more responsive and more responsible state government.
Illinois Deserves Better is a thoughtful book produced by two passionate advocates that de-mystifies the process and sets legitimate expectations for a prospective convention. Nevertheless, I did find a couple of shortcomings. The first is that the case is not quite “ironclad”. The reason people of goodwill are predisposed to vote against the convention--or at least not pull the separate ballot the current constitution requires--is the fear the jackals that roam Springfield will hijack the process. On the right, gun owners worry they will lose their Second Amendment rights or that abortion will be made even more available and odious. On the other side, liberals are worried that school choice will be mandated or that their pension deals will be abrogated. Both Behrend and Bambenek have publicly expressed why these fears are unwarranted but not many of these arguments have found their way into the book. That’s too bad because my sense of the mood of conservative Illinois voters is that most prefer to suffer under the current constitution than risk a new one that might be worse. Liberals are probably in a similar dilemma.
This leads to the other issue that could use more discussion, namely, how to form a coalition strong enough to resist the event horizon formed by Chicago and Springfield’s regulars. The authors make the case that these folks will not participate in the convention because politicians cannot have a state job and serve as a delegate at the same time. They recall history, noting that only two elected officials served in the 1970 convention. This may be true but one still worries because Illinois’ government is now much larger and pervasive than it was during the last go-round. It is now its own special interest group that will do what it can to press those interests and we should never underestimate the political entrepreneurial skills of the Daleys, the Madigans and the other members and retainers of Illinois’ five families of politics. They understand that the government enjoys concentrated benefits while imposing diffused costs on taxpayers. As beneficiaries of those undeserved benefits, they will always fight harder. The book would benefit from developing a strategy for controlling these beneficiaries.
On balance, the authors succeed in making a convincing case that we should vote for a convention. Bambenek and Behrend have invested their time and intelligence to advance the public interest, fairly and soundly. They propose good ideas that focus on the long-term interests of the people of Illinois and in that, provide a needed public service. Too bad our career politicians don’t have the same purpose.
