|
 In the past 10 years, the Illinois General Assembly
has put six constitutional amendments on the ballot. Voters have that same
power, but have failed to get a single proposed amendment on the ballot in that
time.
Look at the longer timeline, and since 1970 when citizens gained the ability to
petition for constitutional changes they have succeeded just once. Many other
attempts have failed, most recently thwarted by cronies of state lawmakers.
This November, Illinois voters will again decide whether to grant a
constitutional change state lawmakers are pushing. Amendment 1, a so-called
“workers right amendment,” does much more than ban right to work. It would give
government union bosses constitutional rights to negotiate and strike over a
nearly endless array of issues and trump state law – powers no other state
offers unions.
The six constitutional changes driven by state lawmakers include Amendment 1 and
in 2020 a change to allow graduated income taxes, including the ability to tax
retirement income, to replace the state’s flat tax. Voters roundly rejected the
“Fair Tax” proposal sought by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and backed by $58 million from
his personal fortune.
Compare six lawmaker initiatives in 10 years to what happened to changes sought
by Illinois voters.
In 2016, over 500,000 voters signed a petition to place their own amendment on
the ballot, taking redistricting power away from state lawmakers and giving it
to an independent redistricting commission. The proposal had the support of a
majority of voters, according to polling done by the Paul Simon Public Policy
Institute. That amendment was thrown off the ballot by the Illinois Supreme
Court after it was challenged by an ally of indicted former Illinois House
Speaker Mike Madigan.
The same thing happened in 2014. Nearly 80% of Illinoisans supported term limits
for lawmakers, and a petition to amend the constitution gained more than enough
signatures to satisfy constitutional requirements. But that amendment was also
stricken from the ballot by an Illinois appellate court, taking away voters’
opportunity to weigh in on the issue. The same Madigan ally fought the
initiative.
So why can special interests get their pet policies placed on the ballot while
everyday Illinoisans get thwarted every time it looks like they might succeed?
It’s because the Illinois Constitution has been interpreted to limit
citizen-initiated petitions more severely in Illinois than in any other state.
Citizen amendments in Illinois are more restricted
The Illinois Constitution provides for amendment through citizen-initiated
referendums, but those changes are limited to “structural and procedural
subjects contained in Article IV,” the article that covers the makeup and powers
of the legislature. In practice, this limitation means citizen-initiated
amendments very rarely make it to the ballot because the Illinois Supreme Court
has strictly interpreted this limitation.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states allow for
direct citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. The subjects that can be
amended by initiative in Illinois are narrower than in any of those states.
In part because of its unique limits on the initiative process, there has only
been a single successful binding constitutional amendment initiated by the
voters of Illinois. That amendment reduced the size of the Illinois House of
Representatives from 177 to its current 118, passing in 1980.
Numerous attempts have been made to get other amendments on the ballot. All have
failed.
Other states are not nearly as restrictive. In Missouri and Ohio, initiatives
will pass muster so long as they only cover a single subject matter. In
Michigan, an initiative is only limited to those “laws which the legislature may
enact.”
[to top of second column] |
The citizens’ initiative was meant as a way to circumvent the legislature when
it was unlikely to act. But the fact only one amendment has made it to the
ballot in 52 years, combined with the fact policies with consistent support from
the public do not have a chance in the General Assembly, illustrate why the
restrictions on the amendment process need to be relaxed.
Direct democracy has shown positive results
Some are wary of popular referendums as a method of reforming the constitution,
which echoes the Founding Fathers’ skepticism of direct democracy in general.
But after more than a century of experience with popular referenda in the United
States, that history demonstrates what limits should be placed on Illinois
amendments.
Skeptics of popular democracy worry people will be unable to restrain themselves
when it comes to spending and tax policy, wanting to spend on lavish government
benefits without the ability to pay for them. That is exactly what has happened
in Illinois without a popular referendum.
Research from professor John G. Matsusaka suggests popular referendums tend to
result in more fiscally conservative policy than otherwise, especially when
referendum approval is required for spending. There is some concern special
interests will be able to manipulate voters more easily than would a
legislature. Matsusaka found special interest groups, such as corporations and
labor unions, tended to succeed less often when taking a position on a
citizen-initiated ballot measures than they did when taking a position on
proposals that originated with the legislature.
Reform can be modest
While the experiences with popular democracy demonstrate broad-scope,
citizen-initiated amendments can work, Illinois need not remove all limits.
Reform can be focused on the aspects of governing that lawmakers are least
likely to change because of conflicts of interest inherent in the system. Voters
should be authorized to enact reforms when lawmakers are unlikely to do so. That
means empowering voters to decide policies on term limits, redistricting and the
area most problematic for Illinois: public pensions.
Illinois lawmakers have been completely unwilling to take up pension reform
since the Illinois Supreme Court in 2015 struck down their statutory attempt.
The inaction is despite polls showing popular support for reform. Lawmakers have
labeled reform impossible because of the pension protection clause of the state
constitution, but they have made no real attempt to amend the clause to put the
question before voters.
The General Assembly has managed to submit Pritzker’s progressive tax amendment
and now the so-called “workers’ rights” amendment, but nothing to reform the
pension protection clause. Lawmakers are in Springfield to serve their
communities, but their own pensions are protected by the clause: a clear
conflict of interest, and exactly the scenario citizen-initiated amendments were
intended to guard against.
Illinois’ citizen-initiated amendment provision should be reformed to allow
citizens a chance to weigh in on the pension protection clause. Citizen
amendments also should be allowed to amend both procedural and structural
subjects of the legislative article of the constitution, if not more.
Illinois lawmakers have governed under this constitution since it was adopted 52
years ago. In the past few decades the state has lost its credit rating and in
the past eight years its population. Illinois generally seems to be on the wrong
track.
It is time to give the people of Illinois a chance to put some restraints on the
legislature and fix their own state.
|
