342.7732 C7é6w ie it Have _a Constitutional Convention ficers of the Constitutional League on page 2] Pamphlet prepared by PAUL Vr. P ayy Frag LT a (TRAOES| MoNeouNCIL> 2 2 “Saas SEs Ae DIRECTORS. GEORGE E. CoLe, Chicago, President, EDWARD C. CurTIS, Grant Park, First Vice-President. CHARLES A. KARCH, Belleville, Second Vice-President. { CATHARINE WAvuGH McCuLLocn, Evanston, Third Vice-President. MEDILL McCorMIcK, Chicago, Chairman Executive Committee. E. D. SHURTLEFF, Marengo. Mrs. SHERMAN M. BoorHu, Glencoe). CHARLEs F. Hurpurcu, Galesburg ‘¢ SIGMUND ZEISLER, Chicago. B. F. Harris, Champaign. A. D. WEINER, Chicago. WALTER CLYDE JONES, Chicago. — NoRMAN G. F'LAGe, Moro. F. B. JOHNSTONE, Chicago. WALLACE G. CLARK, Chicago. J. A. Farris, Urbana. Bet. % ADOLF KRAUS, Chicago. bail : hia i eens J € 7 6 A ILLINOIS HEL IN CHAINS _ Of all the states in the Union, Illinois is the most hampered and restricted by its constitution, adopted 44 years ago and still but little changed. While other states have been progressing by bring- ing their fundamental law up to modern standards, Illinois has lagged, and now is far behind most of her sister common- - wealths. ’ Both friends and foes of a constitu- tional convention agree on this—that Illi- nois’ present constitution is rigid and re- pressive, obstructing her progress and staying her development. _ All that is asked of the people’s repre- sentatives in the General Assembly at Sptingfield is that they let the people of Iljinois decide by vote whether or not they wish a constitutional convention. Before the primaries and election this Fall, learn the position of your legisla- tive candidates and let them know your views. Nothing in the state’s history is of greater vital interest to yourself and your family than is this movement. ‘The issue is plainly drawn—on the one side progress and expansion; on the other, standpatism and decay. Illinois’ lawmakers will bow to a pub- lic demand so overpowering that special . 3 privilege and armored interests will not dare to raise a hand in opposition. This is the people’s fight. Your aid can, be given through discussion; by distribu- tion of copies of this pamphlet among your friends; by organization of loca} - Constitutional Convention Clubs, ete. Whether living in Chicago or “down- state,” Illinoisans may join hands in this campaign for constitutional revision with equal reasons of patriotism and self-inter- est. Chicago and other cities need home- rule charters, while the entire state, as a whole, sadly needs a modern constitution. WHAT IS NEEDED? Among the constitutional changes rf have been urged for many years are the following: } Shorter ballot. Abolition of minority representation jin the legislature. | Reorganization of the judiciary systern. Home rule for cities and counties in local matters. Permissible consolidation of eke ping local governments. ! Initiative, referendum and recall. __ Tax reform. | Woman suffrage, all offices. | Elasticity of amendment. iz While some of these propositions, with others that might be mentioned, are lof 4 . disputed value, most of them, it is gener- ally agreed, are desired by a great ma- - ajority of the people. | Why, then, have they not been incor- porated in the state’s constitution? 4 The Root of the Trouble Framers of Illinois’ present constitu- tion, honored in their day, were so pleased with their handiwork that they decided to make it almost impossible of change. They “bottled” it with three “corks.” Cork One is the provision that the amendment of only one article of the con- stitution may be submitted to the people at a time (one in two years). Cork Two is the requirement that, be- fore submission to the people, the amend- ment resolution must receive the vote of two-thirds of the members of each branch of the legislature. Cork Three is the requirement that, for adoption, an amendment must receive a majority vote, not only of those voting on the amendment, but also of all those casting ballots at that election. In other words, those voting for any candidate for public office, but not voting on the amend- ment, are counted, in effect, as voting against the amendment. Because of these “corks,” efforts to im- yrove the constitution have been almost 5 futile. Only two amendments have been adopted since 1899. 7 In recent years there has been a com-* plete halt in constitutional reform, partly —but only in part—because of warring interests at Springfield. . How the Interests Clash The legislature has been deadlocked. Some lawmakers backed initiative and referendum; some were for tax reform. As both could not be submitted at the same time, they killed each other off. So long as over one-third of the member- ship of either House stood out for one proposition, none other could be sub- mitted. This situation has permitted a plausi- ble argument for “temporary” sidetrack- ing of all other amendments in order to give right of way to an amendment which, if adopted, would permit more than one amendment to be submitted to the people at a time. “Then,” it is urged, “the deadlock be- tween I. and R. and tax reform would cease and both could be submitted.” Perhaps those who make this plea are ignorant of the fate of this particular amendment in the past and overlook the fact that this one change, if adopted, still would permit Corks Two and Three to “bottle” Illinois. 6 Twice has this same proposal to re- move the “one amendment restriction” ~been submitted to the people. Each time it has failed to receive a majority of those voting at the election. In 1892, out of 871,000 casting ballots, only 177,000, counting both friends and foes, voted on the amendment. In 1896, out of 1,090,000 votes, only 251,000 voted on the amend- ment, the division being 163,000 “for” to 88,000 “against.” There is no reason to warrant belief that a third attempt along this line would be more successful. The ‘96 campaign to “pull the cork,” meaning “Cork Number One,” was thoroughly organized and backed by a large number of civic asso- ciations. Why this lack of interest? Why didn’t . the people vote? For the very simple reason that the plan to “amend the amending clause” is and always has been such a mysterious, bloodless, academic, something-in-the- dim-future proposition that the average citizen has no interest in it. On a con- crete proposition he would be prepared to cast an intelligent ballot, but not on Sopening the door’—to what? It is but natural that he wants to know “to what.” What assurances, in fact, can anyone “give that, even if two or three amend- 7 ments could go through at the same time, the “bottle’s’ opening would not be blocked by the scramble of half a dozen?, As'a matter of fact, and in the light of confused political conditions, that is prob- ably exactly what would happen. © Even with Cork No. One out, there re- main Corks Two and Three, which, in other states, have been proven to be quite as efficacious in suppressing the will of the people at the behest of interests en- joying special privileges. Note Ohio’s case. It had no limit on the number of amendments; also, only three-fifths of each House were required to authorize submission to the people, yet Ohio was “bottled” as effectually as Illinois—until it got its constitutional convention of emi- nent men, who framed its present con- stitution, adopted last year. Further, there is no legal reason why any one proposed amendment, even this amendment to amend the amending clause, should not be submitted to the people at the same time as the constitu- tional convention resolution. Though the advocates of the I. and R., tax reform and “amending the amending clause” tear each other’s throats at Springfield, they may consistently unite in voting for "a constitutional convention. The thinking voter will be suspicious of the legislatiye 8 candidate who backs any single proposed amendment while opposed to a constitu- tional convention. It can be set down that he is “taking orders.” ’ Convention Is Quickest Way Illinois would secure its needed re- forms more quickly by a constitutional convention than it possibly could in any other way. These tables tell why. By a Corivention Resolution for convention to be adopted by legislature in....1915 Submission to voters at general election in Autumn of...... 1916 Legislature would provide for convention at its session of. .1917 Election for choosing delegates, Baye uly Ofs have. sl estes 917 Convention could convene in Fall Sarr ne et So, WR ate is 1917 Submission of draft to people in BOUIOLOL far. ake cee hak so sce 1918 By “Pulling the Cork” Legislature might vote to pull oC erie IN Oued bye ie re ecu ais 1915 Submission to people in Novem- PCTS gti e a0 eal svete ayaa “2s 5% 1916 If adopted, legislature might vote to submit proposed amend- ments at its session of........ 1917 Such amendments would be sub- mitted to people at election in APES Ln Se a ei a 1918 In other words, a start at patching would take more time than a thorough revision of the constitution by the mosi* eminent and best qualified men Illinois could find for the work. Moreover, there could be no assurance even of patching, iF attempted. Remember, that Ohio, and other states, too, could not do patching under similar but more favorable con- ditions. a OBJECTIONS ANSWERED Objection No. One.—“With politics in chaos, it would be difficult to elect a good convention.” Those advancing this argument, stale with thirty years of repetition, disre- gard, or pretend to be ignorant of the fact that Illinois’ legislature has the pow- er to require that delegates to a consti- tutional convention be elected in non- partisan procedure—not as Democrats, Progressives, Republicans or other party men, but after nomination by petition, with their names under no party label. Thus, voters would choose from among the candidates according to qualifications, not because of the party badge. Ohto_ worked out her salvation in this way-r. Voters showed remarkable discrimina- tion at the polls. Illinois’ voters are just as intelligent as Ohio’s. € 10 Moreover, judging from what has hap- pened in other states and what is prob- sable when the people face the emergency, voters will be ready and anxious to dis- regard party lines in order to send to the convention the very highest class of citi- zens to be found and who may be in- duced to be candidates. Objection Two.—“Until a readjustment comes in politics, no convention could be elected of much higher grade than the legislature itself.” All experience, in this and other states, indicates that this objection is pure bunk. Members of a constitutional convention would be elected without cumulative vot- ing, two from each senatorial district, by direct vote of the people, for the honor- able, serious and specific purpose of drafting a constitution. Evidence of the probable abandonment of party lines is indicated by the member- ship of the Constitutional Convention League, whose council and _ directors are representative of all parties and al- most all factions—of radical, moderate and conservative opinion. Objection Three—“A convention ywould let down the bars to every new political idea.” Proposed amendments that have been ymmost widely discussed number about 11 twenty and cover only about ten desired reforms. Still wider discussion would in- tervene before the convention met in 1917,«. or later. It would be a reasonable fore- cast of procedure to assume that the more radical amendments, when drafted, woulde be submitted to popular vote separately, even if the Ohio method, in which the people voted separately upon each and every proposed amendment, were not fol- lowed in Illinois. Nor let us forget, in fairness, that the bars already are down for the submission of any amendment, however radical, that may meet the legislature’s approval. Surely no sane and patriotic citizen would urge Illinois to wait until every advance step in constitutional reform had been taken and tested by the experience of years in other or many other states. IIli- nois might better be a leader than a lag- gard. Objection Four.—“‘A new constitution would sweep away 43 years of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the present constitution. The work of the courts must start all over again.” Note that this objection is not advanced by reputable lawyers who are authorities. on constitutional law. It is a gross exaggeration, a bogey man of straw. It is certain that a conventiots 12 would conserve much of the Supreme Court’s past labors. Many of the pro- _,posed amendments would need no judi- cial interpretation—for instance, to se- cure full woman suffrage, it would be jmecessary merely to strike out the word “male” in describing a voter. Moreover, if this objection were sound, it would become stronger each year. Are we never to have a constitutional revi- sion? If we are, the quicker we get it, the weaker is the objection. Objection Five.—‘“Jealousy between ‘downstate’ and ‘city,’ with the certainty that ‘downstate’ would insist upon re- stricted legislative representation for Cook County, possibly without giving Chicago ‘home rule’ in return.” It is true that the majority of both Houses at Springfield, representing “downstate” districts, fear the time when Chicago’s growth in population, on a re- apportionment of districts, may give that city a majority of both lawmaking branches. On the other hand, Chicago- ans object to a discrimination giving their city less than its proportionate represen- tation in the legislature. George E. Cole, president of the Con- ‘stitutional Convention League, though himself a Chicagoan, has suggested a ,compromise. He would limit the num- 13 ber of Cook County’s senators to two- fifths of the whole, but would continue to apportion the membership of the | Lower House according to population. Thereby, Chicago and Cook County’s growth in population never would give the “big city” control of the legislature. A constitutional convention may be re- lied upon to work out a reasonable com- promise satisfactory to the entire state. Meanwhile, because of the jealousy be- tween “city” and “downstate,” the every- ten-years’ reapportionment of congres- sional and legislative districts required by Illinois’ constitution is four years over- due, with no action in near prospect. In effect, therefore, there is already in opera- tion a restriction of Chicago’s legisla- tive representation, since reapportion- ment on a population basis would give Cook County two additional senatorial districts. Too much of the legislature’s time is taken up in lawmaking that applies only to Chicago. That city, along with other cities of the state, seeks authority to gov- ern itself in local matters. Surely, here is the basis for a reasonable adjustment sat- isfactory to the entire state. P> 14 Objection Six.—“Why kick over our. present constitution? It contains much that is good.” * This is the silliest plea of all, but is the most widely circulated by the insidious --canization working under cover to block constitutional revision. You see, it is so easy to “pass along” this little “knock.” The simple answer is that no advo- cate of a constitutional convention ever had in mind the discarding of Illinois’ present constitution as a whole. If this earth travels around the sun, then it is equally certain that the present constitu- tion’s framework and its every section of sound yalue, from the nobly worded pre- amble to the end of the final article, will be retained for the new constitution. The People Must Decide Let us all remember that no constitu- tional convention can “put anything over” on the people. No constitution, whether submitted as a whole or in sep- arate amendments, can become Illinois’ fundamental law unless a majority of the voters are willing. A convention merely may draft; the ple must decide. They are the jurors e supremest of all courts, from there shall be no appeal. 15 301120 Fe ee 2 ai Bie is The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. University of Illinois Library L161— O-1096