N 
 
 342.7732 
 
 K64ff 
 
 ccp.9 
 
 KITSOSTfiscidi-te . 
 
 A GUIDE TO ILLINOIS CON- 
 STITUTIOKAL REVISION: THE 
 1969 CONSTITUTIONAL CON- 
 VENTION 
 
 Co, 
 
 ^b 
 
 
 
L I B R.AR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVER.5ITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS 
 
 3U2,113'^ 
 
 K64g 
 cop,9 
 
 Illinois Historical Survey 
 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 A Guide to Illinois Constitutional Revision 
 The 1969 Constitutional Convention 
 
 by Thomas A. Kitsos 
 and Joseph P. Pisciotte 
 
 Prepared for the 
 Illinois Constitution Study Commission 
 
 THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT 
 
 .A .A^^iS 
 
 and PUBUC AFFAIRS xj!^^^^^''^ 
 
 V 1 VJ" >»y 
 
 
 
A GUIDE TO ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION: 
 THE 1969 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
 
 by 
 
 Thomas A. Kitsos 
 and 
 Joseph P. Pisciotte 
 
 Prepared for the Illinois Constitution Study Commission 
 
 Robert Coulson, Chairman 
 Robert W. McCarthy, Co-Chairman 
 
 Institute of Government and Public Affairs 
 University of Illinois 
 Urbana 
 
 October 1969 
 

 FOREWORD 
 
 Piecemeal constitutional revision is not an unfamiliar topic 
 in Illinois, but when a constitutional convention is convened on 
 December 8, 1969 to review the entire 1870 Constitution, it will be a 
 part of state government which has been experienced by only a few 
 people. There are many specifics involved in a constitutional con- 
 vention which the voters of Illinois have not had to consider since 
 the last convention was convened in 1920. 
 
 With this in mind, the Institute of Government and Public Affairs 
 has made available this guide to the 1969 Illinois Constitutional 
 Convention. It is designed to aid the delegate candidates as well 
 as interested citizens in clarifying some of the components involved 
 in assembling, initiating, and conducting the business of the Convention. 
 Where pertinent, comparison is made with conventions that have been 
 held recently in other states, but more frequently, references are 
 made to the 1920 Illinois Convention since that convention assembled 
 under the same constitutional guidelines as will the 1969 Convention. 
 
 The Convention Guide is one of several projects undertaken by 
 the Institute of Government for the Illinois Constitution Study 
 Commission. The Commission was re-created by the 76th General Assembly 
 to continue making the necessary preparations for the Constitutional 
 Convention. The Institute gratefully acknowledges the financial 
 support for this project from the Commission and its Chairman, Robert 
 Coulson, and its Co-Chairman, Robert W. McCarthy. 
 
 Samuel K. Gove, Director 
 Institute of Government and 
 Public Affairs 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 WHAT IS A STATE CONSTITUTION? 4 
 
 Written Constitutions 4 
 
 Constitutional versus Statute Law 6 
 
 Federalism 7 
 
 THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION—HOW IS IT REVISED? 11 
 
 Revision by Amendment 11 
 
 Revision by Convention 12 
 
 THE 1969 ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: POWERS AND 
 
 LIMITATIONS 16 
 
 The Convention ' s Task 16 
 
 Substantive Limitations from the United States 
 
 Constitution 17 
 
 Procedural Limitations from the 1870 Illinois Constitution 20 
 
 THE DELEGATES 23 
 
 Number and Apportionment 23 
 
 Qualifications and Public Official Eligibility Question. 24 
 
 The Election of Delegates 25 
 
 The Election Process 25 
 
 Qualification of Voters 27 
 
 Filling of Vacancies 28 
 
 Privileges and Immunities 28 
 
 Compensation 29 
 
 THE CONVENTION PROCESS 30 
 
 Place and Date of First Meeting 30 
 
 Length of Session 31 
 
 Call to Order 32 
 
 Officers 32 
 
 Election Returns and Election Contests 34 
 
 Quorum 34 
 
 Punishing Non-Members for Contempt 35 
 
 Record Keeping and Investigations: Powers and Duties... 35 
 
 Lobbyists 36 
 
 Convention Services and Aids 38 
 
 Staff and Employee Assistance 38 
 
 Other Aids for the Delegates 39 
 
 Background Papers 39 
 
 Preparatory Research by the Constitution Study 
 
 Commission 40 
 
 The Proposed New Constitution 43 
 
 Appropriations 44 
 
 Rules and Regulations 45 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 On November 5, 1968 the voters of Illinois showed an unusual 
 degree of unanimity on one of the issues on the general election 
 ballot. On the question of whether a constitutional convention should 
 be held in the state, 2.9 million voted "yes," 1.1 million voted "no" 
 and only 590,000 failed to vote. This 600,000 vote plurality over 
 the required constitutional majority represented the largest margin 
 ever given to a constitutional issue in the state. 
 
 As a result, 116 delegates will convene in Springfield on 
 December 8, 1969 to begin the state's sixth constitutional convention. 
 The 1969 Convention will be only the second convention held in this 
 state in the last bne hundred years, but it will become part of a 
 nationwide trend toward state constitutional revision. As will be 
 noted in the text of this paper, several other states are examining 
 their constitutions in an effort to make their government more respon- 
 sive to the problems of the 1970's and beyond. 
 
 Frequently, when one discusses state constitutional reTision, 
 many implicit assumptions are made. The result is that the complex 
 relationship between one constitutional convention and other factors 
 in the political system are often overlooked. The three words — state 
 constitutional revision — should be separated and analyzed since they 
 represent three different concepts. The place of the states , for 
 example, should be examined within the context of our federal system of 
 government. Illinois is, after all, only one of fifty constituent 
 
 *For an account of the vigorous campaign to get the call approved, 
 see Joseph P. Pisciotte, "How Illinois Did It," National Civic Review , 
 LVIII, No. 7 (July, 1969), pp. 291-96. 
 
-2- 
 
 govemments which comprise the United States as it operates under a 
 federal structure. The United States Constitution gives us the formal 
 guidelines of this system while custom and tradition have informally 
 defined how it works. Constitutionalism is a concept seldom discussed 
 by Americans although it developed, to a great extent, from our own 
 colonial experience. Why will the delegates to the Illinois Constitu- 
 tional Convention draft a proposed written document? Written 
 constitutions were, at one time, a uniquely American phenomenon. 
 Custom and law have not institutionalized the concept to such an ex- 
 tent that few people question it. The mechanics of revising a 
 constitution should be examined within its historical context. Al- 
 though there are now two methods of changing the Illinois Constitution, 
 the state's original constitution — adopted with statehood in 1818 — could 
 be changed only by convention. How our present system of revision 
 evolved and what ramifications this has for the entire picture of state 
 constitutionalism are important questions to consider. 
 
 The relationship of these concepts becomes apparent when one 
 examines the American idea that constitutional law is superior to 
 statute law. What ramifications has this belief had on the processes 
 of state constitutional revision? And, more particularly, what effect 
 do all these concepts have on the 1969 Illinois Constitiutional 
 Convention? 
 
 It is important, of course, to focus on the machinery of the 
 several phases of the total constitutional convention process. How 
 are the delegates elected? How does the Convention get started? How 
 much will it cost, and how long will it run? What happens to the 
 
-3- 
 
 product of the Convention after it convenes? These are some of the 
 many questions which are relevant at this time. 
 
 Although this paper is not structured exactly along these 
 lines, it does combine these divergent concepts within the setting 
 of the Illinois Convention. More specifically, the purpose of this 
 paper is threefold: 
 
 (1) To place the 1969 Illinois Constitutional Convention in an 
 historical and theoretical perspective. 
 
 (2) To trace the methods and history of constitutional revision 
 in Illinois. 
 
 (3) To describe the powers, limitations, and part of the 
 operational machinery of the Convention. 
 
GUIDE TO ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION: THE 1969 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTI 
 
 ;Jhat Is a State Constitution? ^ 
 
 Written Constitutions 
 
 The concept of a written charter which would establish the 
 framework of government, stipulate its powers and duties, and specify 
 the rights of the people, has deep roots in English and American history. 
 England has no written constitution in the same sense that the United 
 States does. However, English history furnishes many precedents for 
 the idea that the principles of governmental structure and Individual 
 liberty should be written for all men to see. 
 
 Written constitutions, as embodied in our federal and state 
 constitutions, are unique products of the American political experience. 
 T-Jhen this country was first settled, the basic framework of colonial 
 government was founded upon charters Issued by the English Crown. The 
 idea soon emerged that the structure of government as well as the 
 rights of the people should be united in a written document having the 
 character of fundamental law and being superior to ordinary law. The 
 
 A number of scholarly works were helpful in writing this 
 section. For a more detailed discussion of some of these topics, the 
 interested reader should consult: Clyde Snider, American State and 
 Local Government (2nd ed. ; New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1965); 
 Paul G. Kauper, The State Constitution; Its Nature and Purpose (Detroit: 
 Citizens Research Council of Michigan, Con-Con Research Paper No. 2, 
 1961) ; Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States 
 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1966); Duane Lockard, The Politics of 
 State and Local Government (New York: Macmillan Co., 1963); Samuel W. 
 Witwer, "The Shape of the Illinois Constitution," DePaul Law Review , 
 XVII (Summer, 1968); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function 
 and Form For Our Time (New York: National Municipal League, 1968); and 
 The Council of State Governments, The Book of the States , 1968-1969 
 (Chicago, 1968). 
 
 -4- 
 
-5- 
 
 Mayf lower Compact, signed by the Pilgrim fathers on shipboard in 1620, 
 represents a further development ia American constitutionalism — that 
 government is a compact resting upon the agreement and consent of the 
 people. 
 
 After the colonies declared their independence from England, 
 it was necessary to establish some sort of instrument for their own 
 self-government. Upon gaining their independence, the colonies became 
 states and between 1776 and 1780 eleven of the thirteen original states 
 drafted their own constitutions. Rhode Island and Connecticut had been 
 given broad powers under their colonial charters and these charters 
 served as their constitutions until well into the Nineteenth Century. 
 The eleven state constitutions drafted during this period were written 
 and implemented in a manner which would be considered unusual today. 
 In most of the states, constitutions were drawn up by an ordinary 
 legislative body — not by a convention of popularly elected delegates. 
 And in a number of cases, the constitutions were not submitted to a 
 popular referendum. However, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 
 was drafted by a popularly elected convention and approved by the 
 voters. This method has come to be the accepted process of constitution- 
 making. 
 
 The United States Constitution drafted by the Philadelphia 
 Convention of 1787 and the Bill of Rights adopted soon after its rati- 
 fication symbolize the idea that the basic frame of government and the 
 rights of individuals should be reduced to writing. Furthermore, the 
 United States Constitution created a separation of powers within the 
 national government and established a federal system in which power was 
 to be distributed between the central government and its constituent 
 
-6- 
 
 states. Both the concepts of federalism and the separation of powers 
 require a written document, primarily because the functions of the 
 separate parts of the government should not be so vague as to generate 
 perpetual conflict. 
 
 The tradition established by the early state constitutions, the 
 adoption of the United States Constitution, and the requirements of the 
 federal system Inevitably resulted In the adoption of a written consti- 
 tution by each new state as It entered the Union. In fact, no new 
 state may be admitted Into the Union until Its constitution Is adopted 
 and submitted to Congress for approval. Consequently, when the dele- 
 gates to the Illinois Constitutional Convention draft a proposed new 
 written charter for the state, they will be carrying out a process 
 that has deep roots In the political history, traditions, and practices 
 of this country. 
 
 Constitutional versus Statute Law 
 
 In addition to the concept of a written constitution, American 
 experience has also contributed the idea that constitutions are distinct 
 from and superior to statute law. Evolving from this distinction is 
 the idea that the people should make fundamental law while statute 
 law can be made by legislative bodies composed of representatives of 
 the people. 
 
 Consequently, the convention has come to be viewed as the 
 legitimate and proper method to write and/or rewrite constitutions. 
 Conventions are established solely for that purpose, delegates to the 
 convention are elected by the people, and the convention is adjourned 
 once its task is completed. Both convention proposals and constitutional 
 amendments suggested by legislatures are subject to the approval or 
 
-7- 
 
 disapproval of the voters in referendum. 
 
 Another ramification of the distinction between constitutional 
 and statute law is that the former is more difficult to change. Whole- 
 sale revision of a constitution, which is ordinarily the function of a 
 convention, is contingent upon an extraordinary legislative majority 
 to get the convention call on the ballot. Popular approval is then re- 
 quired of the convention itself, the individual delegates, and the final 
 product. Individual constitutional amendments must normally receive 
 an extraordinary legislative majority to get the proposal on the 
 
 ballot followed by approval from a constitutional majority of the 
 
 3 
 voters in the election. 
 
 Federalism 
 
 Ours is a federal system of government. That is, the powers 
 of government are divided between a central government and a number of 
 constituent governments (the states). The division of power is 
 spelled out in a written constitution that can be changed only by 
 action of both the central and constituent governments. In some areas 
 of governmental action, only the central government has authority to 
 act, e.g., foreign policy. In other areas, major authority to act is 
 vested in state governments, e.g., education. And some governmental 
 functions are shared by both levels of government, e.g., taxes. 
 
 Delaware is the one major exception in regard to individual 
 constitutional amendments. In that state, favorable action by two 
 successive legislatures, without popular ratification, completes the 
 amending process. 
 
 The specific requirements for the legislative and popular vote 
 necessary for approval of constitutional conventions and individual 
 constitutional amendments varies from state to state but normally such 
 requirements are rather stringent. The situation in Illinois is 
 discussed below. 
 
-8- 
 
 The concept of federalism, then, deals with the powers of 
 government and sources of authority. There are a number of theoretical 
 difficulties in these ideas, but it is generally agreed that all poli- 
 tical power comes from the people. The Preamble to the United States 
 Constitution explicitly states that the Constitution was established 
 by '...the People of the United States." Also, every state constitution, 
 except one, expressly provides that the people are the source of ulti- 
 mate political power. The Illinois Constitution (Article II, Section 
 1) provides that, "...(t)o secure these rights and the protection of 
 property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their lust 
 powers from the consent of the governed." 
 
 Another generally agreed upon concept of American constitutional 
 law is the theory of delegated and reserved powers found in the Tenth 
 Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Amendment is 
 essentially the basis of our federal system of government. The powers 
 of the federal government are considered to be delegated powers. In 
 other words, that government must find authority for its actions in 
 express or implied grants of power in the federal constitution. 
 
 There has been some difference of opinion with regard to the 
 source of authority for state governmental actions. Essentially there 
 are two different theories regarding this authority — the difference 
 stemming from dissimilar Interpretations of the Tenth Amendment. 
 
 The first theory holds that state government is the recipient 
 of all powers not explicitly or implicitly given to the national 
 
 The New York Constitution does not make the sovereignty of the 
 people explicit, although it is implicit. See Witwer, p. 467. 
 
 The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the 
 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 
 
-9- 
 
 govemment. The government established by a state constitution has all 
 the general powers of government except for limitations imposed by the 
 United States or state constitution. Therefore, a state constitution 
 does not have to contain an express enumeration of governmental 
 powers. This theory holds that a state constitution is primarily a 
 limitation on governmental power — not a grant of power. 
 
 The second theory postulates that, under the Tenth Amendment, 
 ultimate power rests with the people. Agencies of state government 
 must find their authority for action in grants of power conferred by 
 the people. Consequently, state constitutions should be an enumeration 
 of explicitly granted powers given to state government. The absence 
 of a specific constitutional grant means the absence of authority to 
 
 act. 
 
 A counter argument to this line of reasoning has been made by 
 those subscribing to the first theory. They maintain that in establish- 
 ing the agencies of state government, the people have given implied 
 authority to those agencies to carry out the general powers of govern- 
 ment subject only to express limitations. The following quote from 
 a 1927 book on constitutional law is illustrative of this position: 
 
 In creating a legislative department and conferring 
 upon it the legislative power, the people must be under- 
 stood to have conferred the full and complete power as 
 it rests in, and may be exercised by the sovereign power 
 of any country, subject only to such restrictions as 
 they may have seen fit to impose, and to the limitations 
 which are contained in the Constitution of the United 
 States. The legislative department is not made a 
 special agency for the exercise of specifically defined 
 legislative powers, but is entrusted with the general 
 authority to make laws at discretion." 
 
 Cooley, 1 Constitutional Limitations 175 (8th ed.; Boston: 
 Carrington, Little, Brown & Co., 1927), cited in Kauper, p. 28. 
 
-10- 
 
 As a practical matter, the generally accepted view of state 
 constitutions appears to be one of a mixture of these two theories. 
 It is quite apparent that, historically, state constitutions have not 
 been considered solely as limitations on power. In regard to many 
 constitutional matters, state charters are viewed as express grants 
 of power. The net result of all this has been an unusual mixture of 
 grants of authority and limitations on power found in the same 
 constitution. 
 
 This mixture has contributed to some rather long and detailed 
 state constitutions which have tended to be restrictive on state 
 governmental action. Constitutional restrictions, in part, have 
 limited the states' capacity to respond to some contemporary problems. 
 One ramification of all this is an increased concern over the growing 
 power of the federal government. Students of state government fre- 
 quently call for a clear delineation of the role of the states in our 
 modem federal system. The appeal for constitutional revision is 
 heard frequently — the central thrust of the argument being that the 
 operations of state government should not be "shackled" by antiquated 
 and restrictive constitutions. 
 
 Indeed, the two major trends in state government in the 1960 's 
 are apportionment (one-man, one-vote ruling) and constitutional revi- 
 sion. And both of these activities are related to the call for more 
 responsive state government. 
 
 The constitutional revision tendency is clear. Since the be- 
 ginning of this decade, 37 states have had some form of activity re- 
 lating to constitutional change — whether by constitutional convention, 
 commission studies, or other special agencies. In the three year 
 
-11- 
 
 period of 1966-1968, constitutional conventions were held In Maryland, 
 New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. In 
 addition to the Illinois Convention in 1969, constitutional conven- 
 tions are also being held in Arkansas and New Mexico. Tennessee 
 will elect delegates in 1970 and hold a convention in 1971 and 
 Massachusetts will have a 1971 Convention if the voters of that state 
 approve the call in the 1970 election. Consequently, the 1969 Illinois 
 Constitutional Convention is not a unique phenomenon in this decade, 
 but rather one more link in the national picture of state constitu- 
 tional revision. 
 
 The Illinois Constitution — How is it Revised? 
 There are two methods of changing the Illinois Constitution — by 
 individual amendment or convention. The framework for each method 
 is laid out in Article XIV of the 1870 Constitution. Under either 
 method, amendments to the Constitution can be proposed and submitted 
 to the voters for ratification although the convention method has the 
 added advantage of being able to rewrite the entire document. In fact, 
 every constitutional convention held in Illinois has submitted an 
 entirely new constitution to the people whereas every proposed indi- 
 vidual amendment has come from the legislature. 
 
 Revision by Amendment 
 
 When two-thirds of those elected in each house of the Illinois 
 General Assembly approve an amendment proposal, it is put on the ballot 
 at the next general election.^ The amendment proposal is ratified and 
 becomes part of the Constitution if approved by a majority of those 
 
 Illinois is one of 19 states which has this "two-thirds of 
 those elected" requirement for legislative proposal of amendments. 
 
-12- 
 
 voting in the election or by two-thirds of those voting on the proposal. 
 The General Assembly may not submit amendment proposals to more than 
 three articles in any one session nor to the same constitutional 
 article more than once in four years. 
 
 Despite the 1950 passage of the Gateway Amendment which eased 
 some of the original stringent requirements found in the 1870 
 
 Q 
 
 Constitution, it is still difficult to change the Constitution through 
 this "piecemeal" method. In the last one hundred years there have 
 been only 35 amendment proposals submitted to the voters; 14 of these 
 have been approved and are now part of the Constitution. If paucity 
 of amendments is a virtue, then Illinois compares favorably with such 
 states as California (350 amendments to its 1879 Constitution), Louisiana 
 (460 amendments to its 1921 charter) , and Alabama (266 amendments to 
 its 1901 Constitution). However, some students of Illinois politics 
 argue that stringency in the amending process rather than constitu- 
 tional quality explains the small number of amendments and amendment 
 proposals. Indeed, the relatively slow pace of the piecemeal method 
 of revision was one argument in favor of calling a constitutional 
 convention in the recent campaign. 
 
 Revision by Convention 
 
 There have been five constitutional conventions in Illinois in- 
 cluding the first one when statehood was achieved, ^-fhen a convention 
 is held, it normally operates under some very general guidelines found 
 in the particular constitution in effect at the time. For example, 
 Section 1, Article XIV of the 1870 Illinois Constitution sets up a 
 
 Q 
 
 For a more detailed analysis of trends in voting on constitu- 
 tional amendment proposals since Gateway see Thomas Kitsos, Constitutional 
 Amendments and the Voter 1952-1966 (Urbana: Commission Papers of the 
 Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, 1968). 
 
-13- 
 
 general framework for the establishment and operation of the 1969 
 Illinois Constitutional Convention. This constitutional provision 
 also provides that the General Assembly should draft an enabling act 
 which would, in effect, fill in many of the procedural gaps not 
 covered by the Constitution. Normally, for example, the enabling 
 act stipulates that the rules of the convention are to be established 
 by its members. 
 
 Consequently, the establishment, powers, organization, and rules 
 of procedure of the convention are essentially found in the constitution, 
 legislative enabling act, and rules. The following sections of this 
 Guide will deal with convention organization as outlined by these and 
 other sources; however, a brief presentation of the hisCory of consti- 
 tutional conventions in Illinois will help put the 1969 Convention in 
 
 g 
 proper perspective. 
 
 The first significant step in the initiation of civil government 
 
 in the Northwest Territory (from which Illinois was carved) was the 
 
 enactment of the Ordinance of 1787 by the Continental Congress. This 
 
 was the organic law of the Illinois Territory until its admission as 
 
 a state. In April, 1818 Congress approved the legislation which 
 
 authorized the formation of a constitution and state government by 
 
 the people of the Illinois Territory with a view to seeking statehood. 
 
 The state's first constitutional cmvention quickly assembled at 
 
 Kaskaskia and within 23 days had drawn up a constitution. It was 
 
 presented directly to Congress for approval. Congress approved the 
 
 ^A project prepared for the Illinois Constitution Study Commission 
 presents a detailed account of Illinois constitutional history. See 
 Janet Cornelius, A History of Constitution Making in Illinois (Urbana: 
 Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, 1969) 
 See also, Neil F. Garvey , The Government and Administration of Illinois 
 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1953), particularly Chapter 2. 
 
-14- 
 
 document and it became effective when Illinois was admitted as the 
 twenty-first state of the Union in December, 1818. 
 
 The slavery article produced more discussion than any other pro- 
 vision in the 1818 Constitution. It was a type of compromise between 
 pro- and anti-slavery people but the article was restrictive enough 
 to have Illinois considered a free state. The only way the 1818 
 charter could be amended was by convention. 
 
 Agitation to relax even further the constitutional prohibition 
 against slavery partially led to the legislature's call for a consti- 
 tutional convention in 1824. However, the voters failed to approve 
 this call. 
 
 Slavery soon ceased to be a major element in the history of 
 state constitutional reform but the rapid settlement and development 
 of the state eventually led to more agitation for reform. In 1842 the 
 voters rejected another call for a constitutional convention but five 
 years later a convention won approval by the electorate and it drafted 
 a new document. The proposed 1848 Constitution was adopted by the 
 voters and it became the state's second constitution. 
 
 When it became apparent that there were a number of defects and 
 too much detail in the 1848 document, a proposal for a constitutional 
 convention was placed on the ballot in 1856 but it was rejected by the 
 voters. Six years later, the electorate approved the convening of a 
 convention but rejected the convention's proposed new constitution. 
 
 In the general election of 1868, the voters approved a call 
 for a constitutional convention. The convention convened in December 
 of 1869 and submitted the proposed new document to the voters in July 
 of 1870. It was adopted by the voters and became the state's third 
 
-15- 
 
 constltution. This Is the constitution under which the state has 
 operated for almost one hundred years. 
 
 As Illinois has progressed from a predominately agricultural 
 state to a highly industrialized one, public discussion about constitu- 
 tional revision has occurred periodically. In the Twentieth Century 
 there have been two major attempts to overhaul the state charter. 
 At the general election of 1918, Illinois voters approved the calling 
 of a constitutional convention. The Convention convened on January 6, 
 1920 and the delegates met for 33 months before submitting a proposed 
 new document at a special election in December, 1922. The proposed 
 constitution contained some significant changes in the 1870 document. 
 The 1920 Convention proposed a constitution which would have permitted 
 a graduated income tax, would have fixed the ratio of Cook. County 
 representation in the Senate and eliminated the cumulative voting 
 system, would have reorganized the state's judiciary, would have given 
 Chicago a considerable degree of home rule, and would have slightly 
 eased the amending provision. The voters overwhelmingly rejected the 
 proposed constitution with only 17 per cent of the electorate voting 
 for adoption. The constitution was submitted in toto so that voters 
 who strongly opposed any one article were inclined to vote against 
 the entire document. This method of submission is in contrast to the 
 1870 ballot on which the main body of the proposed constitution was 
 separated from eight controversial provisions for which different votes 
 could be cast. 
 
 The second and most recent Twentieth Century attempt at major 
 constitutional revision in Illinois was in 1934 when the voters re- 
 jected a call for a convention. Consequently, when the 1969 Illinois 
 
-16- 
 
 Constitutlonal Convention submits its proposed new document to the 
 people for ratification, it will mark only the second time in this 
 century that the voters of Illinois have had an opportunity to vote 
 on a new state constitution. 
 
 The 1969 Illinois Constitutional Convention: Powers and Limitations 
 
 The Convention's Task 
 
 It was pointed out above that the traditional American distinction 
 between constitutional and statute law holds that a convention is the 
 proper method to write a new constitution — subject, of course, to 
 ratification by the voters. 
 
 Following this thinking, Illinois constitutional conventions 
 have historically performed complete constitutional revisions. In 
 other words, each convention that has been convened in Illinois has 
 submitted a final product to the people which has been a proposed new 
 constitution. The present 1870 Constitution, for example, was a sub- 
 stantial overhaul of the 1848 document. The constitution proposed 
 by the 1920 Convention would have made some significant substantive 
 changes in the 1870 Constitution. 
 
 The submission of new constitutions is in contrast to the opera- 
 tion of so-called "limited" conventions in some other states. A 
 constitutional convention which is limited is one in which the scope 
 of its revision powers is restricted by the legislative resolution which 
 established it. In other words, a limited convention may be instructed 
 to revise only certain sections or articles of the present constitution. 
 V-Hien presented to the voters, such revisions normally take the form 
 of amendments to the constitution. For example, in 1966 New Jersey 
 
-17- 
 
 held a convention limited to questions of apportionment. In 1967-68, 
 Pennsylvania held a convention which dealt with legislative appor- 
 tionment, the judiciary, taxation, and local government. In 1965, 
 Tennessee assembled a convention which was limited to matters per- 
 taining to the legislature, particularly reapportionment. The final 
 products of these three conventions were constitutional amendments 
 dealing only with those substantive areas involved. 
 
 The 1969 Illinois Constitutional Convention is not limited by 
 its legislative resolution. ■'•^ It may completely revise the 1870 
 Constitution or it may simply offer a series of amendments to it. 
 In fact, the only mandate in the present Constitution dealing with 
 the substance of the Convention's work provides that the "...Convention 
 shall . . . prepare such revision, alteration or amendments of the 
 Constitution as shall be deemed necessary ..." (Article XIV, 
 Section 1) . Given the historical precedent of previous Illinois 
 constitutional conventions and the 1968 campaign in which proponents 
 of the Convention argued for "complete review," it is probable that the 
 main thrust of the 1969 Convention will be toward a major overhaul of 
 the 1870 document culminating in the submission of a proposed new 
 constitution for Illinois. 
 
 Substantive Limitations from the United States Constitution 
 
 Although the Illinois Constitution makes no substantive limita- 
 tion on the work of the Constituitonal Convention, the United States 
 Constitution and the very nature of federalism does impose some 
 restrictions. 
 
 ^^In fact, there is some question whether the Illinois General 
 Assembly would have authority to call a limited convention. 
 
-18- 
 
 Illinois is one state among fifty making up the Federal Union. 
 This is an important consideration in determining the nature and 
 function of the state's constitution. It goes to the question of 
 sovereignty and the source of the state's governmental power as well 
 as to limitations on those powers. The fact of the matter is that 
 each state, while possess ing a distinctive constitutional status, is 
 not completely sovereign in the normal sense of the word. 
 
 Illinois, and indeed all states in the Union, are restricted by 
 certain federal constitutional provisions. Generally speaking, the 
 delegation of certain express and implied powers to the national 
 government , the express and implied denial of certain powers to the 
 states, and the recognition of individual rights in the United States 
 Constitution — rights that can be enforced as a matter of federal law 
 against the states, all operate to limit the complete sovereignty of 
 a state. 
 
 More specifically, Article VI of the United States Constitution 
 states that it (the Constitution) is the "supreme law of the land." 
 In a conflict between the United States Constitution and a state 
 charter, the former prevails. Within the context of this "supremacy 
 clause," there are a number of other federal constitutional limitations 
 on the states. Article I, Section 10, for example, is essentially a 
 
 list of powers denied to state governments such as that of entering 
 
 13 
 into treaties, coining money, or passing bills of attainder. 
 
 11 
 
 Kauper, p. 4. 
 
 12 , , 
 Ibid . 
 
 For a more extended discussion of United States constitutional 
 limitations on the states, see a paper done for the 1968 Hawaii Consti- 
 tutional Convention, "Constitutional Convention Organization and 
 Procedures," Hawaii Constitutional Convention Studies (Honolulu: 
 University of Hawaii, Legislative Reference Bureau, 1968), especially 
 
-19- 
 
 Another United States constitutional limitation is Article IV, 
 Section 4 which states that "The United States shall guarantee to every 
 state in this Union a Republican form of Government..." There has been 
 some discussion concerning what a republican form of government really 
 is, although generally it is considered to mean a government of 
 representatives chosen by the people. 
 
 A fourth limitation on the states is the national Bill of 
 Rights. The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution 
 were originally intended to apply to the federal government. The 
 passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and subsequent court decisions 
 have led to the application of a certain portion of the Bill of Rights 
 to the states. However, this has been accomplished on a case by case 
 basis and only parts of the national Bill of Rights have been adjudi- 
 cated in relation to their state applicability. Nevertheless, those 
 sections which have been applied to the states are further limitations 
 on their constitutions. 
 
 Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides 
 that "(t)he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges 
 and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Consequently, 
 drafters of a new state constitution cannot insert a provison which 
 would discriminate against the privileges and rights of citizens from 
 other states. 
 
 Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu- 
 tion provides substantive restrictions on state governments as well 
 as being the procedural vehicle through which many other provisions 
 have been applied to the states. Basically, the Fourteenth Amendment 
 contains the guarantees of (1) equal protection, (2) due process, and 
 
-20- 
 
 (3) privileges and immunities. These concepts have been defined and 
 enlarged by Congress and the United States Supreme Court to insure the 
 protection of civil liberties to everyone in the country. The logical 
 consequence of all this is a further limitation on state action. 
 
 Procedural Limitations from the 1870 Illinois Constitution 
 
 As previously mentioned, the present Illinois Constitution does 
 not impose any substantive limitations on the work of the convention. 
 The general guidelines set out in Article XIV, Section 1 are pro- 
 cedural in nature and they affect both pre-convention activity and 
 some operations of the convention Itself. 
 
 In order to call a convention , the Constitution stipulates that 
 two-thirds of those elected in each house of the legislature must 
 approve such a call. If approved by the legislature, the question 
 is then submitted to the voters at the next general election. At that 
 election, the convention call must receive affirmative votes from a 
 majority of those voting in the election. ■'•-' This is the only method 
 of approving the convention since the Gateway Amendment changed the 
 voting criterion only for proposed amendments — not for constitutional 
 conventions. Consequently, those who fail to vote on the convention 
 call are, in fact, voting against it. It should also be noted that the 
 Constitution requires that the convention question be on the ballot at 
 the next general election , thus increasing the probability that it 
 will be lost among more controversial election contests and issues. 
 
 Illinois is one of 21 states which has the legislative two- 
 thirds requirement for placing a convention call on the ballot. 
 
 Eleven other states, in addition to Illinois, require approval 
 from a majority of those voting in the election for ratification of 
 the convention call. 
 
-21- 
 
 If the call for a convention is approved , the Constitution pro- 
 vides that two delegates-'-" should be elected from each state senatorial 
 district and "in the same manner" as senate election. The qualification 
 of delegates is the same as the qualification of state senators. Also, 
 the convention must convene within three months after the election of 
 delegates. 
 
 Once the convention convenes , the 1870 Constitution stipulates 
 that the delegates shall take an oath to support the constitutions of 
 the United States and Illinois. If vacancies occur in the convention's 
 membership, they are to be filled in the same manner as vacancies are 
 filled in the General Assembly. 
 
 The submission of the convention's work to the people for rati- 
 fication must be carried out in an election set up by the convention 
 for that purpose. This election must be held sometime between two and 
 six months after the convention adjourns. Ratification of the proposed 
 constitution is accomplished if a majority of those voting in the 
 election approve it. 
 
 These, then, are the only guidelines relating to the holding of 
 a convention found in the 1870 Illinois Constitution. Not only 
 
 I 
 
 The Illinois Constitution and the 1969 Enabling Act refer to 
 elected participants in the convention as "members." Through common 
 usage, however, the terms "members" and "delegates" are often used 
 interchangeably and they will be so used in this discussion. 
 
 Lack of precise language in the Constitution and the 1969 
 Enabling Act presents a technical problem in regard to the ratification 
 election. The Constitution provides that the election shall be "appointed 
 by the Convention for that purpose " The Enabling Act simply re- 
 peats this language. Although this wording strongly implies it, there 
 is no explicit stipulation that the election shall be a special election 
 with no other issues on the ballot. In contrast to this vagueness, the 
 Enabling Act does provide that the primary and general election of 
 delegates shall be special, without other issues on the ballot. One 
 could argue, therefore, that the Convention is free to include the 
 ratification question on the ballot in any election as long as that 
 
-22- 
 
 are many of the necessary details for setting up a convention missing 
 from the constitutional provision, but a number of guidelines mentioned 
 above are so vague as to require interpretation. For example, when 
 the Constitution states that the election of delegates should be con- 
 ducted in the same manner as the election of state senators, does this 
 mean that the delegate election must be partisan, i.e., with party 
 labels on the ballot? Dealing with this type of question of interpre- 
 tation plus the task, of filling in many procedural gaps becomes the 
 responsibility of the legislature. 
 
 The legislative enabling act ; Section 1, Article XIV of the 
 Constitution provides, in part, that if the calling of a constitutional 
 convention is approved by the voters, 
 
 (t)he General Assembly shall, in the act calling the 
 Convention , designate the day, hour, and place of its 
 meeting, fix the pay of its members and officers, and 
 provide for the payment of the same, together with the 
 expenses necessarily incurred by the Convention in the 
 performance of its duties. (emphasis added) 
 
 This constitutional mandate authorizes the General Assembly to 
 enact enabling legislation for a constitutional convention. The main 
 purpose of this legislation is to facilitate the selection of delegates 
 and the operation of the convention. The legislature is actually given 
 wide latitude in most details of the convention while it is constitu- 
 tionally restricted in only a few. In addition to this, the constitutiona 
 
 17 (Continued) 
 election occurs between two and six months after adjournment. Presumably, 
 this will not be the interpretation given to the constitutional mandate 
 regarding the ratification election. Not only does the constitutional 
 language strongly imply that voting on any proposed revision to the 
 Constitution should be carried out in a special election but historical 
 precedent also argues for such an election. The vote on the constitu- 
 tion proposed by the 1920 Convention (which operated under the provisions 
 of the 1870 Illinois Constitution) was held in a special election on 
 December 12, 1922. This was the only issue on the ballot. Of course, 
 if the vote of the revision proposed by the 1969 Convention is con- 
 ducted in a special election, the "unconscious" negative vote will not 
 be a factor. All those voting in the election will be voting on the 
 
-23- 
 
 mandate does not include all details which should be in the enabling 
 act. Out of necessity, there are other convention details which should 
 be included in the legislation in order to assure a procedurally 
 smooth beginning for the convention. And, as previously noted, it 
 may be appropriate for the legislature, through the enabling act, to 
 clarify some of the vagueness in the state constitution relative to 
 a convention. 
 
 After Illinois voters approved the call for a constitutional 
 convention at the 1968 general election, the 76th General Assembly, 
 pursuant to its constitutional mandate, passed enabling legislation 
 setting the ground rules for the convention. The constitutionality of 
 certain sections of the Enabling Act were tested in the courts, re- 
 sulting in some changes in the legislation. The combination of the 
 Enabling Act and these court decisions within the context of some 
 general constitutional guidelines, established the basic machinery 
 necessary to set up the 1969 Illinois Constitutional Convention. The 
 following sections will examine that machinery as provided mainly in 
 the Enabling Act and the judicial decisions. 
 
 The Delegates 
 Number and Apportionment 
 
 The constitutions of a number of states, although not specifying 
 the exact number of delegates to be elected to their constitutional 
 conventions, do indicate that the number shall be in some way related 
 to the membership of one or both houses of the state legislature. 
 Illinois is one of these states, stipulating that two delegates are 
 to be elected from each state senatorial district. Since the state 
 
-24- 
 
 presently has 58 senatorial districts, the number of delegates is 
 fixed at 116. Because of the present apportionment of senate districts, 
 42 delegates will come from districts within the city of Chicago, 18 
 will represent districts outside the city but within Cook County, and 
 56 delegates will represent "downstate" counties, i.e., all counties 
 outside of Cook, 
 
 In the suit challenging the Enabling Act, one of the arguments 
 was that Illinois senate districts are malapportioned and therefore 
 the election of delegates from these districts would violate the 
 United States Supreme Court's one-man, one -vote principle. The 
 constitutionally required ratification of the proposed new constitu- 
 tion by the people was the major point on which the Illinois Supreme 
 Court based its decision to reject this argument. The Court said that 
 the convention has no real lawmaking power and since final approval 
 of any proposed changes must come from the voters in a statewide 
 election (in which each vote has equal weight) , no violation of the 
 equal representation principle exists. 
 
 Qualifications and Public Official Eligibility Question 
 
 The Illinois Constitution states that delegates should possess 
 the same qualifications as members of the state senate. This means 
 that a delegate must be 25 years old, a United States citizen, five 
 years a resident of Illinois and two years a resident of the district 
 from which he is elected. 
 
 Because of some conflicting interpretations of certain sections 
 of the Illinois Constitution, one of the major issues confronting the 
 General Assembly when it was drafting the enabling legislation was 
 
-25- 
 
 whether public officials could serve as delegates. Section 3 of the 
 Enabling Act provided that "...any person who otherwise qualifies but 
 is a member of the General Assembly or holds any other elective or 
 appointive office under the Constitution or laws of this state may 
 also serve as a member of the Convention." The Illinois Supreme Court 
 altered this slightly by holding that neither the Governor, Lieutenant 
 Governor, Auditor of Public Accounts, Secretary of State, Superinten- 
 dent of Public Instruction nor Attorney General could serve as dele- 
 gates. The Court's opinion also held that any person who has been 
 convicted of an infamous crime or any officer who has misused public 
 funds or been impeached cannot serve as a delegate. The decision 
 stated that judges must vacate their judicial office if they sit as a 
 member of the Convention. With these exceptions, all other public 
 officials, including state legislators, can be Convention delegates. 
 
 The Election of Delegates 
 
 The Election Process : The election of delegates to the Constitu- 
 tional Convention is a two-step process. The primary election, held 
 on September 23, 1969, reduced the field of candidates to four in each 
 senatorial district. Two of these four will be elected as delegates 
 in a general election to be held on November 18, 1969. The Enabling 
 Act provides that the election is to be nonpartisan, i.e., without 
 party labels on the ballot. This also was a section of the enabling 
 legislation challenged in the suit which reached the Illinois Supreme 
 Court. This particular challenge was based on the position that the 
 constitutional prescription that delegate elections must be conducted 
 
-26- 
 
 "in the same manner" as elections for state senators meant that dele- 
 gates must run under party labels as senators do. The Court rejected 
 this argument, however, holding that "in the same manner" means only that 
 delegates must be "elected by the people" in "free and equal" elections 
 by "ballot." Thus, it did not become necessary to follow exactly the 
 guidelines of the Illinois Election Code in the delegate election. 
 
 The provision of the Enabling Act which has caused the greatest 
 controversy has been the placement of candidate's names on the election 
 ballots. Section 5 of the Act stipulated that in the primary election 
 "the name of the person first filing his nominating petition with 
 the Secretary of State shall be certified first on the ballot, and the 
 names of the other candidates shall be listed in the order that their 
 nominating petitions were filed with the Secretary of State." However, 
 as a result of a dispute involving mailed petitions and those delivered 
 to the State Capitol in person, the legislative procedure was altered 
 by the United States Court of Appeals. In its ruling, the Court re- 
 quired the Secretary of State to draw lots to determine the candidates' 
 ballot position. More specifically, numbers were drawn for candidates 
 whose petitions arrived at the Secretary of State's office in the same 
 mail, and their names were placed on the ballot in accordance with the 
 number drawn. The names of the candidates who waited in line at the 
 Secretary of State's office on the first day of filing were then placed 
 in the open spots on the ballot, in the order they were waiting in line. 
 
 For the general election, in those districts where a primary was 
 held,-*-^ the Enabling Act requires that "the name of the person receiving 
 
 18 
 
 The Enabling Act allowed for the elimination of a primary in 
 
 those districts where four or fewer persons filed petitions qualifying 
 
 them as delegate candidates. Accordingly, primaries were not held in 
 
 the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 26th, 27th, 29th, and 45th senatorial 
 
-27- 
 
 the highest number of votes shall be certified first on the ballot, and 
 the names of the other candidates shall be listed in the order of the 
 number of votes received by them respectively in the primary election." 
 In those districts where no primary election was held, the Act re- 
 quired the same procedure to be followed as that originally provided 
 by the legislature for the primary elections. However, the United 
 States District Court overturned this latter provision and required 
 that in the non-primary districts, the order of ballot position was 
 to be determined by lottery. 
 
 Each voter may cast two votes in the general election but the 
 votes may not be cumulated. Therefore, a voter cannot give his two 
 votes to one candidate. The two candidates in each district receiving 
 the greatest number of votes will receive certificates of election as 
 members of the Convention. These certificates will be issued by the 
 Governor. 
 
 '.Jhere possible, the last election judges to serve before 
 September 1, 1969 should serve in precincts and districts for this 
 election. As previously noted, the Enabling Act stipulates that no 
 other Issues should be on the ballot for this election. Except as 
 otherwise provided in the legislative act, the Illinois Election Code 
 is applicable. 
 
 Qualification of Voters ; The Enabling Act provides that any 
 person who is qualified to vote under the Constitution or laws of the 
 State of Illinois is entitled to vote in both the September primary 
 and November election. This means that an individual, at the time of 
 the election in question, must have resided in the state for one year, 
 in the county for 90 days, and in his election district for 30 days. 
 He must, of course, be duly registered as required by law. 
 
-28- 
 
 Filling of Vacancies : There are two different methods of filling 
 delegate vacancies — depending on when the vacancy occurs. If a vacancy 
 occurs after the November election of delegates, whether it be before 
 or during the actual convention, the Governor is constitutionally re- 
 quired to issue writs of election to fill the seat. This is in 
 accordance with the method of filling vacancies in the General Assembly 
 as required by Article XIV, Section 1. The Enabling Act states that 
 elections held to fill such vacancies are to be conducted in the same 
 manner as provided in that Act for the initial election of Convention 
 members . 
 
 If, through death, resignation or some other reason, a vacancy 
 occurs after the primary but before the November election, the candi- 
 date who received the next highest number of votes in the primary will 
 be put on the ballot. Although the wording of the EnabtLng Act is 
 somewhat confusing, this presumably means that if one of the top four 
 candidates in the primary vacates his position on the November ballot, 
 the fifth highest vote-getter in the September election will take his 
 place. 
 
 Privileges and Immunities 
 
 None of the state constitutions prescribe any privileges and 
 immunities of delegates to constitutional conventions. However, the 
 legislatures of a number of states have granted convention delegates 
 many of the privileges and immunities ordinarily given to state legis- 
 lators. The Enabling Act for the 1920 Illinois Convention provided: 
 
 In going to and returning from the Convention and during 
 the sessions thereof the delegates shall, in all cases, 
 except treason, felony or breach of the peace, be pri- 
 vileged from arrest* and they shall not be questioned 
 in any other place for any speech or debate in the 
 Convention. 
 
-29- 
 
 Section 7 of the Enabling Act for the 1969 Convention uses this 
 exact wording in granting privileges and immunities to the delegates. 
 (However, the 1969 Act does use the word "members" in place of 
 "delegates.") 
 
 Compensation 
 
 The Illinois Constitution instructs the legislature to provide 
 for the delegate's compensation. Delegates to the 1920 Convention 
 received $2,000 and the same mileage allowed members of the General 
 Assembly. They also received $50 for postage, stationery, newspapers, 
 and other incidental expenses. 
 
 Rather than establishing one salary figure for the work of the 
 entire 1969 Convention, the 76th General Assembly provided for monthly 
 payments of $625 for a maximum of eight months. The President of the 
 Convention will receive $1500 per month for a period not to exceed 
 nine months; and the Vice-President will receive a monthly salary 
 of $1200 for a maximum of nine months. 
 
 Each member of the Convention will be paid $75 per day for each 
 day he attends sessions of the Convention or its committees. However, there 
 is a one hundred day maximum of this daily attendance payment. The 
 Enabling Act provides that the Convention may compel the attendance of 
 its members. 
 
 Delegates will also receive a rebate for travel expenses incurred 
 in going to and returning from Convention sites at a rate of 15 cents 
 per mile. A $120 allowance for postage expenses is also provided. 
 
 Members are entitled to compensation for other expenses at the 
 rate established by the 75th General Assembly for members of interim 
 legislative commissions and committees. This means that the delegates 
 
-30- 
 
 will be allowed $15 per day for a hotel room in Chicago or $12 per day 
 for a room elsewhere, $10 per day for meals, and $10 per day for 
 incidentals. 
 
 Tliere is one exception to this system of compensation. To avoid 
 possible complications over the "lucrative office" provision in the 
 state Constitution (Article IV, Section 3), the Enabling Act provides 
 that legislators and other public officials who retain their elected 
 or appointed positions and are delegates to the Convention receive 
 compensation for only mileage, expenses, and postage, i.e., no salary. 
 
 The President of the Convention is required to certify the pay 
 and mileage of each delegate and this is to be entered in the 
 Convention's journal. 
 
 The Convention Process 
 The Illinois Constitution, the Enabling Act, and the court 
 decisions have provided the basic machinery for initiating the 1969 
 
 Constitutional Convention. In addition to such previously discussed 
 topics as procedural requirements for the elections associated with 
 the Convention and the regulations governing the qualifications, 
 elections, and compensations of delegates, these sources (and others) 
 also provide the framework for other aspects of the Convention. 
 
 Place and Date of First Meeting 
 
 Illinois, like eight other states, constitutionally requires that 
 a constitutional convention must meet within three months after the 
 election of delegates. For example, the 1920 Convention convened on 
 January 6, 1920 — approximately two months after the election of 
 delegates. 
 
-31- 
 
 The Enabling Act for the 1969 Convention provides that the 
 Convention will convene at 12 o'clock on December 8, 1969 — less than 
 three weeks after the delegate election. As has been the practice 
 in Illinois, it is anticipated that the Convention will conduct much 
 of its business in the House of Representative chambers in Springfield. 
 Actually, the Illinois Constitution specifies that the legislature 
 shall fix the meeting place, but the Enabling Act stipulates only 
 that the first meeting of the Convention must be in the House chambers. 
 It explicitly provided that "...further proceedings of the Convention 
 shall be held at such places and in such manner as may be determined 
 by the Convention." Consequently, after the Convention convenes in 
 Springfield on December 8, it will have to decide where to hold 
 future sessions. It is very likely that the Convention's several 
 committees will conduct hearings throughout the state. 
 
 With the exception of the first convention in Kaskaskia in 1818, 
 all other Illinois conventions have been held in the House chambers. 
 Holding constitutional conventions in the state capitol is the general 
 rule in most states although other sites have been used in a few 
 cases. For example, the 1947 New Jersey Convention met on the campus 
 of Rutgers University and the 1955-56 Alaska Convention met outside 
 Fairbanks on the campus of the University of Alaska. 
 
 Length of Session 
 
 There is no constitutional or legislative provision regarding the 
 duration of the 1969 Convention. The most recent Illinois convention 
 convened on January 6, 1920, and adjourned on October 10, 1922. How- 
 ever, the convention actually was in session for lAO convention days 
 
-32- 
 
 because it took some rather lengthy recesses. The Convention held 
 only one meeting between July 7, 1920 and November 8, 1920; and only 
 one meeting in 1921. In 1922 the Convention was in session quite 
 regularly until June 28 when it adjourned until September 12 for a 
 one day meeting. The enabling legislation for this Convention also 
 did not provide for an aljournment date. 
 
 The 76th General Assembly may have put a practical limit on the 
 duration of the 1969 Convention by providing delegate salaries for a 
 maximum of eight months. 
 
 Call to Order 
 
 Organization of any meeting is facilitated if there is some 
 mechanism for getting activities started. Enabling acts from most 
 states which have had recent conventions specify who shall preside 
 at the convention until a temporary or permanent organization has 
 been perfected. The legislation for the 1920 Illinois Convention 
 designated the Governor as the official responsible for this function. 
 
 The Enabling Act for the 1969 Convention also provides that the 
 Governor shall call the first meeting to order and shall preside until 
 a temporary president is elected. (The chief executive's responsibili- 
 ties regarding the election of a temporary president are discussed 
 belox^.) The Governor is to call the roll of the delegates elected 
 to the Convention and administer the oath as provided in the Constitution. 
 
 Officers 
 
 The Illinois Constitution, like those in the other states, does 
 not specify what officers are to be elected. Occasionally, an enabling 
 act will provide for the election of certain officers. Sometimes, the 
 
-33- 
 
 legislative act will stipulate how the top officer is to be elected 
 with a provision that he may appoint, or the convention may elect, 
 any other officers which may be deemed necessary. More often than 
 not, however, the designation of officers is left to the delegates 
 and this is normally spelled out in the rules of the convention. 
 
 Regardless of the source of authority, there is a pattern from 
 state to state regarding v/hich officers are to be elected. Ordinarily 
 a convention will elect a president, any number of vice-presidents, 
 and a secretary. The office of president is institutionalized; there 
 is only one president and he is the chief administrative officer of 
 the convention. 
 
 The number of vice-presidents varies from state to state — fre- 
 quently reflecting geographical or political considerations. For 
 example, the 1968 Hawaiian Convention had five vice-presidents; one 
 from each of three counties, and two from the City and County of 
 Honolulu. The rules of the 1967 Pennsylvania Convention stipulated 
 that the president and the second vice-president were to be of the 
 same political party while the first vice-president and the secretary 
 were to be of another party. 
 
 The Enabling Act for the 1920 Illinois Convention instructed the 
 delegates to elect a president but no mention was made of a vice- 
 president. The secretary was to be appointed by the Convention (he 
 was not a delegate) . The rules of the Convention did not elaborate 
 further on the question of whether more officers should be elected. 
 
 Part of the duties of the Governor in the 1969 Convention will 
 be to call for nominations for the office of temporary President, 
 administer the roll call for the election of the office, and then 
 turn the Convention over to the delegate who receives a plurality of 
 
-3A- 
 
 the votes. The temporary President vrill then conduct an election for 
 permanent President in the aame manner as the temporary President was 
 elected except that the President must receive a majority of votes 
 cast in the election. After the President is elected, the Convention 
 will then elect a Vice-President. These are the only two officers 
 mentioned in the Enabling Act. However, Section 15 of the Act states 
 that oaths may be administered by the President or any other officer 
 of the Convention and subpoenas may be signed by the President or any 
 other officer of the Convention. Presumably, the Convention is free 
 to appoint any other officers it deems necessary and such appointment 
 could be included in the rules of the Convention. For example, the 
 Convention may feel it is appropriate to appoint a secretary and 
 the authority to do so could be included in the rules. In a number 
 of other states which have recently had conventions, the secretary 
 was chosen from outside the convention membership. 
 
 Election Returns and Election Contests 
 
 The Convention is given sole authority to judge the election 
 returns and qualifications of its members. It also has authority to 
 hear and make a final determination of any contested delegate election. 
 Both of these provisions were in the 1920 Enabling Act and are stan- 
 dard features of such legislation. 
 
 Quorum 
 
 Some state constitutions and a few enabling acts have specified 
 what constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. Illinois 
 has no constitutional provision in this regard, nor did the Enabling 
 Act for the 1920 Convention specify a particular quorum. Normally, 
 
-35- 
 
 this type of detail is left to the convention. The rules of the 1920 
 Convention defined a quorum as a majority of all delegates elected to 
 the ConventiDn. The 1969 Enabling Act is suggestive but not final. 
 It provides that a quorum shall consist of 59 delegates (one-half of 
 the elected membership plus one) , or such other number as the Conven- 
 tion may determine. 
 
 Punishing Non-Members for Contempt 
 
 The Enabling Act provides that the Convention has the power to 
 punish non-members for contemptuous or disorderly behavior in its 
 presence. Imprisonment may not continue for more than 24 hours un- 
 less such behavior persists. A similar provision was included in the 
 1920 legislation but the records of that Convention do not indicate 
 whether this power was ever used. 
 
 Record Keeping and Investigations; Powers and Duties 
 
 Scattered throughout the 1969 Enabling Act are provisions re- 
 lating to the record keeping function of the Convention. Proper 
 filing procedures and record keeping not only can contribute to a 
 smooth and even operation but also are invaluable aids to future 
 interpreters of the Convention's work. Adequate investigatory power 
 is also a necessary prerequisite for the proper functioning of the 
 Convention. 
 
 The Convention has the power to require and receive any and 
 all records which it requests from public officials. It must keep a 
 verbatim journal of its proceedings and a transcript of its debates. 
 Convention committees must also keep a record of their proceedings. 
 The Convention is instructed to provide for the publication of the 
 
-36- 
 
 journal, debates, committee reports, and any other documents and reports 
 pertaining to its work. Also, copies of the journal proceedings, 
 debates, and committee records must be filed in the Secretary of 
 State's office. 
 
 As part of its investigative power, the Convention and its 
 committees have the authority to compel the attendance, testimony, and 
 records of any witnesses who may be called. Any officer of the 
 Convention has subpoena power in this regard and any circuit court 
 in the state can enforce Convention requests. 
 
 Lobbyists 
 
 At the Constitutional Convention, as in any session of the 
 legislature, lobbyists will be promoting interests which they repre- 
 sent. Two major pieces of legislation relating to lobbyists and their 
 activities were passed by the 76th General Assembly. Senate Bill 105 
 made some significant changes in registration and reporting require- 
 ments of lobbyists during sessions of the General Assembly. One major 
 change is to require an expenditure report from lobbyists. 
 
 Senate Bill 104, using essentially the same language as Senate 
 Bill 105, relates such registration and reporting requirements to 
 lobbyists at the Constitutional Convention. Entitled the "Constitutional 
 Convention Lobbyist Registration Act," Senate Bill 104 requires anyone 
 \-A\o , on behalf of another person, promotes or opposes the inclusion of 
 provisions in the proposed constitution, must register with the 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 There are a number of exemptions to this registration require- 
 ment. For example, persons who appear as witnesses without compensation 
 
I 
 
 -37- 
 
 for the Convention and persons employed by the news media In pursuit 
 of their news dissemination duties need not register. 
 
 Lobbyists must register the following Information with the 
 Secretary of State: 1) lobbyist's name and address; 2) employer's 
 name and address; 3) the constitutional provisions with which the lobby- 
 ist Is concerned; and 4) a picture of the lobbyist. In addition to this 
 registration Information, lobbyists must also file monthly reports as 
 long as the Convention continues or until the registrant terminates 
 his lobbying activities. These reports must Include a listing of all 
 expenditures made by the lobbyist for the purpose of promoting or 
 opposing the Inclusion of provisions In a constitution drafted by the 
 Constitutional Convention or Its committees. It must Indicate the 
 person or delegate to whom or for whose benefit such expenditures were 
 made. There are some types of expenditures which are exempt from this 
 report; essentially these exemptions include all reasonable and bona 
 fide expenditures associated with lobbying activities, e.g., living 
 and office expenses, research expenses, etc. 
 
 The Secretary of State is instructed to provide appropriate 
 forms for registering and reporting. He must keep all registration 
 forms on file for three years and he must maintain a register of infor- 
 mation which is open to public inspection. 
 
 Senate Bill 104 also prohibits anyone from employing or being em- 
 ployed on a contingent fee basis. In other words, no one may receive 
 his compensation based on the success or failure of his lobbying 
 activities. 
 
-38- 
 
 Violation of any of the provisions of this Act entails the 
 levying of some rather stiff fines or prison sentences. For indivi- 
 duals, the fine must not exceed $1000 or imprisonment from one to ten 
 years, or both. A corporation will be fined up to $10,000. In addi- 
 tion to these penalties, anyone convicted of violatinp; this Act is 
 prohibited from continuing his lobbying activities in the Convention 
 for three years from the date of his conviction. A lobbyist violating 
 this particular section is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 or 
 imprisonment from one to ten years, or both. 
 
 Convention Services and Aids 
 
 Staff and Employee Assistance : The Convention, like most delibera- 
 tive bodies with a formidable task to perform, will rely heavily on 
 staff services. It is customary for enabling legislation to stipulate 
 that the convention, or the president, has authority to anpoint all 
 necessary employees and fix their compensation. Frequently, the rules 
 adopted by a convention will elaborate on this authority providing, 
 for example, that certain offices must be filled plus any others deemed 
 necessary. 
 
 The 1920 Enabling Act gave that Convention power to appoint a 
 secretary (at $15 per day) plus additional employees which the dele- 
 gates thought were necessary (compensation to be determined by the 
 convention) . The rules of the 1920 Convention also instructed the 
 president to appoint a sergeant-at-arms. The number and compensation 
 of other employees was to be determined by a ma.iority vote of the 
 elected delegates although actual appointment of such employees was 
 the president's responsibility. 
 
I 
 
 -39- 
 
 The Enabling Act for the 1969 Convention makes no mention of 
 employees. Obviously, on the executive and committee level, good 
 administrative, research, and legal skills are essential. On the ser- 
 vice level, good secretarial and stenographic assistance must be 
 acquired. And there are normally errand-running and custodial func- 
 tions to be performed. One of the first tasks of the Convention after 
 it convenes will be to determine what administrative, research, and 
 service posts are to be filled. Actually, much of the work of 
 gathering a staff for the Convention may be carried out by the 1969-70 
 Constitution Study Commission. In the bill which created it, the 
 Commission is instructed, among other things, to arrange for the 
 assembling and hiring of an interim staff for the Convention. Pre- 
 sumably some or all of this staff could be retained once the Convention 
 
 convenes . 
 
 Other Aids for the Delegates ; Generally speaking, when the 
 Convention convenes in December, some regular legislative aids will 
 remain in existence. For example, the Legislative Reference Bureau 
 and the Legislative Council have each received $50,000 appropriations 
 to provide drafting, research, and other services for the delegates. 
 The Illinois State Library, with funds up to $25,000 from the recently 
 created Constitution Study Commission, will set up a special Convention 
 library for use by the delegates. 
 
 In addition to this, some preparatory research has been or is 
 in the process of being compiled. 
 
 Background Papers ; A widespread practice in preparing for a 
 constitutional convention has been the preparation of a series of 
 background papers to be used by the delegates and research staff in 
 
-40- 
 
 conducting the business of the convention, and which serve as a media 
 for informing the public about the issues involved. Background papers 
 have been used as a means of researching and compiling information 
 on the constitutional revision process since the 1915 New York Conven- 
 tion. Several years later the Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau 
 prepared a series of reports for the 1929 Convention. Virtually all 
 of the preparatory commissions in states which have recently held 
 conventions have published such papers. 
 
 In accordance with this practice, Governor Richard B. Ogilvie 
 established the Governor's Constitution Research Group, headed by 
 Professor Samuel K. Gove, Director of the Institute of Government 
 and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, Urbana. Distinguished 
 scholars in many areas of state and local government are preparing 
 background papers on major constitutional issues. These papers are 
 being disseminated as individual papers, but will be assembled into 
 a single volume for use by the delegates. 
 
 Preparatory Research by the Constitution Study Commission : The 
 major preparatory agency for constitutional revision in Illinois has 
 been the Constitution Study Commission. Actually there have been 
 three commissions in recent years. 
 
 Recognizing the possible need for wholesale constitutional revi- 
 sion, the 74th General Assembly created the first Constitution Study 
 Commission in 1965. This Commission was instructed to make recommenda- 
 tions regarding the amendment or revision of the 1870 Constitution. 
 One of the major contributions of the 1965 Commission was its recommenda- 
 tion to the 75th General Assembly that the constitutional convention 
 question be placed on the 1968 general election ballot. 
 

 k 
 
 -41- 
 
 That particular legislative session also passed Senate Bill 1376 
 which created the second Constitution Study Commission. The 1967-68 
 Commission was directed "to compile information. . .and to undertake 
 studies and research, collect and organize necessary background 
 materials, and provide for the dissemination thereof to the end that 
 a constitutional convention may function expeditiously and efficiently." 
 
 The work of the second commission was twofold. First, it was 
 concerned with the drafting of legislation pertinent to the Convention. 
 Its major work in this regard was in making recommendations to the 
 legislature regarding the Enabling Act. Many of the Commission's 
 recommendations were incorporated into the Act although the legislature 
 made several changes. Secondly, the Commission worked to provide Con- 
 vention delegates with research material. The Institute of Government 
 and Public Affairs of the University of Illinois at Urbana was 
 engaged to assist the Commission in its research activities. Among 
 the research projects undertaken by the Commission are: 
 
 — The Illinois Constitution: An Annotated and Comparative 
 Analysis . Prepared by two acknowledged legal scholars, 
 George D. Braden of New York and Rubin G. Cohn of the 
 University of Illinois College of Law, this major re- 
 search project will be available for distribution in 
 November, 1969. 
 
 — A History of Constitution Making in Illinois . The de- 
 tails of the efforts at constitutional revision have 
 been historically recounted in one document prepared 
 for the Commission by Mrs. Janet Cornelius of the 
 Institute of Government and Public Affairs. This study 
 is now available for distribution. 
 
 — Bibliography of Constitutional Revision in Illinois . 
 Prepared in mimeograph form by the Institute of Govern- 
 ment and Public Affairs, this compilation of the 
 relevant literature contains some 200 entries. It 
 will be revised by the Illinois State Library prior 
 
 to the Convention as additional materials are prepared. 
 
-42- 
 
 The Commission engaged in other research activities including 
 the compilation of materials from other states oertaining to constitu- 
 tional revision developments. It also recognized that other prepara- 
 tions will be needed prior to the convening of the Convention. 
 Accordingly, the Commission recommended that its work be continued so 
 that the Convention could function "expeditiously and efficiently." 
 
 House Bill 1957 of the 76th General Assembly created the third 
 
 Constitution Study Commission and directed it to prepare for the 
 
 organization of the Convention. The Commission is instructed to: 
 
 compile information and materials, to undertake studies 
 and research, to contract for, prepare and furnish the 
 facilities for the meeting of the Constitutional Con- 
 vention and to arrange for the assembling and hiring 
 of an interim staff... 
 
 Within thirty days after the Convention convenes, the Commission 
 must report its findings, make any necessary recommendations, and 
 transfer its files to the Convention. One hundred thousand dollars 
 v/as appropriated to the Commission for these purposes, of which 
 $25,000 may be allotted to the Illinois State Library for the 
 Convention library mentioned above. 
 
 In general, then, the background papers prepared by the 
 Governor's Study Group, the completed and the continuing work of the 
 Constitution Study Commission, and the various legislative aids which 
 
 will remain operative, should make the 1969 Illinois delegate a most 
 
 19 
 informed Convention member. 
 
 19 
 
 These, of course, are more or less "official" groups and 
 
 agencies who will be giving aid and assistance to the delegates. In 
 
 addition to these, the delegates will undoubtedly receive material 
 
 from private groups throughout the state. 
 
-43- 
 
 The Proposed New Constitution 
 
 As previously noted, the Illinois Constitution provides that 
 any proposed revision must be submitted to the people for ratification. 
 This referendum must be held between two and six months after the 
 Convention adjourns. In order to be adopted, any revision must be 
 approved by a majority of those voting in the election. 
 
 The Enabling Act for the 1969 Convention elaborates further 
 on the powers and responsibilities of the Convention relative to the 
 referendum. Information documents, explaining each revision or 
 amendment, must be disseminated to the voters after the Convention 
 adjourns but not later than one month preceding the election. The 
 Secretary of State's office normally administers such information 
 pamphlets regarding regular constitutional amendments. However, the 
 Enabling Act does not specify which agency should handle this . 
 
 The Convention has the authority to determine when the pro- 
 posed revisions will take effect if approved by the voters. The 
 notice, manner, and form of the referendum as well as the method of 
 voting shall be prescribed by the Convention. This is an important 
 power because the delegates will be able to decide how to present 
 the proposed revision to the people. There are many possible methods 
 of submission although two have historical precedent in Illinois. 
 
 When the 1869 Convention completed its work, it submitted a 
 basic constitution plus eight separate and somewhat controversial 
 provisions. Separate votes could be cast for each of the nine items 
 on the ballot. This particular method was designed to prevent one or 
 more controversial issues from dragging the entire constitution down 
 to defeat. As it turned out, the voters in 1870 referendum approved 
 the basic document and all eight supplemental provisions. 
 
-A4- 
 
 Conversely, the 1920 Convention submitted its final product in 
 one package — to be accepted or rejected in toto by the voters. As 
 already noted, the electorate ovenN^helmingly rejected the proposed 
 constitution. Frequently, one of the major reasons for a total sub- 
 mission is tlie complex interrelatedness of the proposed constitution 
 which makes separate submissions practically impossible. This 
 seemed to be the case, for example, in recent conventions in New York, 
 Rhode Island, and Maryland, the products of which were all defeated 
 at the polls . 
 
 In any event, although there are other variations of these two 
 
 20 
 methods, the responsibility for choosing a strategically sound sub- 
 mission procedure lies with the Convention. It may well be one of its 
 most important decisions. 
 
 Appropriations 
 
 The 76th General Assembly appropriated $2,880,000 for the work 
 
 21 
 of the Convention. The Enablinp Act breaks this total sum into 
 
 three very general categories: $1,750,000 for the salaries and 
 
 expenses of the delegates; $1,100,000 for mileage and postage allowances 
 
 of members and for other expenses properly incident to conducting the ■'•' 
 
 business of the Convention; and $30,000 for administrative expenses 
 
 incurred by the Auditor of Public Accounts in connection with the 
 
 Convention. 
 
 20 
 
 The 1968 Hawaii Convention presented its new document to the 
 
 voters in the form of 23 amendments for which a three-part ballot was 
 
 used. With this ballot, the voters were able to opt for one of three 
 
 choices: (1) the voter could vote "yes" on all amendments; (2) he could 
 
 vote "no' on all amendments; or (3) he could vote no on each of the 
 
 23 amendments exceot those which he approved. As a result, 22 of the 
 
 23 propositions received the required vote for approval. 
 
 ^""■The 1920 Illinois Convention spent the full $500,000 appro- 
 priated by the 51st General Assembly. 
 
-45- 
 
 The $2.8 million appropriation does not include the cost of 
 conducting the three elections associated with the Convention, The 
 Enabling Act provides that the state will reimburse local election 
 officials for the costs of holding these three elections. Expendi- 
 tures associated with the elections will be the costliest aspect of 
 the Convention. Senate Bill 194 of the 76th General Assembly appro- 
 priates $5 million for the expenses incurred in the primary and gen- 
 eral election of the delegates; and Senate Bill 1276 makes an appropria- 
 tion of $1.5 million for those costs which may exceed $5 million. The 
 funds for the election at which the Convention's proposed document will 
 be submitted to the voters will be appropriated by the legislature at 
 a later date. 
 
 Rules and Regulations 
 
 Throughout this paper frequent reference has been made to the 
 "rules" of the Convention. These are the guidelines and regulations 
 which structure the internal operation of the Convention. They do not 
 owe their existence to the Constitution, the legislature, '^ or the 
 courts. 
 
 Normally the rules cover such diverse topics as: convention 
 officers and their duties; the proper order of business each day: the 
 procedures for submitting and voting on proposals; the number, subject 
 area, and structure of committees; the method of seating delegates; 
 the conduct of delegates: etc. In other words, the real "guts" of 
 the day-to-day business of the Convention is structured by the rules. 
 
 22 
 
 Although the Enabling Act provides that the Convention shall 
 
 determine its own rules and regulations, it is questionable whether 
 
 this legislative permission was necessary. On the other hand, the 
 
 Enabling Act stipulates that Roberts Rules of Order (Revised) shall 
 
 govern the Convention until the delegates adopt their own rules and 
 
 this provision presumably will be followed. 
 
-46- 
 
 The rules are adopted bv the convention itself. The pattern 
 in a number of states has been to form a committee on rules shortly 
 
 after the delegates convene. Ordinarily the work of such a committee 
 
 23 
 is facilitated if some preparatory work has been done in advance. 
 
 When the work of the committee is finished, the proposed rules are 
 presented to the entire convention for adoption, revision, or rejec- 
 tion. Only when a set of rules has been adopted can the convention 
 begin the major task of constitutional revision. 
 
 23 
 
 Frequently some official preparatory agency or private group 
 
 I'TLll draft a set of rules to which the convention (or the committee 
 
 on rules) can react. Ordinarily this procedure saves a considerable 
 
 amount of time and confusion since the committee does not have to 
 
 start from scratch in drafting rules. 
 

 3 0112 025294866