DISQUS

John Bambenek · 1 year ago

Important note, it was Bruno Behrend that filed this first. CBA joined 3 days later and Quinn after that. Bruno deserves credit for spearheading this.

Levois · 1 year ago

So does this mean election authorities don't have to change the actual language on the ballot but just to provide notice that there is a new question on the ballot?

Rich Miller · 1 year ago

=== but just to provide notice that there is a new question on the ballot?====

They have to give voters notice to ignore the current question, then provide them with the new language.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker · 1 year ago

Nice how the people flogging the cost of a con-con are already driving up the expenses.

Rich Miller · 1 year ago

You got your villains wrong. The fault lies with those who drafted an unconstitutional question, passed it through the General Assembly then certified it for the ballot.

Levois · 1 year ago

I hope the answer as to why the question was biased was because the question was designed to create a desired result.

Plutocrat03 · 1 year ago

So the forces of evil win again by keeping their tainted question on the ballot.

What a country

Rich Miller · 1 year ago

Since voting has already started, it's tough to reprint ballots. This ain't a bad decision.

wordslinger · 1 year ago

Did Fritchey say who insisted on the original language? I'd like to hear the reasoning.

Jake from Elwood · 1 year ago

W-O-W. Judge Howse came through. I had my doubts. . . This will be interesting.

A Citizen · 1 year ago

So are the already voted ballots spoiled and to be thrown out as tainted by the bias ?

blame Pat · 1 year ago

People, get it right. The question isn't being rewritten - the question is simply a yes or no. It is the explanation that will be rewritten. You are all so caught up in thinking this was some conspiracy to defraud the voters or convince them to vote against a con con. Ridiculous. The sentence is a fact. It is not misleading and it is not biased. The group that wrote the explanation represented both those for and against a con con. WHY DIDNT QUINN OR OTHER POSE OBJECTIONS WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED MONTHS AGO? THIS IS SUCH A WASTE OF MONEY.

county clerk · 1 year ago

Who is going to pay for all this additional costs that many counties can not afford?
Once again Pat Quinn's good ideas cost the taxpayers.
Why did not Quinn speak up sooner?

county clerk · 1 year ago

Yes, I supported the Constitutional call question.
Just mad as heck and how this is messing up voting.

Cheswick · 1 year ago

Objections were made. See John Fritchy's comment earlier today (or was it yesterday). I don't know what Pat Quinn's role was during the process, if any. But, don't you think if Fritchy's concerns were dismissed, Pat Quinn's would have been too?

Vote Quimby! · 1 year ago

IMHO this is great news for the pro con-con movement: as Rich said it certainly draws attention to the issue and hopefully the bad language will inflame voters into saying YES TO A CON-CON!

John Bambenek · 1 year ago

I can't speak for the CBA or Pat Quinn, but we (Bruno and his set of Plaintiffs) will be asking the court to make the Sec. of State and/or the State Board of Elections pay all costs associated with any changes. They broke it, we think they should pay.

Sweet Polly Purebred · 1 year ago

No matter your personal opinion on the Con-Con - whether it be good, bad or a non-issue, the referendum should NOT contain language that COULD predjudice a voter. The language Jesse White's office included should be and HAS been declared unconstitutional. Voters should be allowed to determine for THEMSELVES whether or not a Con-Con would be beneficisl, based on their OWN personal experience and feelings. Kudos to those who filed suit on behalf of the voters of ILLINOIS.

Cheswick · 1 year ago

John, ideally, the people who flubbed this up would pay the legal expenses out of their own pocket. Ideally.

Pot calling kettle · 1 year ago

Double good for the pro con-con folks. Since the ballot language stays the same, they can sue again if the question fails.

I'm too tired to come up with clever language for the handout tonight. Rich could this please be the QOTD for Thursday? Pretty please?

Our Reps and Senators were the · 1 year ago

The General Assembly broke it, not SOS or SBoE. Both houses of the GA voted unanimously for the ballot language at:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory.asp...

stop the blame · 1 year ago

you are missing the very important fact that the "notice" provision so many of you are angry about was not included in the resolution, but was added as a function of law. the election code requires the notice provision.

as for the infamous sentence, it is a fact.

Ted · 1 year ago

With early voting a reality, the voters most likely to be effected will be active duty military serving overseas or stationed out of state. There will be delays in getting their ballots out to them while this is all hashed out. Locals may now be brought to the courthouse or other sights depending on what county or election district you reside, so this is far less an inconvenience for them. Thus, net result will be that the get out the vote efforts [gotv] for those who target residents who live in densely populated areas will be far less adversely impacted than those who want to see our active duty military vote. This state is sickening. Everything has an angle and every aspect of democracy is gamed and contrived. Vote yes on con-con.

BandCamp · 1 year ago

wordslinger,

I asked Fritchey in comments yesterday for some more clarification. He never posted back.

Now what's interesting is since it went through both chambers so easily, did Fritchey make the same objections to the whole House chamber when the resolution was called to vote/discussion?

Here's what I think: Some things are taken for granted, and members did not even READ the resolution before casting a "Y" vote.

Following my hindsight comment from yesterday: How many legislators would have pushed the "Y" had they read what was actually going to be printed on the ballot?

Dolly · 1 year ago

Why didn't Quinn say something earlier? Because he is a demagogue who thrives on attention and drama and couldn't care less about anyone else, while professing his unwavering support for the masses.

Quinn's support is enough reason to vote no. He has single-handedly done more to harm Illinois government than any other person in the history of the state. Illinois wouldn't be in the political position we are currently in if Illinois had resisted Quinn's last forray into constitutional amendment.