Editor’s note—this is the first of The Northern Star’s political endorsements for the Nov. 8 general election.

One of the most important decisions for voters in the upcoming election is whether a Constitutional Convention should be called to revise the Illinois State Constitution.

The decision should be no.

The goals of a Con Con are noble. Patrick Quinn, one of the leading Con Con supporters, has said it could be used to bring more money for education, reform local property taxes and force more ethics in politicians.

However, these are goals that should be accomplished by the legislature, not a change in the constitution. The framers of the U.S. Constitution made the document difficult to change for a reason—to stop special-interest groups from changing and thus substantially affecting the U.S. government for their own aims.

Voters who are unhappy with the legislature should vote them out of office and replace them with better ones. Constitutional changes should be handled through the amendment process, not a complete revision of the document.

If a Con Con is called, 118 conventional delegates would be elected to propose amendments on a majority basis. Amendments would need final approval by voters. However, no law limits what issues could be raised by delegates at the convention.

A constitution should outline basic rights of the people and outline the procedures of government. The Illinois Constitution guarantees more rights than the U.S. Constitution, such as equal rights for women, minorities and the disabled. Special interests in a Con Con could erode or alter some of these basic rights.

The cost of a Con Con is also a matter of concern. Quinn said a convention could cost as little as $5 million to taxpayers. But the 1970 Con Con cost taxpayers $14 million. Some estimates for the new convention, which would be held in 1990, are as high as $31 million.

Clearly the cheapest and best choice for Illinois is to pursue reforms through the legislature and to say no to a Constitutional Convention.