Because we can’t oust Blagojevich until 2010, no one cares if the Green Party is officially recognized (thank Judy Baar Topinka’s inability to appeal to anyone for that) and the presidential election is headed toward a negative battle between two, selfish candidates, the most exciting item on Illinois’ 2008 general election ballot might just be whether the state should hold a constitutional convention (con-con).

Every 20 years, voters in the state of Illinois are given the opportunity to voice whether a con-con will be held to examine and potentially change the state constitution. The last con-con was held in 1970 and a 1988 vote on whether to hold a convention failed. This year, a required vote will be taken. Any changes that may come out of a potential convention would still require later approval by the citizens of Illinois.

In our failed Illinois political environment, in which not even a single-party controlled government can accomplish necessary tasks (like passing a budget), the prospects of a delegate convention are appealing. Perhaps a delegation of informed, Illinois voters with a mindset for change and transparency is just what this rattled state needs. I’ll only be a semester out of school, but I’d throw my name in the hat for a delegate’s position. Maybe a young, policy-minded taxpayer who will actually live through the next 20 years of the constitution would make a practical delegate.

As a product of public education, I see a delegate convention as a potential means of achieving education funding reform. As a downstate resident, I see the potential for enacting process changes without the shadow that is Chicago politics shutting off the lights on practical fiscal policies. A convention would not be without potential problems, and as we think about the benefits and harms of a con-con, we must be weary of the rhetoric we use.

A convention is not meant to make policy but rather to ensure that the means for making policy benefits the citizens of Illinois. A 2008 con-con would not spell education reform through equal funding with property tax relief (like I want to see), but it could change (or preferably destroy) our educational governing body and create requirements which encourage legislators to seek equitable means for funding public education. A con-con should not become an arena for social policy-making, but it could allow citizens, rather than party elites, the opportunity to define rights and issues that affect all Illinoisans.

The Illinois House recently passed (by a one vote majority) a resolution encouraging voters to support a 2008 con-con. As voters, we should not listen to a nearly deadlocked decision by our legislators, but rather take a step back and evaluate how the current Illinois constitution is governing. I know that many of the state’s problems today are simply a result of bad actors in Springfield, but one can’t help but wonder if a change in method could help calm the madness. I for one think a con-con is a can-win for Illinois.