Con-con vote - How might it affect teachers?

by desertjim
At the top of Illinois ballots this November will be a proposal to call a constitutional convention. The current 40 year-old State constitution contains a provision to ask the voters of every generation whether they want to request or refuse such a convention. If the voters agree, the legislature will set a framework to allow for restructuring, rewriting and revising the entire current document.

Former state comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, former governor Jim Edgar, the AFL-CIO, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Manufacturers Association and the Farm Bureau are all opposed to calling a convention. Lieutenant governor Pat Quinn, Cook County assessor James Houlihan and state representative John Fritchey are among the more vocal supporters.

The Illinois Education Association (IEA) has come out strongly against such a convention. The IEA fears that protection for public pensions could be undermined by revisions to the 1970 document. The current constitution guarantees that a public pension “shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” According to the IEA. that means the security of ALL public pensions including the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), State Universities Retirement System (SURS) and the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) could be at risk at a Con-Con if delegates removed or modified that language. The constitution protects pension benefits that have already been earned, but lawmakers can change future benefits.

Quinn has argued against the interpretation that public employees could lose their pensions. He said, “The federal constitution precludes that, its fearmongering.” The federal Constitution prohibits states from any action that would impair the enforcement of contracts and currently pension obligations are defined as contractual under the Illinois constitution. There is federal case law that would protect anyone with a current Illinois state pension. This, of course, does not speak to the future of Illinois teachers, professors, and state and municipal employees. Since pension obligations are a huge part of the state budget, it seems possible that delegates to a con-con could choose to remove future contractual obligations.

With three weeks to go until election day, and with early voting already started in Illinois, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of clarity on this issue. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of contract law could explain this to me. 

Labels: