Apart from the roster of candidates facing Illinoisans on the November ballot, the first choice we must make is our duo-decennial opportunity to hold a new constitutional convention.

I thought long and hard, went back and forth this time before making a decision.

The 1970 convention was terrific—it gave this state one of the most progressive, forward-looking charters of any in the union.

That’s because it was written by a large batch of serious, independent-minded delegates of both parties—although it also included young Richard M. Daley at his most racist and belligerent. (Daddy put him there, of course.)

Another name that first appeared as a delegate is Michael Madigan, who got there in on his own and has hung around a while. He was not exactly what you would call a progressive then either.

But it was also Dawn Clark Netsch’s first elective office. She was part of a fascinating leadership group that included civil rights leader Al Raby, civil liberties lawyers Elmer Gertz and Bernard Weisberg, progressive lawyers Wayne Whalen and Mary Lee Leahy—many others now forgotten.

They did a great job, but one guy who lost his election to ConCon made a lasting impact that rivals the new constitution itself. That’s Michael Shakman, who filed suit as a candidate charging that the patronage system was an unfair obstacle to fair elections.

Sounded nutty to many, but as the case worked it way through the courts, long after the new constitution was adopted, Shakman started winning and expanding his case. It hasn’t yet totally killed patronage in Illinois, but it dismantled enough of the system to put it on life-support and it has made a remarkable difference politically.

Some 20 years ago we had to vote on whether to hold another convention and start all over again with a new constitution. Along with hundreds of thousands of others, I voted “no.”

Although I would have liked to see certain constitutional additions and reforms, in the climate of the Reagan era I feared the wingnuts might hold sway and take away some of our civil liberties gains, perhaps permanently cap taxes as they did in California, perhaps put strictures on a woman’s right to choose and so forth.

This time I believe we are in a more progressive era.

I would like to see merit selection of judges. I would like to see the state’s funding of education specifically mandated to be 50 percent or more. I would like the income tax to become progressive. I would like to see a recall provision for all elected officials—and the grounds for impeachment spelled out concretely.

But I don’t think term limits are useful, and that’s something that might get through.

Most of these items can be handled legislatively—they do not have to be written into the constitution. That’s a problem with many of the proposals being put forth by proponents of a new convention. A constitution is a charter of guiding principles, not a compendium of laws.

The problem is, Springfield is totally dysfunctional and both houses of the legislature have been and promise to remain hopelessly intractable.

Optimist that I am, I think it’s possible to assemble a thoughtful body of independent delegates next year in a special election—though I’m aware of the dangers lurking throughout the state.

After long reflection, when I cast my early ballot for Barack Obama, I voted “yes” for a constitutional convention.