Poll Results: Who Wants a New Constitution
(and Why)?
Brian J. Gaines
In early 2008, we asked a random sample of Illinois adults some questions about the prospects for holding a new constitutional convention in Illinois. The decision of whether or not to hold a convention will be on the November ballot, but the entire subject has received very little attention in the media thus far, over-shadowed by the Iraq war, budgetary stalemate and feuding within the leadership of the state Democratic Party, the suspense-filled presidential primary, and other day-to-day news. A little more than half a year before the vote, there is little sign of large movements for or against the measure. Constitutions are somewhat outside the experience of normal life for most people. State constitutions are perhaps especially obscure, and little noticed. Indeed, to the extent that constitutional law appears in the public mind, it usually does so in connection to court cases that are at least one step removed from the federal Constitution itself, as in whether people approve of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Accordingly, we did not anticipate great passions or deep levels of knowledge about the pros and cons of re-writing our state constitution. We first asked:
Every 20 years, the citizens of Illinois decide if the state should hold a new constitutional convention, for the purpose of preparing a new state constitution. Our current constitution dates from 1970. In 1988, voters chose not to hold a new convention. The next vote on will take place in the November 2008 general election. How do you feel about holding a constitutional convention?
Responses were:
16% Strongly Support
23% Support
43% Don’t know
10% Oppose
8% Strongly Oppose(N = 998)
So, at the outset, the public might be described as mildly interested in the idea. Even when we point out to respondents that voters opted not to convene 20 years back, we find more support than opposition, albeit with the modal response being uncertainty.
What sorts of differences are there between opponents and supporters? Perhaps surprisingly, there is little difference in years of education or income, and gender is also not a factor. Age is a statistically significant factor in predicting support or opposition, but its effects are rather modest. Opposition (weak or strong), for instance, is 10% for those under 39, 14% for those 39-49, 20% for those 50-59, and 30% for those 60 and over. There are also some partisan differences, even after controlling for age, but they are also comparatively mild. Figure 1 shows the responses for 7 distinct partisan groups (strong Republicans, Republicans, independent Republicans, pure independents, independent Democrats, Democrats, and strong Democrats). For every group, “don’t know” was the most popular answer, but there is more support amongst Democrats (of any kind) than amongst the others.
Figure 1. Partisanship and Support for Holding a Constitutional Convention
We were interested, as well, in what sorts of arguments both for and against a convention people might report finding compelling. Accordingly, we rehearsed a small battery of arguments on each side, and asked respondents if they found these arguments persuasive or not. In asking about a prominent issue in public debate, we would certainly have tried to feature arguments most commonly heard in the real world, at the elite level, in media coverage, and so on. With this issue, there has been little enough debate that we had scant guidance. We tried to select rather general arguments that might appeal insofar as they are broad claims about politics that are commonly heard in connection to other debates.
Figure 2 shows how respondents reacted to the five arguments hat we raised against holding a convention. Figure 3 shows how respondents evaluated the five arguments in favor of a convention. Interestingly, the public seemed to see merit in both sides of the argument. Three of the arguments against holding a convention all originate in cynicism about the likely delegates, because they would be unrepresentative or too influenced by special interests or incumbent office holders. Majorities of respondents found these claims plausible. On the other hand, pluralities thought all five arguments in favor of a convention were at least somewhat persuasive. Clear majorities embraced the arguments that a convention is the only way to pass some important major reforms and that state government is not working well at present, and needs to be fixed. A majority also agreed that a convention is the only way that ordinary people can have a say in how government is run—in what might be taken to be either a contradiction of, or a rebuttal to, the claims about special interests and incumbents.
It is not too surprising to learn that there seems to be scope to persuade people that a convention is a good or a bad idea. With so little public discussion thus far, most members of the public simply have not heard much elaboration on these kinds of arguments or any others, and they have probably given the whole topic of the state constitution little thought. That does not, of course, mean that people do not have preferences about constitutional provisions.
Figure 2. Persuasiveness of Arguments Against Holding a Convention
A. Special interests would control the convention.
B. Incumbent politicians would control the convention.
C. Delegates to the convention would not represent interests of people like me.
D. Delegates to the convention would not be able to agree on provisions, so there would be a stalemate.
E. The current constitution works sufficiently well.
Figure 3. Persuasiveness of Arguments in Favor of Holding a Convention
F. State government is not working well at present, and only fundamental constitutional change can fix it.
G. There are a few major reforms that would improve government in the state but that cannot be passed except by having a convention.
H. Conventions are the only way to give ordinary people a say in how Illinois state government is run.
I. 1970 is a long time ago and our constitution is undoubtedly out of date in some ways.J. There is no risk; if the convention produces a bad constitution, the public can simply vote not to enact it.
Accordingly, we also asked some questions about possible changes to the constitution that might come about from a new convention. Again, we had fairly little guidance from public debate in choosing topics, so we gauged support and opposition to a variety of possible provisions, emphasizing breadth (more topics) not depth (we did not rehearse any arguments for or against any particular provisions). Many items were, perhaps predictably, polarizing insofar as they provoked opposite responses from Democrats and Republicans. A provision defining marriage as an act that can take place only between one man and one woman, for example, arouses strong support from all three Republican groups (70% for strong Republicans, 57% for Republicans, and 66% for independent Republicans) but also high levels of opposition from Democrats (strong opposition from 54% of strong Democrats, 44% of Democrats and 63% of independent Democrats). A ban on the death penalty, a reinstatement of the death penalty, and a ban on abortion have broadly similar patterns: Democrats like the first and dislike the latter two, and Republicans are their mirror image. If the case for changing the constitution were to rest on any of these provisions, we could anticipate a sharply polarized electorate.
A few items stand out because they command overwhelming support from all groups. Two in particular, term limits for legislators and recall of elected officials, were astonishingly popular. Figures 4 and 5 show how, at this juncture, both reforms generate nearly universal support. Recall has been discussed a good deal in the last year, very often in connection with the governor. Hence, one might suspect that this support is merely anger at Governor Blagojevich, masquerading as support for a major institutional reform. However, the even stronger support for creating legislative term limits would point to a broader unhappiness with government. Moreover, we also asked about some potential reforms that bear directly on gubernatorial prerogatives, namely the governor’s power to call special session of the General Assembly and the power to veto spending items from the budget. In both cases, there was fairly strong support for these powers, with only modest differences across partisan groups. So, at minimum, it does not seem that our respondents were offering knee-jerk support for any weapon that might be used against any governor to express dissatisfaction with the incumbent governor.
Political scientists are divided on the wisdom of recall, and it is probably fair to say that term limits have more foes than fans in academia. Most professional politicians are, unsurprisingly, very hostile to both measures. It is certainly possible that a prolonged public debate about the merits and demerits of these reforms could shift the public away from such enthusiasm. But anyone hoping to whip up support for a constitutional convention as of early 2008 should take note of how popular both measures are across the partisan spectrum. Recall and term limits look like powerful horses to which one might hitch a convention wagon.
Figure 4. Partisanship and Support for a Constitutional Provision Creating Recall
Figure 5. Partisanship and Support for a Constitutional Provision Establishing Legislative Term Limits
The poll was conducted by Polimetrix for the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois. For technical details on the polls sampling, please see the companion document on the Illinois Opinion Monitor / Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
