Early in the 20th century an increasing number of Illinoisans believed that the constitution of 1870 required modernization. The document became especially difficult to amend after the state adopted the Australian (secret) ballot in 1891, provided that proposed amendments had to be voted upon separately rather than included on the regular ballot, and stopped counting a failure to vote on an amendment as a "yes" vote.

A politically partisan constitutional convention met from 1920 to 1922 and produced a new basic document which Illinois voters rejected by an overwhelming majority. Some of the real need for reform was eliminated with the passage of the "Gateway Amendment" in 1950 which eased the amending process, and with the acceptance in 1962 of a constitutional amendment to reform the state judiciary. In the late 1960s the administration of Gov. Richard Ogilvie hoped to remove another issue by the adoption of a state income tax. Nevertheless, at the 1968 election Illinois voters called for a constitutional convention by an almost two-to-one majority.

In December, 1969, the 116 delegates began work which was soon transferred to the reconstructed Old State Capitol, the scene of three earlier constitutional conventions. Democrats and Republicans were Equally represented; and Samuel W. Witwer, who had been involved in the constitutional reform movement for more than 20 years, was elected convention president.

The modern tone of the document the delegates produced begins with the Bill of Rights which not only restricts government interference with individual rights, but also encourages government to Positively promote justice. It calls for freedom from discrimination in employment and in the sale or rental of property on the basis of sex or physical handicap. It attacks racism, segregation, and even ethnic jokes, capturing the spirit of these items best in a section entitled "Individual Dignity."

Four controversial points were submitted to the voters as separate propositions. In the first, the voters decided to retain cumulative voting, the unique system for minority representation which requires election of three representatives from each district, rather than adopt the alternative plan of small districts from which only one House member could be chosen. The second was decided in favor of those who wished to continue the election of judges, as opposed to persons who preferred to have judges appointed by panels of lawyers and laymen. A proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was defeated just a short time before the United States Supreme Court required the change to be made nationally. And the abolition of the death penalty was defeated by a two-to-one majority.

The governor was strengthened by giving him the authority to reduce appropriations in addition to vetoing them. (He had the item veto under the amended constitution of 1870.) In 1978 the election of state officers was scheduled to be switched to non-Presidential years, thus assuring a short term in 1976-78. The legislature was required to meet annually, although it was already doing so. For the first time the governor and the lieutenant governor were mandated to come from the same party. The state superintendent of public instruction was abolished as an elected office, and education was placed under the jurisdiction of a single board. A board of elections was created, and the state residency requirement for voting was reduced from one year to six months.

Under heavy pressure from the Chicago delegates, the convention adopted a section granting extensive "home rule," including taxing authority, to cities of more than 25,000 population and made the same opportunity available to counties of 200,000 persons. The 1970 constitution, in spite of a major effort from Chicago representatives, does not grant "home rule" authority in two highly sensitive areas: the use of municipal earnings or income tax and licensing for revenue. Indeed, the state retained final authority to limit or deny any specific power local governments have chosen to exercise.

The delegates also clarified basic tax policy. Under the previous constitution as interpreted by the courts, the General Assembly had been limited to the imposition of three kinds of taxes: property, occupation, and franchise and privilege. The delegates to the convention in 1970 adopted the following simple sentence: "The General Assembly has the exclusive power to raise revenue by law except as limited or otherwise provided in this constitution." It gave that body more freedom to devise new kinds of tax laws and to assure maximum equity in the imposition of these taxes. If it wishes, the General Assembly may now levy taxes directly upon retail sales and exempt certain commodities, including food and drugs, from the tax.

Two limitations are imposed by the new document on the use of income taxes. In the first instance, any state income tax must be at a flat or nongraduated rate; and, in the second place, any taxes imposed upon the income of corporations may not exceed the rate of taxes imposed on individuals by more than a ratio of 8 to 5. Those opposing progressive taxation argued that it would adversely affect the economic development of the state, shift too great a burden of taxation onto the wealthy, be more difficult to administer, and encourage those with higher incomes to seek special exemptions to reduce their tax bills. Those favoring a system of progressive taxation argued that it worked in such states as New York, Wisconsin, and California; that a flat tax rate protects the rich at the expense of the middle-income person; and that it has proven effective in such states as Alaska in which the tax system achieved progressiveness by assessing a flat rate against a taxpayer's federal tax bill.

The convention significantly modified the property tax upon which the state and local governments traditionally relied for support by directing the ultimate elimination of the personal property tax on or before Jan. 1, 1979.

Although the tax was subjected to heavy criticism for nearly a century, representatives of local governments protested that now statewide taxes, with only real estate being exempt, would have to be imposed on persons or corporations no longer required to pay personal property taxes.

A further revision in the revenue section was the elimination of the provision of the constitution of 1870 which stated that the state could not contract debts exceeding $250,000. The state's total outstanding bonded indebtedness in 1969 amounted to $1,290,955,000 rather than the $250,000 limitation, and less than one fourth of that amount had been authorized by the constitutionally required referendum. Under the new document, general obligation bonds (bonds repayable from tax revenues) can be approved only by a referendum or a three-fifths vote of the members of each house of the General Assembly. At the same time the state is authorized to issue revenue bonds (bonds repayable from other state revenues) after the passage of a law approved only by a simple majority in each house of the legislature. The hope was to guarantee that no borrowing will be authorized without wide support among the voters or by partisan support in the General Assembly.

In educational finance, perhaps the most controversial area, no fundamental changes were made. Thus, when the voters approved the 1970 constitution, they did so realizing that the document gave the General Assembly an opportunity to devise an expanded, more equitable system of taxation than that which had existed previously. They did not, of course, assure that this most controversial of topics would be handled without the rancor and ill-feeling which had characterized taxation of any kind since it was first imposed.

The office of the auditor general was established to conduct a post-audit of governmental affairs, He was to be appointed for a term of 10 years, by the General Assembly rather than by the governor.

Finally, the new document can be amended by either legislative or popular initiative or by a constitutional convention.

Whether or not the 1970 constitution will serve for a century as did its predecessor remains to be seen. The questions are whether or not the governmental structures and processes which still reflect smalltown, rural Illinois can be adapted to governing a complex, interdependent, rapidly changing, and urbanizing society. Does the constitution go far enough toward modernization? And can truly representative government be maintained while the volume and complexity of legislative work increases, demanding effective decision-making on technically complicated issues? The same questions, of course, occurred to skeptics in 1870.