I’m not so sure that the drafters of the proposed amendment were all that careful in putting something together that would withstand all legal challenges. Amendments to the IL Const. must only deal with “structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV”  of the IL Const (which deals with our state legislature, the General Assembly). Illinois Const., Art. XIV, § 3. Term limits have been held by the IL Supreme Court to be outside the scope of “structural and procedural subject”. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. IL State Bd. of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502 (1994).
Fear not, good citizens: there is hope. First, the proposed amendment contains a severability clause which says that if part of the amendment fails for whatever reason, the rest survives intact. Second, the reason that IL has such restrictive rules on the type of constitutional amendments that can be passed is that every 20 years we have the opportunity to rip up the IL Const. in its entirety and craft a new one. Last time it came up for a vote a couple years ago, that idea was voted down. Next time, maybe not.

Ending Gerrymandering seems like a good idea, if some sort of unbiased program could be constructed.  Even then, what would the criteria be for grouping people?  I suspect the process would still be gamed, and underrepresented groups would object to the possibility or even likelihood of losing presence.  Still, it’s a worthwhile goal, but it’s doubtful it would have much effect on the sources of our state’s problems.
The seven day rule seems reasonable, although again I doubt it will be effective in much change to the underlying problems.   
The tools used to keep other parties off the ballot need to be explained.  Again, no problem with this, but I doubt it will do much to change things.
Term limits are probably a pretty terrible idea. The only groups it really benefits are lobbyists, corporate wealth and other permanent institutions, as it insures limited institutional memory in the legislature and constant amateurism. Michigan has them. It’s achieved nothing. There’s a debate about them in today’s (2-4-10) detroit free press. www.freep.com
The whole petition looks like pretty small potatoes and basically a distraction.
 

Thanks for the input everyone.
Stuart, I could use some help.
Your entire comment seems supportive except for the last, declarative sentence. 
You ask very cogent, thought-provoking questions which are appreciated and further the discussion. 
I myself don’t know how things will shake out once it is passed, but I do believe we all have a dog in this fight.  For me, right now, “getting there is all the fun”.  Taken at the very least common denominator, the Putback Amendment is catalyzing people into an educated, heuristic, and optimistic force. 
I side with your opposition to gerrymandered districts.  I also back your great observation on the evils of third party ballot obstruction.
All of your statements preclude your last, marginalizing judgment.
Which is it?  Would you sign the petition if given the chance?
Also, would you please link the debate over at the Detroit Free Press?  For some reason it keeps escaping my efforts…Thank you!!!

First the Detroit Freep links.
Keep term limits:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100204/OPINION05/2040400/1068/OPINION/Keep-limits-Longer-time-in-office-wont-fix-state
Repeal term limits:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100204/OPINION05/2040403/1068/OPINION/Repeal-limits-Experience-is-not-an-evil-thing
Second. I don’t have a real strong opinion on term limits, but generally think they do more harm than good.  However, I have no proof of that.  But, my experience, from working in government and in general, tells me there is a huge permanent governmental apparatus out there: the parties, the lobbying organizations, the fundraisers, the legislative staffs, administrators and administrative staff, etc.  They are the pros, and not necessarily (this is a wild understatement) working in the service of the general population.  My concern is that when you constantly remove elected office holders with term limits, you are tipping the scales even more toward the pros, as you always have a fresh set of babes in the woods coming in.  On the other hand, entrenched legislators can be good or bad.  One can become a part of that pro apparatus and become self-serving in the extreme.  This is of course what term limits set out to forestall.  But I’m not convinced they make much difference in that regard.
Third.  My general lack of enthusiasm for (which is not to be confused with opposition to) the amendment is that it’s a sidelong glancing blow through some technical changes that doesn’t get at the heart of the matter.  This is not to say that these are not real reforms (term limits perhaps excluded), but that they are fairly limited.  That the process needs more transparency, fairness and cleaning up goes without saying.  But if these rules had been in place, would the state now not be in its current financial mess. I doubt it.  So what is the heart of the matter?  I don’t think it’s in the processes or even in the politicians, it’s in civil society and the low quality of our political discourse.  I’m not going to ramble on much more here, but a couple of points.  We have really terrible media in Illinois.  The Tribune and Sun-Times do a miserable job, and the downstate papers, including the Gazette, are also simply lousy when it comes to covering state government.  They are simplistic, cynical, scattershot, sensational,resentful and ax-grinding.  But, given their readership, that probably makes economic sense for them.  The upshot of this, and our failing schools, is that very few people know much about anything in state government.  So as an example, how many of the 1.9 out of 10 of you who voted Tuesday knew a thing about any of the Lieutenant Governor candidates?  Of course now, one of them is a big story as some unsavory elements of his past come to light.  Well, that’s interesting, and it will cause a flurry of stories and talk by all of us and what not, but nothing about the real issues we’re facing.  Those discussions are controlled by the sloganeering pros, and the populace generally has great difficulty understanding the real effects of proposals because of the obfuscating and misdirection employed to fool them.
Hope that little rant helps.  My solutions?  Change comes from the bottom (thus my sympathy for the amendment), but the fix is in.  Whoops, slipping into cynicism again.
A couple of suggestions, though.  Get rid of the Senate—there is no reason for it.  Get rid of the Lt. Gov as a separately elected official, or entirely. Get real about taxes.  We are very lightly taxed here, and it’s regressive.  

Almost every issue this amendment attempts to address is merely a symptom of a much bigger, and unsurprisingly, much more difficult to solve problem: Voter apathy.
 
You want to force term limits because voters generally don’t care enough to throw out bums who come off as corrupt to those few who do care.
You want to force politicians to be more open because voters generally don’t care that they keep electing people happy to work behind closed doors, wheeling and dealing every angle.
You want to force politicians to stop with absurd tentacle redistricting for their favor because voters generally don’t care that they keep re-electing the people responsible.
You want to force politicians to open the doors to 3rd party politicians when voters generally don’t care about 3rd party access. The average joe voter rarely even knows who they’re voting for on state and local elections.
 
This obviously drives politiphiles crazy because they do care and they do pay attention and they’re constantly outvoted by apathetic voters “doing their civic duty” to vote while failing a far more important task of researching the candidates to do so responsibly. Fixing that problem entirely may be impossible, improving the situation is inevitably going to be a long and difficult process with no clear path to actually do so successfully.
 
Treating the symptoms isn’t necessarily a bad thing, surely some useful changes may occur, but the underlying problem is bigger than all of this and will continue to cause major problems in having effective government because that government is designed to be responsive to the voters. When the voters generally don’t care, the government reflects that.