by Frank James, updated at 5:05 pm ET
What will the U.S. Senate do now in the curious case of Roland Burris, the would-be U.S. senator from Illinois?
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today it's not necessary for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to sign the appointment paperwork for Burris to fill the President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.
Earlier in the week it looked like Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, would be taking his cue from the Illinois Supreme Court. Reid said:
And we have a situation here that we've had a rule in effect since 1884 here in the Senate, that for a person to be appointed by a governor, you have to have the signature of the governor and the secretary of state. Now, that matter is in the courts, and there are all kinds of rumors floating around when the Illinois Supreme Court will make that ruling. But it appears they're going to do it pretty soon, and -- as to whether or not the secretary of state must sign the certificate along with the governor. So once that's done, that'll be one step out of the way.
Well that step is now out of the way.
But to accept the Illinois Supreme Court's decision, Reid would have to break with Senate tradition which, as Reid reminded us earlier in the week, has required since 1884 that a senator to present documents signed by not only the governor of his state but a state's secretary of state. And the Senate loves its traditions even more than baseball.
So what's likely? The Senate probably will start a new tradition: two signatures will be needed unless the highest court in a state or the nation says that's not necessary.
------- update ---------------
Looks like the Senate is sticking with the old tradition. The Associated Press reports:
CHICAGO (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin: Senate won't seat Burris without Ill. secretary of state signature
Comments
Looks as if Sen Reid better stick with the Senate Rules.
Would think Congressional Rules would overrule state rules.I could be wong.
Posted by: Inky | January 9, 2009 3:41 PM
Let's hope the Senate shows some backbone and at least delays this appointment until Blago is gone. Burris has shown he is a man of no principles and can't be trusted anywhere near the Senate. He really has disgraced himself with his willingness to do anything to get the seat and can't be allowed to represent the interests of Illinois.
Posted by: Bill | January 9, 2009 3:59 PM
Or you could be wite but it's more likely you're wong.
Posted by: Humanist | January 9, 2009 4:03 PM
Or you could be wite but it's more likely you're wong.
Posted by: Humanist | January 9, 2009 4:03 PM
Inky:
1. Unless Congress passes a law that preempts state law ad is valid under the Supremacy Clause, the Illinois Supreme Court was correct in holding that the Secretary of State did not have a mandatory duty to sign.
2. The Senate still has the power under Article 1 Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members." Whatever the amateur lawyers say about the effect of the Adam Clayton Powell case, that responsibility is in the first instance on the Senate, not the Illinois Secretary of State or Illinois Supreme Court.
The Illinois Supreme Court's decision was correct.
Posted by: jack | January 9, 2009 4:14 PM
Good, now Reid has the cover to permanently refuse to seat Burris. With Blago impeached Quinn can finally do the right thing and call for a special election.
Posted by: Jeff | January 9, 2009 4:15 PM
Inky:
1. Unless Congress passes a law that preempts state law ad is valid under the Supremacy Clause, the Illinois Supreme Court was correct in holding that the Secretary of State did not have a mandatory duty to sign.
2. The Senate still has the power under Article 1 Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members." Whatever the amateur lawyers say about the effect of the Adam Clayton Powell case, that responsibility is in the first instance on the Senate, not the Illinois Secretary of State or Illinois Supreme Court.
The Illinois Supreme Court's decision was correct.
Posted by: jack | January 9, 2009 4:14 PM
Thanks- Question-
Do yo think State Of Illinois should have an election for the Senate, This wouold be a rock solid way of determine a senator.
Posted by: Inky | January 9, 2009 4:23 PM
Why should it matter what the Illinois Supreme Court decided today? The ISC doesn't run the U.S. Senate. The Senate rule requires the SOS signature. Without it, Burris's credentials are not in order. Nice try, Roland.
Posted by: Gus Philpott | January 9, 2009 4:35 PM
Sen Reid's problem is that he is confusing senate RULES with Illinois LAW. The LAW always trumps RULES. Rember, rules are made to be broken. However, when the LAW is broken, criminal sanctions are imposed. The 1884 rule in the senate refers to candidates who were ELECTED to public office and NOT appointed. Those candidates must be certified as the winner of the election by their Secretary of State. Sen Reid, a lawyer, should know that rule only applies to ELECTED OFFICIALS. Barack Obama, a constitutionl scholar, should also know that those senatorial rules do not preclude a governor of his state from making appointments to fill vacancies from his state to the U.
S. senate. No need for Secretary of state [Illinois] to certify Burris as winner of election as no election took place.
Posted by: spartacus | January 9, 2009 4:40 PM
I sure hope they don't seat him. I don't see how anyone in Illinois can think he'll represent us with any kind of integrity given the circumstances of his appointment. Can we please have a special election? Can we kick Blago out sooner rather than later? We just gave the nation it's new President, but now we look like a laughing stock because of our idiot and greedy Governor.
We deserve Senate representation that is looking out for our needs, not his own legacy.
Posted by: ChicagoJimmy | January 9, 2009 4:46 PM
Can't we find at least one democrat who is NOT corrupt? Then we could just appoint him or her and everyone would be fine with it.
Posted by: Ben Van der Meer | January 9, 2009 4:46 PM
"No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor's appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law," Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier wrote for the court in its unanimous decision.
Why is the Trib trying make it look like Burris got punked?
Posted by: Concrete Man | January 9, 2009 4:54 PM
I thought part of the deal was the governor appoints someone only for the time between the seat vacancy and a special election that they are to set-up and get going so the PEOPLE make the choice. From what I understand states have gotten lazy and just appoint someone for whatever remaining time is left and we really should be holding a special election. This could be added the day we have local elections.
I think he is disqualified on the fact he said he spoke to no one about the seat and yesterday he admitted he had spoken to Monk before Obama was elected.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | January 9, 2009 4:55 PM
Jack, I heard Jim Thompson, not really an amateur lawyer, saying at lunch time today that the ability of the Senate to judge the qualifications of its members extended only to the constitutional qualifications - age, residency, and so forth, citing the Adam Clayton Powell case.
I suppose that out of such disagreements are court cases born.
Posted by: DaveB | January 9, 2009 5:06 PM
So far the only problem with Burris is that he indicated interest in the seat, and when it was offered it was accepted. OMG! Bar him from the Senate! Apparently everyone else in the Senate never indicated they wanted the job and never accepted it.
This is pretty weak. There's not much to it, unless you're only interested in assigning guilt by association.
Guilt by association, without the association. TWO phone calls to express interest, over a period of months.......it's not even an association.
If I wanted to buy into this weak sauce nit picking I could get the real thing listening to Rush, Hannity, and Ingram.
Posted by: Jeff | January 9, 2009 5:11 PM
I'm amazed that Durbin wants to continue this saga. Its clear he either is too stupid to understand the ruling or he never took the time to read it before flapping his gums. What a dunce.
Posted by: Cajunkate | January 9, 2009 8:44 PM
What a dstraction... maybe it will overshadow the inauguration.
Seat him and get on with it. Does anyone doubt that Burris will not vote with Democratic leadership 99 percent of the time.
Actually, the way they are behaving, they doulc be driving over to the ranks of Joe Lieberman.
Posted by: ElliotNC | January 10, 2009 9:08 AM