Did White "Certify" The Burris Appointment? (UPDATED)
That's what Roll Call is reporting (subscription required):
[Illinois Secretary of State Jesse] White’s signature approving the appointment came
hours after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that White’ signature of
certification was not necessary for the governor’...
That's what Roll Call is reporting (subscription required):
[Illinois Secretary of State Jesse] White’s signature approving the appointment came hours after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that White’ signature of certification was not necessary for the governor’s appointee to be considered legally able to take office as Senator.
“I, Jesse White, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and accurate document setting forth an appointment made by the Governor of the State of Illinois,” White wrote Friday on a document titled “Certificate.”
But here's the AP's take:
White still refuses to co-sign [Roland] Burris' appointment paperwork with Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
But his signature is on a certificate requested by Blagojevich's office Friday. The certificate says a copy of Blagojevich's Dec. 30 appointment letter is "a true and accurate copy of a document setting forth an appointment."
A White spokesman says the certificate just acknowledges the document was filed. A request for the certificate could have been made at any time.
Having heard a rumor that White had signed the certificate yesterday evening, we talked to a spokesperson for the secretary, who said that White's position had not changed. So while he complied with the Blagojevich administration's request for this document, he is still refusing to sign the certificate of appointment itself. And that's what appears to matter. Remember, Dick Durbin was very specific yesterday about the need for the signature to appear on the certificate:
DURBIN: In 1884, the United State Senate drew up rules relative to the filling of vacancies by election or appointment. And the rules of the United States Senate are clear: whether by election or appointment, a certificate has to be given to the Senate which declares the date of the appointment or election, the name of the person, the date of the certification, and the name and the signature of both the governor of the state and the secretary of state, as well as the name of the state, obviously, affected by this appointment.
These basic six requirements have been in the Senate now for 125 years. There has never in the history of the Senate been a waiver of the requirement that the secretary of state's signature be part of the appointment process. Never. No one's suggested it.
At this point, we've clearly reached an impasse.
In short, I don't think White's separate "certificate" is going to pass muster with the Democratic leaders. But considering the way things have swung back and forth over the past week, it's no use trying to predict how they'll react.
UPDATE (10:42 am): WBEZ has a copy of the White document, as well as this tidbit:
Senator Durbin is the assistant majority leader in the Senate. He says the move by Burris may be enough to satisfy the Senate, though he stresses Senate lawyers will have to review it.
Comments
In denying Burris's request the SC did mention he could get the relief he sought by this method. But the IL SC has no say in US Senate rules or customs so it's not their call. If Reid and Durbin want they can stall this til Blago's out, Quinn's in, and he appoints someone else. Burris's only court of appeal would be the US senate and that would go nowhere.
Here's the "relief" set out in the SC's motion:
There is one final point we feel constrained to mention. While the Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor, he does have a duty under section 5(4) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(4) (West 2006))
“to give any person requiring the same paying the lawful fees therefor, a copy of any law, act, resolution, record or paper in his office, and attach thereto his certificate, under the seal of the state.”
The registration of the appointment of Mr. Burris made by the Secretary of State is a “record or paper” within the meaning of this statute. A copy of it is available from the Secretary of State to anyone who requests it. For payment of the normal fee charged by the Secretary of State in accordance with this statute, Petitioners could obtain a certified copy bearing the state’s seal. Because such relief is possible, no order by this court is necessary or appropriate.
The White document seems to be a bit different, as it actually includes his signature (not just the seal). That being said, the Senate Dems could certainly still stall.
But I don't agree that Burris' only appeal is to the Senate. Most of the lawyers I've heard from think Burris has standing to take his case to federal court (on the grounds laid out in Powell). Durbin and company seem to be betting that by the time such a case made its way up to SCOTUS, there would already be a new appointment.
Josh I think that you have the stalling part right and the form Blago used is just a recommended template provided by the senate. No governor is required to use it if a state has one of it's own that's sufficient. Of course Burris can sue but I think the end game boils down to the Senate.
What Burris has is White's signature on a document verifying that it was indeed Blagojevich (and not some imposter) who made and registered the appointment with the SoS 's office. He doesn't have White's signature on the appointment document itself.
I know it looks like a distinction without a difference but if Reid and Durbin want to see it differently they can. Powell was a House rep and senate and house rules are different. The senate makes it's own rules according to the constitution and they can choose to seat or not seat anyone they want based on nothing more than the age old customs Durbin cites. I don't think there's any federal judges who are going to go to bat for a wannabe senator over the people who control their own future career advancement - majority party senate leadership - which would require reinterpreting the constitution to mess with senate rules in the process. If that's the course Reid and Durbin are taking I hope Burris and his lawyers think it through soon.
Talk about confusing...
Not really as far as I see it leo. The Illinois SC said Burris had everything he needed for a valid appointment as far as Illinois law is concerned and they're not going to compel White to do more. Durbin says what satisfies Illinois legal requirements doesn't necessarily meet US senate requirements. That all might be a ploy to get Burris to agree not to run in 2010 or keep him out long enough for Quinn to succeed Blago and appoint somebody else. I'd like to find out if that would be legal.
Standing on longstanding senate custom is a thin little stinky reed for Reid and Durbin to cite as their precedent. Smacks of smoke filled room elitism when accountability and transparency are all the rage these days but I think they can do it. So does Durbin apparently. Any points they lose with the public for playing this ticky tack game will be more than offset by points gained from Dems who are complaining that Reid got himself rolled by a crazy crooked governor and a self important political hasbeen.
Burris has already blown the sympathy vote and if he pushes it they can simply start focusing on Patti Blago's job she got in September. I know people who think that looks exactly like the kind of quid pro quo Blago was looking for.
If ti comes to a fight my guess is Burris has to sue in federal court. The senate confirms federal judges appointed by the president. Find me any federal judge who wants to commit career suicide by taking on the US senate over it's own rules and prerogatives given to it by the constitution. If by some miracle of miracles Burris won after all that Robert Byrd would probably try to find a way to filibuster his appointment until either he or Burris were dead and buried. Byrd doesn't take kindly to anyone encroaching on his beloved US senate's powers.
Well, the confusing thing is where Durbin & Co. think they're going with this. Are they going to hold it up till Gov. Quinn nominates a replacement or are they going to give in to about-to-be-kicked-out-of-office Blago and his choice?
Naturally I'd prefer the former, but it's hard to figure out what the Senate Leadership is trying to do.
Well my guess is that's the idea. Durban has left Reid wiggle room while the senate lawyers write up opinions on both sides of the issue they can use to justify going either way. They're hopefully also researching the legality of Quinn withdrawing the Burris appointment and picking someone else. If they go that way they have to be talking to Quinn and settling on a new appointee and getting that person on board and ready to go. Senator X won't have a three month transition to pick staff and get up to speed.
Meanwhile if they're planning on going the other way Reid and Durbin may be pressuring Burris to publicly pledge he won't run again in 2010 if they seat him. Might be doing some polling in the state right now to show Roland just what a suicide mission that would be. Or of course there may be other concessions I haven't even considered they want guarantees on.
The gist is there's a lot of work to be done this weekend no matter what they decide. The longer they drag it out the less likely it is they'll seat Burris.
Too many parlor games continue to plague this process in true violation of our present laws.
IF Durbin wants to stand on and use the rules that have been in place for every appointment in the last 125 years, then the Senate needs to get on board to address that the Suprement court stated the signature is not required and go forth, OR it they feel it is required they need to address the Personal ABUSE of POWER by our present SECRETARY OF STATE.
If the ceremonial position is going to be used above a legal right to appoint and one of the required duties that the Senator is required is for the public employee certify the appointment of the Governor, then deal with one legal action that is being disregarded and disrespected and stop playing around.
The stall may be allowed but it is not legal based upon all the statements that they the SENATE are REQUIRING the SIGNATURE and this INSUBORDINATION of some one with the official duty to do so should not continue. PERIOD.
THE LAW gave no personal authority to the Sec. of State to disregard the authority of the SITTING GOV. and NOT SIGN it. Either he does his job according to the law or the impeachment vote needs to include the SEC of STATE for his role in this disregard and abuse of power for his official JOB that he is NOT DOING and the SENATE is stating IT IS REQUIRED.
What is so puzzling about following our laws on one hand and then closing your eyes to what another hand is doing. The appointment was legal and the dancing around that legal fact and the role of the Senate does not disallow it because a signature that is required has not been provided by a PUBLIC EMPLOYEE.
The Senate is setting a tone that the Sec of State has discretionary VETO power and that would certainly be a FIRST in the last 125 years and I would venture to say that DURBIN and REID would agree.
It will get worst before it gets better and VETO power of the SEC. of the STATE to over ride the appointment of the Governor's legal appointment is nothing to scoff at no matter how long it is delayed while one is attempting to usurp the Governor's legal authority at the time of the appointment.
Thank you
Jessica correct me if I'm wrong but the SC just wrote that White is under no obligation to sign the appointment document.
Post new comment