Despite their best efforts to bury a proposal to call a special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, the failure to do so continues to haunt Illinois’ Democratic Party leaders who now have a legal case with a high-profile defendant on their hands: Sen. Roland Burris.

During a hearing yesterday on the recent lawsuit that seeks to force Gov. Pat Quinn to call a special election, a cautious U.S. District Judge John F. Grady said he was too “nervous” to move forward without giving Burris the chance to weigh in as a party in the case. Citing Rule 19, Grady told the parties on hand that, without Burris, “you don’t have a full case here.”

The plaintiffs—co-counsels Tom Geoghegan, Scott Frankel, Rob Cohen, and former alderman Marty Oberman—appeared to welcome the decision. But not everyone was thrilled. “We would rather stay away,” Burris’ rather candid attorney, Tim Wright, told us before the court hearing at the Dirksen Federal Center.

Outside of court chambers, Geoghegan reiterated that the case isn’t about making political hay. It’s about holding up the mandate for a “writ of elections to fill senate vacancies” under the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As he spelled out in a January New York Times op-ed, Geoghegan interprets that language to mean that a special election is required—whether it’s convenient or not.

Despite Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s recent opinion that the U.S. constitution allows for holding a special election without Burris first resigning or being expelled from the Senate, the state’s attorneys continue to challenge the this interpretation and are seeking to dismiss the case. And despite plenty of effort to brush the special election issue under the rug, the controversy lives on. We’ll be following it.