Senate vacancy

Ethics Committee: Burris' Actions "Reflected Unfavorably On The Senate"

Josh Kalven — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:20:03 -0800

This just out from Sen. Roland Burris' office:

After months of investigation into the circumstances surrounding the appointment and seating of Senator Roland W. Burris, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has closed its inquiry and cleared the Senator of any legal wrongdoing.

In a ‘public letter of qualified admonition,’ the Senate Ethics Committee outlined the specific areas of concern that it investigated, and conclusively found no “actionable violations of the law” occurred. [...]

“I am pleased that after numerous investigations, this matter has finally come to a close. I thank the members of the Senate Ethics Committee for their fair and thorough review of this matter, and now look forward to continuing the important work ahead on behalf of the people of Illinois,” said Senator Burris.

The ethics committee is yet to post the full "public letter," but we'll have more updates on their findings once it's released.

UPDATE (10:30 a.m.): And the letter is now available. While declining to take any action against Burris, the committee still had some pretty harsh words regarding his activities and public statements prior to being sworn-in as Barack Obama's U.S. Senate replacement:

The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich was inappropriate. Although some of those events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this committee.

While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations fo the law, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct. [...]

Again, the Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.

Read the whole thing below:

Calls For A Special Senate Election Live On...

Angela Caputo — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:01:30 -0700

The controversy over Sen. Roland Burris' appointment to Illinois' junior senate seat may seem like a lifetime ago. But a group of well-known local attorneys is making a last-ditch effort to force Gov. Pat Quinn to call a special election, thus giving the public the final say about who represents them.

Today, former alderman Marty Oberman led the oral arguments for his team of co-counselors -- which includes Tom Geoghegan, Scott Frankel, and Rob Cohen -- in a federal appellate court. The appeal is based on the same case that the team argued before U.S. District Judge John F. Grady earlier this year. Regular readers may recall that the challenge was an effort to force Quinn to issue a “writ of elections," which would trigger the General Assembly to set a special election date.

The gist of the case, Oberman tells us, is that the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was crafted to guarantee the electorate's right to choose its representation democratically. That, the plaintiffs argue, usurps state law, which grants the governor appointment powers.

"The purpose of the 17th Amendment was to have popular elections of senators," Oberman argued in court today. "It wasn't to have appointments."

Moreover, Oberman argued today, appointments are intended to be temporary; therefore, a special election needs to be called before, not upon, the end of a term. He explains the significance to WBEZ:

There's no more important right in a democracy than the right to vote for the people who are making decisions for you. And in Illinois one of our Senate votes is sitting there not having been elected, but having been appointed.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office, which is defending the governor, is standing by the favorable lower court ruling. Only time will tell if it stands. Stay tuned.

Geoghegan's Special Election Lawsuit Gets New Hearing

Adam Doster — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:46:01 -0700

In yesterday's Tribune, columnist Steve Chapman pointed to an astounding statistic: by the end of 2009, 27 percent of Americans will be represented by U.S. senators who didn't earn a single vote in a free election. That's because four of those 100 officials were appointed to fill seats vacated by a politician who switched jobs, including the president. With the impending retirement of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Florida) and the decision by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to leave her post this year to run for governor, two more appointees will make their way to Washington by year's end. As Chapman jokes, the nation's upper chamber "is ... well, mostly elected by the people."

But Chapman also noted a positive development. Next month, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear a lawsuit filed by labor lawyer, author, and former 5th Congressional District candidate Tom Geoghegan arguing that when a Senate vacancy occurs, any appointee may only serve for a short interim before an election must be held. Here's how we described the case back in February:

The plaintiffs claim that neither former Gov. Rod Blagojevich nor [Gov. Pat] Quinn issued a “writ of elections to fill senate vacancies” as required by the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Currently, Illinois follows a legal proviso in the amendment that allows the governor to “make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislatures may direct.” Geogeghan and his colleagues are not suggesting that Burris’ appointment was illegal—rather, it represents a temporary placeholder until the state could marshal the resources to hold a statewide election. (Geogeghan first laid out this argument in a New York Times op-ed published a few days after Burris’ appointment in January.)

Chapman writes that while the suit faces a tough road in appeals court, the Court has reversed more unlikely decisions before. "When in doubt," he adds, "it makes sense to respect the language and purpose of a constitutional provision."

Geoghgean (whose new website is here) is attacking the undemocratic nature of the Senate from another angle, as well. In this week's issue of The Nation, he makes a convincing case for "Busting the Filibuster," a cause he's fought since the mid-1990s. Here's his conclusion:

By the way, the abolitionists knew the Senate was their enemy, just as it is our enemy today. Let's hope these tactics work for us in getting rid of this last vestige of slavery: Senate Rule 22. What's painful is that we have to cross some of our most sainted senators. But unless we decide to just give up on the Republic, there's no way out. To save the Obama presidency, we may have to fight our heroes.

Blagojevich Says He Settled On Senate Pick Before Arrest

Josh Kalven — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:44:18 -0800

With all the media exposure Gov. Blagojevich has enjoyed in the past 72 hours, I didn't think the Larry King Live appearance tonight would yield much we haven't already heard. But one comment stuck out for me: specifically, his assertion that he had settled on Barack Obama's U.S. Senate successor before being arrested on December 9. Watch it:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Blagojevich has previously said that he "reached a decision" on the Senate pick prior to the arrest. Even stranger is his claim that, when he discloses his original pick, "it's gonna show a governor who is caring about the people of Illinois." Clearly, he plans on making this part of his criminal defense.

Introducing Sen. Roland Burris

Josh Kalven — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:02:47 -0800

This morning, Roland Burris was sworn in by Vice President Dick Cheney as the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. Watch it:

Sen. Roland Burris (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:22:21 -0800

It's official:

Senate Democratic leaders today cleared the way for Roland W. Burris to be seated as a senator from Illinois, after more than a weeklong spectacle surrounding a corruption scandal in the state and the questioning of Mr. Burris’s credentials.

Burris is going to hold a press conference at 4:30 pm.

UPDATE (6:23 pm): You can watch Burris' full statement over at CBS2Chicago.com or read it on Lynn Sweet's blog. Meanwhile, here's a clip from the Q&A session that highlights a serious problem with the gubernatorial appointment process:

For those who can't watch, Burris is asked by a reporter what his high-priority issues will be as a U.S. Senator. Burris responds that he plans to "help pass the stimulus package" before adding, "I'll certainly have my pet issues I'll come up with."

Now usually you "come up with" your top policy priorities before entering Congress. In the best scenarios, it is a desire to address those very issues that leads you to seek office and over the course of the campaign you hone your arguments and grow your expertise. But here we have Burris saying that "learning the procedures of the Senate" is a higher priority than putting together an agenda.

Can you imagine someone running for office under a platform of "I'll figure it out once I get there"?

Burris Ordeal Comes Full Circle ... Again

Josh Kalven — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:50:35 -0800

A senior Democratic aide told CNN today that the swarm of confusion surrounding Roland Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate is a "mess." Indeed, every time it seems to be nearing a resolution, there's another twist and the trail of tangles grows. Maybe there was some immediate logic to all the decisions made by the Senate leaders over the past three weeks, but looking back, it's hard to discern any coherent strategy.

Here are the latest developments: On Friday afternoon, Sen. Dick Durbin appeared resolute in his position that Burris should not be seated and that Pat Quinn should make a "respectable" appointment once he's taken over as governor. Then on Friday evening a new, somewhat ambiguous "certificate" emerged, signed by Secretary of Jesse White and affirming that the original document appointing Burris was "true and accurate." This led to a meeting of Senate Democrats yesterday afternoon and a flurry of reports that they might seat Burris after all -- though "without prejudice," which CNN reported "would allow them the ability to revisit the issue" under Senate Rules.

Now the Tribune says Senate lawyers are going to render a decision on Burris this afternoon and it is "likely" he will be seated. At this point, I'll believe it when I see it. Let's not forget this AP report from mid-morning last Wednesday: "Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat."

Durbin And Burris On Face The Nation

Josh Kalven — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:12:49 -0800

This morning on CBS' Face The Nation, both Sen. Dick Durbin and Roland Burris appeared to discuss the ongoing saga over Illinois' vacant Senate seat. Watch:

So did Durbin "soften his stance" since Friday, as the AP reported following the interview? You can judge for yourself. But I'm not convinced. All I heard him say is that the Senate Democrats are reviewing the new document from Secretary of State Jesse White, as well as Burris' testimony before the House impeachment commitee last Thursday. He didn't say that the document appears to satisfy the Senate rules. He didn't retract what he said two days ago -- that his preference is to have the impeachment process run its course, after which Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn will name a "clean, legal, respectable" appointment.

Durbin did say that, out of fairness, the Democrats plan to come to a final decision in the near future regarding Burris, rather than just wait several weeks until Blagojevich is gone as governor. So I guess that's news.

Did White "Certify" The Burris Appointment? (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:23:58 -0800

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.

Durbin: Senate Won't Seat Burris Without White's Signature (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:54:10 -0800

Earlier today, we reported on the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling that Secretary of State Jesse White's signature was not required to certify and validate Roland Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate. Following that news, White and Attorney General Lisa Madigan released a statement saying: "It remains within the power of the U.S. Senate to seat Mr. Burris. They should do so immediately." And White later told the AP that, following the high court's decision, he has no intention of signing the certificate of appointment.

But at a press conference this afternoon, Sen. Dick Durbin asserted that the Democratic leadership "must insist" on the Senate rule requiring White's signature and won't accept Burris' appointment without it. Reuters further quoted Durbin saying, "At this point we've clearly reached an impasse." And check out the lede to that article:

No one can occupy the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama until the governor of Illinois is removed and a new appointment can be certified, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Friday.

I'd like to see the exact transcript of Durbin's remarks to confirm that he put it that way. But this sure seems to be the direction the Senate Democrats are trying to head. The question is whether Burris will take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in the meantime.

UPDATE (6:17 pm): Below is the full transcript of Durbin's statement (WBBM has the audio). He does indeed say that the "obvious answer" to this situation is to let the impeachment process conclude and then allow Pat Quinn to make a "clean, legal, respectable" appointment.

UPDATE II (6:58 pm): You have to wonder if Burris' testimony before the House impeachment committee yesterday is what led to this. After all, earlier this week Durbin and Reid appeared to be warming to the idea of seating him.

TRANSCRIPT:

DURBIN: It isn't just a question of whether Illinois law has been met. It isn't a question of whether the Illinois constitution has been served. But whether or not the actions taken are sufficient for a person to be appointed to fill the vacancy under the rules of the United States Senate where I serve.

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. The Illinois Supreme Court has said, "Our state has done all it needs to do under its statutes and constitution to fill the vacancy. We're not going to do anything, nor require any officer of the state to do more." The Senate rules say, "More needs to be done."

I think there is one obvious answer to this. In the matter of a few weeks, the Illinois State Senate will have reached its conclusion about the impeachment of our governor. It's unfortunate that during that time there may remain a vacancy in the Senate for our state of Illinois. But I think it's best to suspend activities in the filling of that vacancy until this impeachment trial in the Illinois State Senate is concluded. If it results in the impeachment of Gov. Blagojevich, it will mean the succession of office of Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. He will then have the authority to make this appointment in a clean, legal, respectable way and make his recommendation and his appointment known to the United State Senate under the ordinary course of procedure. I think that's the best way to turn the page in Illinois political history, to put behind us the actions of this governor -- who now has the dubious distinction of being the first to have articles of impeachment returned against him by the Illinois House of Representatives -- and to start a new chapter in the Illinois history books.I think this is the best way to proceed. I think it unlikely that any other course we follow will do this more quickly.

If this matter is referred to some federal court, or some other state court, it is likely to go on for some period of time, maybe weeks. If it is referred to the United States Senate to debate, I can tell you the reality. The reality is we have a few other things on our agenda. We have a failing American economy. We have a president who is pleading with us to deal swiftly and quickly to deal with this economy so we can spare some of the suffering that Illinois families and businesses -- as well as families across the country -- are facing. It's not likely that we're going to take the time to debate the wisdom of a rule that's 125 years old in the United States Senate when, in fact, the salvation and answer to this problem may be only weeks away right here in the state of Illinois.