Impasse
Several media outlets are reporting that Roland Burris “won” in the Illinois Supreme Court. What they actually did was reject his lawsuit requesting that the court force the Illinois secretary of state to sign his appointment.
The Illinois Supreme Court today rejected Roland Burris’ effort to get the signature he needs to complete his appointment to the U.S. Senate.
The court’s unanimous ruling tosses the issue back to Washington. Democratic U.S. Senate leaders, including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, now will have to decide whether to hold firm to their insistence that Burris get a signature on his appointment form from Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White before gaining admittance.
President-elect Barack Obama told Senate leadership this week that he wanted the Burris issue resolved quickly, putting pressure on Durbin and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The two senators offered no immediate reaction today, but Durbin has scheduled a 3:30 p.m. news conference.
Well, good old Dickey Durbin (once, sadly, my Senator) has held that presser. And he’s told Burris that he just lost the game. Because regardless of state laws or state courts, the rule requiring the signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state is a Senate rule dating back more than a century. And Durbin has no intention of changing the rule.
Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to sign the appointment by Gov. Rod Blagojevich because of corruption charges against the governor, which included accusations he tried to sell the seat.
“At this point we’ve clearly reached an impasse,” Durbin told reporters at his Chicago office.
He said the Senate seat could remain vacant until Blagojevich is removed from office and the lieutenant governor takes over, making a fresh appointment.
He said the Senate cannot waive a 125-year-old rule requiring the signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state on any election or appointment.
This isn’t over quite yet, of course. But Burris may have just had the shortest Senate career in history.
UPDATE: And the game is back on. The Illinois secretary of state has reversed himself and has signed Roland Burris’ appointment papers.
Following a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, Jesse White, the Illinois secretary of state, has certified Roland Burris’ appointment to the Senate, removing a major roadblock blocking Burris’ ascension to the body.
According to his office, White has signed a certificate saying that Roland Burris’ appointment document is “true and accurate.”
So, despite the fact that Rod Blagojevich has now been impeached by the lower house of the Illinois Legislature and is awaiting a trial that could bring his removal from office, he seems to have gotten Roland Burris into office.
By tarpon, January 9, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
If the Governor needs the signature of the Sec of State to make appointments, then why does Illinois need a Governor?
By Kate, January 9, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Burris did win the ruling. The ISC said that the signature was not needed for the appointment to be valid. They also stated that contrary to what Durban said, there is no rule in the Senate that requires the signature. I love your blog but you’re wrong about this. I suggest you read the ruling.
By Gaius, January 9, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
No, I’d suggest you read the rules of the Senate. I don’t think I’m wrong here:
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule02.php
2. The Secretary shall keep a record of the certificates of election and certificates of appointment of Senators by entering in a wellbound book kept for that purpose the date of the election or appointment, the name of the person elected or appointed, the date of the certificate, the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing and countersigning the same, and the State from which such Senator is elected or appointed. (Emphasis added)
By Kate, January 9, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Have you read the ruling? I have a hard time believing they are wrong-no offense to you. Here’s the quote from the ruling that quite clearly is a win for Burris as opposed to what you said-
“Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution,” the court states.
The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows states the power to appoint senators when there is a vacancy.
By Gaius, January 9, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Read the rule. A state court does not have the authority to impose its opinion on the Federal government. Doesn’t work that way. SCOTUS may or may not take the ISC ruling into account, but the Senate has a longstanding rule that they are standing by. Burris has an uphill fight, period.
By Kate, January 9, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
So you’re saying a Senate rule overrides the 17th Amendment?????????
Additionally, your post stated that the ISC ruling was not a win for Burris-do you still stand by that comment? Also, here’s a smart take by the Powerline guys
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022507.php
By Gaius, January 9, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
If Burris is seated it will be because Reid rolls over. Otherwise, Burris will need to go to SCOTUS and get them to endorse the ISC ruling. That’s how this one will play out, I suspect.
I posted a while ago that I thought Reid would roll on this, and he might yet. But Durbin seems pretty adamant that he won’t.
Let’s see how it works out. SCOTUS precedent appears to be on Burris’ side from what I’ve read. But the Senate rules may well come into play in this.
Let’s just see how it plays out.
By Anthony (Los Angeles), January 9, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Fascinating. We seem to have a conflict between two sections of the Constitution. On the one hand, Article I, section 5 gives each chamber the absolute right to set their own rules. Yet Amendment 17 clearly gives the states the absolute authority to set the process for filling a vacancy, and the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the Secretary of State’s endorsement is not needed.
So, which is correct? Beats me. The “American way” would be to go to court, but the courts have been historically loath to intervene in what they regard as purely political matters. How they would handle this matter, I don’t know.
By Kate, January 10, 2009 @ 9:25 am
Just one more comment after your update. This sentence from Rule II shows that this is not ironclad as Durbin states…
THE RECOMMENDED FORMS FOR CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION AND CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
So these forms are “recommended” not required.
By Mwalimu Daudi, January 10, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Yet another twist to this sordid story:
White is now claiming that he signed a document, but not the document Burris needs.
What I suspect that we have here is an effort to filibuster long enough for Blago to get removed from office and have Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (who would then become governor) appoint someone else. It’s sleazy, but this is the Obamanation. The Chicago Way is rapidly becoming the law of the land.