Illinois Sec. of State Refuses To Approve Burris Appointment, But Admits He Really Can't Stop It
A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) confirmed to Election Central that White knows he does not truly have the authority to stop the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, but he withheld his signature from it earlier today in order to make a statement. But the door does appear to be open to some legal ramifications.
"His feeling is we studied the constitution of Illinois, we looked at the statutes, and there was nothing there that said he had to sign the paperwork," said David Druker, White's press secretary.
"We don't believe he has the authority to hold up the appointment or veto it, to put it that way," Druker added. "How the U.S. Senate views the action, that would be for the U.S. Senate to determine."
As for whether the lack of a signature on Burris' certificate of appointment would be a real basis for the Senate to hold an investigation and delay seating Burris, Druker said he was deferring any of those legal questions to the Senate itself.
Late Update: Reid spokesman Jim Manley just told Election Central in an e-mail: "Yes- the lack of a signature from the secretary of state may be a separate ground on which we could refuse to seat."
So even though White's office says Blagojevich can go around them under state law, it should be pretty clear by now what he's doing.
If the Secretary of State doesn't sign the appointment than the U.S. Senate CAN affectively BLOCK IT because under their rules they require the signature of the Secretary of State of the individual states to sign.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/31/1728774.aspx
"While reports maintain that the signature may not be required under the rules and regulations of Illinois, the U.S. Senate rules do appear to require such a mark. So if the secretary of state follows through on his threat and refuses to sign and certify the appointment, this rule may come into play...
See section No. 2 below, from the Rules of the Senate, available at Senate.gov:...
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."
December 31, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying a record has to be made of what is written on the certificate does NOT mean the certificate is invalid if there are blanks on the certificate.
RE "The Secretary shall keep a record of ...the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing."
In this case the record would say, "Governor who signed: Rod Blagojevich, Secretary of State who signed: none."
December 31, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senate Democrats should form a committee to study this very important matter. The committee members should be chosen very carefully on such an important matter, one wouldn't want to rush into it. As soon as the procedure for selecting the committee is established, which in itself is an important consideration, the committee selection process should begin with all due haste. Of course, deciding on the procedure must be reconciled with other important Senate duties. So I'm not holding my breath for Sen. Cemetary's swearing in ceremony, not anytime soon.
December 31, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the secretary of state has refused to sign the certificate and the secretary of senate won't acknowledge it because of that indicates contempt of the law:
"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."
This law does not give the secretary of state nor secretary of senate the power and authority of judgement to use to "ok" an appointee given by the govern. The secretary of states job is to simply give notary of the governs appointment;thereby creating a record of entry and certifying in the execution of the creation of that record, the governs appointment, as being official.
Both of these so-called officials are themselves in contempt of the law as well as acting in subordinate to a higher office. They should be removed from their seats for not complying with the tasks and duties as required by their jobs.
Burris should really began to look into a civil suit againt the secretary of state and the secretary of senate for misuse of power in halting the of the senate ruling as appointed by active Governor. Blago has not been indicted yet. So his rulings and appointments are still - technically - valid. Where in the constitution does it support halting an appointment when an officer is under investigation?
January 6, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the secretary of state has refused to sign the certificate and the secretary of senate won't acknowledge it because of that indicates contempt of the law:
"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."
This law does not give the secretary of state nor secretary of senate the power and authority of judgement to use to "ok" an appointee given by the govern. The secretary of states job is to simply give notary of the governs appointment;thereby creating a record of entry and certifying in the execution of the creation of that record, the governs appointment, as being official.
Both of these so-called officials are themselves in contempt of the law as well as acting in subordinate to a higher office. They should be removed from their seats for not complying with the tasks and duties as required by their jobs.
Burris should really began to look into a civil suit againt the secretary of state and the secretary of senate for misuse of power in halting the of the senate ruling as appointed by active Governor. Blago has not been indicted yet. So his rulings and appointments are still - technically - valid. Where in the constitution does it support halting an appointment when an officer is under investigation?
January 6, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the secretary of state has refused to sign the certificate and the secretary of senate won't acknowledge it because of that indicates contempt of the law:
"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."
This law does not give the secretary of state nor secretary of senate the power and authority of judgement to use to "ok" an appointee given by the govern. The secretary of states job is to simply give notary of the governs appointment;thereby creating a record of entry and certifying in the execution of the creation of that record, the governs appointment, as being official.
Both of these so-called officials are themselves in contempt of the law as well as acting in subordinate to a higher office. They should be removed from their seats for not complying with the tasks and duties as required by their jobs.
Burris should really began to look into a civil suit againt the secretary of state and the secretary of senate for misuse of power in halting the of the senate ruling as appointed by active Governor. Blago has not been indicted yet. So his rulings and appointments are still - technically - valid. Where in the constitution does it support halting an appointment when an officer is under investigation?
January 6, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No the paper says that there has to be an actual SIGNATURE.
December 31, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the important question is, does withholding the signature DELAY the appointment, even if it doesn't stop it?
December 31, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's moot now, but would Obama have been better off not resigning his Senate seat until January 20?
December 31, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "would have, could have, should have" game is moot and isn't worth playing. Anyone can play that game all day long but nothing would have been changed.
December 31, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but P-E Obama wasn't aware that Governor Blagojevich was trying to sell his seat. He was resigning early to give the Governor enough time to make an appointment.
Everyone in Illinois has known for years that the Governor has been under investigation (that was the primary point of the Rezko trial), but there was no hint that he would be stupid enough to blatantly sell a Senate seat.
December 31, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wondering why no one asked Burris on the Today Show,this Wednesday morning, what he paid for the appointment, even if it wasn't anything, the question should have been asked.
December 31, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fighting this appointment is pure silliness. It is a legitimate appointment and the candidate is clearly qualified and untainted by Blago's legal mess.
Illinois deserves a Senator and the governor fulfilled his duty. The law is the law just because we don't like Blago doesn't mean he isn't still governor of Illinois. The legislature and the federal prosecutor are responsible for him still having this authority. Burris should not be punished because of Rod's wrongdoing.
December 31, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that the Senate Dems don't want to be known as the "Blago Dems". I think they would rather be Dem seat down than have any possible taint associated with the 111th Congress.
December 31, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> Burris should not be punished because of Rod's wrongdoing.
Burris is not being punished by the senate. Blago is punishing him by making a fool of him. He's getting what he deserves.
December 31, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris isn't qualified. He was a do-nothing state official who got his job/party support as a member of the black caucus of the Illinois Dem machine). Sleaze. (vide Bobby Rush's presence at the Blago press conference; Obama's only political misstep so far was running against Rush and bucking the local machine too soon, and Rush has never forgiven him -- I haven't had an effective House Representative since Bobby was elected 20 (?) years ago)
Now this doesn't make Burris less qualified than other sitting Senators, but jeez, we in IL were hoping for a true Obama-caliber appointment! Blago doesn't represent Democrary, he represents Corruption. Please tell your Senators to oppose Roland Burris' appointment.
January 1, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we get Marbury v. Madison....
Well, this whole Blago scandal is turning into a Con Law I review course.
December 31, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we get Marbury v. Madison....
Well, this whole Blago scandal is turning into a Con Law I review course.
December 31, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris has already gone to Illinois courts to get White to sign. The courts will probably issue a writ of mandamus ordering White to do that. If he doesn't sign after receiving the writ, he might be in contempt of court, and probably would not want to be in that position. Also, with the Adam Clayton Powell case as precedent, Burris might just end up being seated in the Senate. The people of Illinois have a Governor who places himself above the people. Since he probably will never resign, the Assembly of Illinois needs to get moving on impeachment. Meanwhile, Burris might just get to have another "achievement" etched onto his tomb.
Listening to Burris at the press conference, I felt that he is getting to be like many of my friends: He is becoming senile at age 71. A sad ending to what had been at one time a glorious career.
Aging Reader
December 31, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats can give Joe Lieberman the chair of a committee for which he has not held even one hearing on anything of substance, and after he openly campaigned for John McCain, I say there is no good reason not to seat Burris. Keeping this going only benefits the GOP in the long run. Seat him and let's move on. Odds are he won't win the election in 2010 anyway. The Senate cannot constitutionally refuse to seat him, without invoking the "we decide who gets in and who doesn't" clause. The people of Illinois elected Blagojevich, the 17th amendment gives him the right, and Illinois law gives him the duty, to appoint a replacement, so until he is out of office there is no legal way to stop this, other than have the US Senate substitute their judgment for the judgment of the people of Illinois. Is that really a road the Democrats want to go down?
December 31, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget that these attempts to thwart a legitimate appointment by the governor may also be violations of the Voting Rights Act. Someone needs to ask Senator Reid about his take on the Reed Smoot hearings.
January 1, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there something in the law about "innocent until thrown out of office"?
This Blago/Burris/US Senate fiasco will prove once again that the Democrats can always find a way to screw things up.
No situation is safe. The Dems not only take the wrong track, they make sure to make lots of noise so that everyone can see their blundering incompetence.
January 1, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's review - Blagojevich IS the Governor and he appointed a candidate who is qualified according to the US Constitution.
Yet Democratic Senators are threatening to make up new rules to block the new Senator. AND the Secretary of State is refusing to perform his job with NO legal justification whatsoever.
Finally, the prosecutor asks for an extension to get an indictment. The implication is that he is making it up as he goes along and acted prematurely for some reason.
I'll stick with a legal governor appointing a respected man who is qualified for the office. Anything else is not the Democracy I believe in.
January 1, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feeling is that there would hopefully be some sort of code of professional responsibility-type provision for State officials in Illinois that would declare Blago to be hopelessly conflicted out of making this appointment and require him to properly recuse himself.
If that were the case, Secretary White might justifiably (and lawfully) refuse to countersign the certificate on ethical grounds based on the manifest impropriety of Blago's action. It is important that part of the criminality of which Gov. Blagojevich is accused relates to the very Senate seat involved here.
Mandamus exists to compel a public official to perform a duty which he/she is required by law to perform--in this case countersigning the appointment certificate.
If, by making this appointment, the governor has violated some ethical prohibition regarding conflicts of interest for elected officials in Illinois, Sec. White would have no "duty" to validate the improper act by countersigning the appointment.
Failing that, it is also possible that Burris would have no legal standing in mandamus to compel White to countersign the appointment certificate; because the duty to do so--if it really is a ministerial duty--is not owed to Burris himself, but to Blago as the Governor or to the Clerk of the Senate rather than the appointee.
January 1, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aging Reader, Burris' career has been an exercise in mediocrity, not glory.
He has now revealed himself as an unprincipled hack who serves no cause greater than his own ambition. So it's hard to argue that he's not "qualified" to join the U.S. Senate, where unprincipled hack-dom is the norm, not the exception.
While the Republicans are *singing* about "magic negroes," leave it to Blago to find a living, breathing one.
January 1, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blago is just so Mavericky. Penache. He and Palin would make ideal running mates.
January 2, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink