« The Two Lame Ducks Who Didn't Vote To Impeach | Home | Sleeper Bill of the Month: Our Own Truth & Reconciliation Commission »
Illinois Supremes: Burris Doesn't Need Sec. of State Signature
The Illinois Supreme Court has just handed down its decision on Roland Burris' lawsuit to force Secretary of State Jesse White to sign Burris' certificate of appointment to the Senate. Their decision is that they won't honor Burris' wish to force the signature -- because they say he doesn't need it:
...Petitioners are not entitled to an order from this court requiring the Secretary to perform those Acts. Under the Secretary of State Act, the Secretary's sole responsibility was to register the appointment (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), which he did. No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor's appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law.
Remember that the Senate chose to make an issue of the lack of a signature in their decision to turn Burris away this past Tuesday. Had the court ordered the signature, then this mess would have been over. But what it means now is that the ball has been kicked right back into the Senate's court, which is on its way to seating Burris anyway -- after all, as the court and many others have pointed out, this appointment is clearly legal.
Advertisement
Is there anything in this decision that would open the door to seat Franken without looking hypocritical, e.g.: a provision in MN law that say all SOS has to do is file the election results to qualify Franken regardless of an actual certificate?
January 9, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been a hundred plus posts or more on this. Franken isn't certified under minnesota law until the legal challenges are exhausted. In effect, there is no "appointment" by the governor, the governor cannot sign, until the challenges are over. It will only be 30 to 60 days in any event.
Based on all these posts where everyone is so hot for the stand up to be in the senate yesterday, I sure hope he does a bang up job, or he will leave alot of people majorly disappointed. He sure doesn't command respect or exhude confidence with his presence or his oratorical skills, so I don't know why everyone is so excited anyway.
January 9, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Franken had the #1 show on "Air America Radio," and so he does have oratorical skills.
January 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I beg to differ on that one. Have you seen any of the pressers that he has done or his interviews or his speeches? From what little I have seen, it was really bad. Also, air america is, or was, bk, so that isn't saying much.
January 9, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
MichaelA:
Your statement:
"Franken isn't certified under minnesota law until the legal challenges are exhausted." is incorrect.
Illinois law prohibits certification as long as there is a legal challenge - not until the legal challenges are exhausted.
If the courts decide in favor of Frankin and Frankin can get certified before an additional "legal challenge" is made, he is home free whether or not there is a subsequent legal challenge.
Quite a difference from stating "...until the legal challenges are exhausted.
My read on this is that Coleman will continue to file challenges, or have other people file challenges for him until the courts rule that challenges will no longer be accepted.
January 9, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having met Al on two occasions, I would say that he has a personal magnetisim that exceeds his rather serious, and halting, political tone.
He is not slick. He is, however, extremely intellegent and well prepared. Faulting him for not being a great pol. speaker, while not off the mark, is simply not important.
This is a guy that will do well for Minn. and America, and I look forward to him being seated.
January 9, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I donated to Al Franken and voted for him, but I don't want him seated yet.
Let Norm Coleman present his case without it being prejudiced by the seating of Al Franken.
If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't want Coleman seated while Franken had a lawsuit over the election.
Similarly, I was against the seating of Congressman Vern Buchanan (R-FL) while Christine Jennings (D-FL) had a lawsuit over the election. That prejudiced her lawsuit.
January 9, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Illinois Supreme Court decision goes still further. At the end it says that while there is no need for the Secretary of State to sign the certificate, if Burris is prepared to pay the regular fee for a COPY of a record, same as for a birth certificate, he can get that copy together with the secretary of state's aignature and seal that the record is authentic. Point, game, and match. End of story.
Harry Reid is SUCH an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. If he had any integrity, he would step down as chief Republican enabler -- four years is more than long enough. On the other hand, if he had any integrity, he wouldn't be the chief Republican enabler and wouldn't have any cause to step down.
January 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
After Burris poor showing at the Illinois House committee yesterday, where he stood silent on accepting big bucks for his "campaign", I believe he'll fit right in with the ethically challenged Senate
January 9, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's nice and all, but the IL Supreme Court's dictates are not binding upon the U.S. Senate. The Senate makes its own rules and if they require SoS signature, there is nothing that any state authority can say about it. I think that the Senate is going to use this as cover to seat Burris, but they are by no means required to.
January 9, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would disagree.
The U.S. Senate makes its own rules for internal affairs. Quite true.
But each state has its own laws for appointing replacement Senators, and the U.S. Senate - as we are seeing (and as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Adam Clayton Powell) - has no say in who or how an appointment has been made. They have to suck it up, because this is not an issue within the Senate. The STATE has jurisdiction.
A hypothetical: If a state with the provision that the legislature elects the replacement, if some legislators were suspected (but not yet proven) of having taken bribes to vote for candidates who did not win the seat/i>, would the argument be made that the Senator should not be seated?
Yes, of course, the argument would be MADE. But would it win the day? No.
Would the Senate capitulate in the end? Of course. They don't have the jurisdiction/authority. That is reserved for the States. That is the way the law exists, so they have no choice.
We ARE a nation of laws. This ruling supports that contention and gives hope for other laws to also be applied (hint, hint...)
.
January 10, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US Senate form Blago used to make the appointment is just a recommended form. It didn't require the SoS to sign it to be made official for the Senate but some states I guess require the SoS to sign and stamp it to pass muster on their end. Not so Illinois. This is the outcome Lisa Madigan the IL AG was looking for.
I guess Reid could say Blago screwed up. He didn't delete the SoS signature line or get the SoS to agree to sign first before printing up the form so they won't accept it. Or he could just stall and say he's still studying his options, legal opinions etc., until the IL Senate removes Blago from office which looks like it might come as early as next week the way things are moving.
I'm not sure Quinn can rescind the appointment but if he can and he appoints Danny Davis who at least had the good sense to tell Blago "get away from me" when he approached him first this just might blow over quickly.
January 9, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
IL law doesn't apply to MN unless we invade and make them our subjects magster. Frankly warfare in winter sucks and I suspect those damn Vikings up there would be better at anyway. Wouldn't put it past Blago to try though. He's gotta a screwy concept of "all publicity is good publicity".
January 9, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bring it on, markg8! First you'd have to cross Wisconsin and/or Iowa. If you did that without getting too drunk and stoned, you'd find all of us Minnesotans pretending you're not here. You'd freeze to death in a week and we'd send you home in our casino buses.
Canada won't provide you bases; we let their comedians cross the border and work here tax free. There's a shortage of humor up here, Al notwhithstanding.
Your governor is a bigger crook, but ours more crazy and stupid.
Minnesota. Come for the war. Stay for the ice fishing.
January 9, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right MotoCrat. I've never made it past Madison without getting a crushing hangover. For some reason they greet us FIPs (fucking Illinois people) as liberators in Cheeseheadland. Probably because we seem to be the only ones in the bar with more than $20 in our pockets.
Nonetheless at Norm's website I learned the Red Bull Division of the MN Nat'l Guard is being deployed to one of Bush's never ending wars. Watch your back, I hear Iowa is mobilizing at the border.
January 9, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric Jaffa: Air America the #1 show? I don't know about the rest of America but here in NYC it tanked and was at the bottom of the Arbitron ratings.
January 9, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that Al Franken's show on "Air America" was the #1 show they produced.
Whether "Air America" got good ratings compared to other radio stations is a different issue.
January 9, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Illinois Supreme Court decision makes Reid look like a flaming incompetent.
He should have had the political savvy to recognize that this would be the end result of the flap over seating Burris and never should have stated that the Senate will not seat him.
It is difficult to determine which is the most incompetent - Reid or Pelosi. Both are running hard for that "honor".
January 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is NOT incompetence.
They HAD TO take a position opposing corruption such as Blago represented. They HAD TO posture. If they had not, they would have been slammed right and left as supporters of corruption.
Even before they had their spleens vented, they KNEW they would have to let Burris in. Eventually.
But they HAD TO make a big production out of it all. Having stated their utter contempt for Blago (along with pretty much every sentient creature this side of the Andromeda galaxy), they could then say, "Well, dammit! We WANT to block Burris, but this damned law says we can't! And being a nation of laws, we have to abide by them."
It is all play acting, puffing out their chests and looking squeaky clean. I assure you, had they not, Obama's programs would have been tainted, because the right would be claiming "Those crooked Democrats welcomed with open arms that scumbag from Illinois! Everything they did is illegitimate!"
Reid took that air out of their balloon, even before they got to float it.
Now, they can let Burris in and get on with passing legislation with all the bile aimed at Blago.
I don't hear any clamor from the right about those crooked Democrats, do you? One crook, yes. A whole Senate full of them? Nope.
January 10, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink