Blagojevich's Selection of Roland Burris May Be Hard to Undo
By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
As a New Year's gift to the Democratic Party, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has appointed former state Attorney General and Comptroller Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate—although Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White says he won't sign the certificate of appointment. Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, have said they wouldn't seat anyone Blagojevich appoints. But as I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the House of Representatives couldn't bar Rep. Adam Clayton Powell from being seated. The reasoning was that Powell had been elected according to law and must be allowed to take his seat, even though under the Constitution there was no doubt that the House could vote, once he was seated, to expel him for misconduct. Is the Senate bound by different rules?
Unless it maintains somehow that a Burris appointment isn't legal without a certificate from the Illinois secretary of state, it seems to me the Senate has no argument that Burris has been selected illegally. He was not named in the charges against Blagojevich made by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, nor does he seem to fit the profile of any of the candidates Fitzgerald mentioned. And he does meet the basic standards for a U.S. senator. He has been elected to and served in Illinois statewide office without scandal. If the Senate refuses to seat Burris, presumably he can bring a suit based on the Adam Clayton Powell precedent. This would guarantee that the issue of who is the junior senator from Illinois would remain open for months or even years. And if the Senate votes to seat Burris but then decides to expel him, what grounds will it have? There is no allegation that Burris has done anything wrong, and his record argues to the contrary. Plus, he is African-American, unlike any current member of the Senate. Do Senate Democrats really want to expel him?
Contrafactual experiment: If Fitzgerald had not arrested Blagojevich and held his December 9 press conference, Blagojevich's appointment of Burris would have gone unnoticed and would have been almost entirely uncontroversial. Obama insiders would not have been greatly pleased but would have uttered no word of complaint. Senate Democrats would have routinely accepted Burris as a colleague. Republicans would have wondered whether they would have any chance of defeating Burris, who would then be 73, when the seat comes up again in 2010. Quite a different tableau from today's.
For particularly pungent commentary, see the Chicago Tribune's John Kass. Also see this column from Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times.
- Read more about Rod Blagojevich.
- Read more by Michael Barone.
Tags: Illinois | Rod Blagojevich
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (6) | Print
Reader Comments
Political Posturing, Blagojevich
The appointment of Roland Burris by Blagojevich is his way of getting someone he chose for the Senate to get an absolute seat. Mr. Burris is an African American, by all accounts may be absolutely qualified for the seat, but Blagojevich knew his appointment would be rejected; this way if the Senate doesn't approve him there would be an outcry from African American leaders and the like to force the Senate to accept him regardless. Political Posturing at its most toxic.
Mary Ann Arlotta
Nyack, NY 10960
BLAGO / OBAMA BLINKS
IT'S A NATION OF LAWS -- fITZ MOVES TOO FAST -- OBAMA RUNS HIS MOUTH -- IL. POLS CAN'T COORDINATE --- NO INDICTMENT NO IMPEACHMENT --- SEAT BURRIS AND GET ABOUT SOLUTIONS FOR OUR VERY REAL PROBLEMS, SHUT UP REID.!.
Probably is the best that Illinois can offer. The Senate can't refuse to accept Burris, no more than the Ill Secy of State can refuse to record his appointment. This is not a matter where the Ill Secy of State has any discretion, as he/she would if an election certification were at issue like in Minnesota. So the Senate will have to seat him, then it would require two thirds vote to expel Burris for his own, not Blago's, alleged misconduct, which is in the US Const. Article I sec. 5. I don't think the Senate would be able to round up the votes to expel Burris. The choice you would get from the Lt. Gov., were he elevated into the Governorship, would not be much better. And if the democraps are complaining, they only have themselves to blame. Blago told them to pass a law for special election, they refused. They could have passed a law changing how the vacancy was filled, instead the Ill Legislature squabbled and dawdled, giving Blago the last laugh.
advertisement
