In a surprise and somewhat mind-boggling move, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is set to announce that he is appointing Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat.
Just two weeks ago, Blagojevich’s attorney had said that the embattled governor would not seek to fill the seat. State Democrats then backed away from passing a bill stripping the governor of his appointment powers, thinking they were safe enough from a Blago appointment to not have to take the risk of calling a special election.
Well, Democrats will now have to deal with a very messy situation.
Majority Leader Harry Reid had clearly stated earlier this month that the Senate would refuse to seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich, but will they now follow up on that threat?
Blagojevich made sure to select someone involved in no scandal despite being a veteran of Illinois politics. In fact, Burris is the first African-American to have been elected statewide in Illinois (back in 1978) - a fact that makes it symbolically difficult for the Senate to refuse to seat him when there is currently zero black Senator.
Another fact that will make it difficult for Democrats to oppose Burris: After serving as the state’s Comptroller and Attorney General, Burris ran against Blagojevich in the 2002 gubernatorial primary; he earned the endorsement of then-state Senator Barack Obama.
Worst still, the Senate might not even have the power to refuse to seat Burris as the Democratic leadership was implying it would do. First Read explains that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling held that the Senate cannot judge someone’s qualifications besides the constitutional requirements (age, citizenship); the Senate can also judge the legality of an election or an appointment, but there is no doubt that Blagojevich is legally entitled to appoint Burris.
Though there might be some loophole for Democrats to exploit, the issue would likely have to be litigated in court and there could be a complex legal battle if Senators do attempt to block his seating.
Another solution would be for the Senate to seat Burris and then expel him, a move that would be perfectly legal but certainly embarrassing to pull off politically. It can set a dangerous precedent for Senators to expel a member who has not been convicted of any crime, not to mention the awful symbol of 99 Senators throwing one their one and only African-American colleague.
So can Democrats just let Burris be? The problem is that the former Attorney General is now tainted by this appointment. It is hard to describe him as “clean” when The Chicago Tribune reports that he increased his lobbying efforts to win the seat after the Blagojevich scandal broke in early December!
Remember that Blago is being accused of trying to sell this Senate seat against political or financial favors, so what does it say about Burris that he campaigned for and obtained the position? What did Burris promise Blagojevich in return?
Fairly or unfairly, this question is sure to haunt Burris in the weeks ahead, and it certainly will put Democrats in a very awkward position if Burris actually becomes Senator - and even more so if Burris seeks re-election in 2010.
And that is what is particularly disastrous for Democrats: It looks like Burris intends to run for a full term in two years. He had been talking up his electability recently, pointing out that he has never lost a race against a Republican. That suggests that he has no intention of being a caretaker and Democrats could have to deal with Blago’s taint being on the 2010 ballot.
Burris would undoubtedly face a competitive primary, but Republicans can at least celebrate that they still have a chance to face-off against a Blagojevich appointee in the 2010 general election.
I don’t think the sky is quite falling yet on the Illinois Dems. In two years, I have the impression nobody, but nobody, will care one iota about the circumstances of Mr. Burris appointment. In politics, two years is a very long time. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the unflappable Mr. Fitzpatrick has not shot himself on the foot, by bringing forward an ill timed and possibly impossible to prove case. While the sale of the senate seat was the highlight of his criminal complain, it seems that charge is the one he might not be able to prove in court. Quite a few accomplished legal minds are looking at this and shaking their heads. After the drama of the original press conference and the introduction of the criminal complain, it is quite interesting, that no conversation have surface in which the governor incriminate himself. For a DA that is perfectly comfortable using the “appropriate leak” to buster his cases, this is really remarkable. Something is not quite right. The senate will seat this guy Burris. The GOP will attempt to demonize him. But will the people in Illinois be paying attention to any of this? I just have the feeling that they have more pressing issues at hand now.
If Obama, Jackson, Rush and the other African-Americans Illinois politicians denounce this pick, then I see no reason for the Senate to hesitate to expel him.
And I agree that as long as the election is held in 2010, this whole spectacle will be just a distant memory by then in voters’ minds.
Robert V - in one sense it does not matter if the selling of the senate seat is thrown out in court because the people of Illinois and the US will not vote for Blago in any position ever again. So his career is over regardless of the law and how fair that judgement is.
Also it is very clear Blago is corrupt and the senate seat was just the latest of his schemes. The tapes are pretty clear that he was looking to sell it - open and shut case. Only technicalities will save him now and those will bring the law into disrepute.
He has no political sense or sense of loyalty to the Democratic party with this latest move.
This “appointment” may have just gift-wrapped this Senate seat for Mark Kirk or another GOP member in 2010. If I lived in Illinois, I would be absolutely furious with this appointment in many different ways. Burris appeared almost flippant about the ethical implications of his appointment.
I just don’t know what to make of this appointment. I just don’t believe that Burris is the person who should hold this seat for the next 2 years.
It looks like your article ,”The Years Biggest Shockers”, needs an update.
Since the gutless Ill. Dems wouldn’t call for a special election they deserve this mess.
Question: can the Illinois Democrats call a special election?
MSW, yes the Dems can vote for one as they control both state houses and all state-wide offices.