It did not take long for all parties in the Roland Burris conflict to reveal their intentions, removing all doubt that the situation could soon get very ugly.
In a defiant press conference, Burris confirmed Democrats’ fear by refusing to rule out a run in 2010. Then, Governor Rod Blagojevich and Rep. Bobby Rush explicitly used Burris’s race as a threat to Senate Democrats.
Rush, who defeated Barack Obama in a House primary in 2000, called on the Senate “not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointor.” He added that, “There are no African-Americans in the Senate and I don’t think anyone — any U. S. Senator that’s sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.”
In a strikingly similar statement that left no doubt that the use of such racially charged language was deliberate, Blagojevich added: “Feel free to castigate the appointor but don’t lynch the appointor.”
The surprising speed which Blagojevich and Rush have brought up Burris’s race Senate Democrats could face political problems if they try to deny Burris a seat. The Congressional Black Caucus’s reaction could be crucial in Burris’s face, and Rep. Danny Davis joined Bobby Rush in supporting Blagojevich’s choice. That is a particularly important development considering Davis was also mentioned as a contender for Obama’s seat.
On the other hand, Obama’s decision to quickly release a statement supporting a Senate efforts not to accept Blagojevich’s appointment will strengthen Harry Reid’s hand.
—
Reid was not distracted by Blagojevich’s maneuvers, however, and he immediately released a statement announcing his opposition to the appointment:
It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat…
As we have said, [Burris] will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus… We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand.
A forceful statement, but does Reid stops short of promising to block Burris? It is somewhat ambiguous what Reid means by “will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.” It is not up to the Democratic Caucus to take the decision, but to the full Senate; so could Reid be just pledging to not accept Burris in the caucus? Perhaps this is reading too much between the line, but Reid might need an escape route down the line.
Raymond Burris has already said he would seek a legal remedy if the Senate refuses to seat him.
—
The most dramatic response to Blagojevich’s move belongs to Secretary of State Jesse White, who announced that he would not certify Burris’s appointment as the law requires him to:
As I have previously stated publicly, I cannot co-sign a document that certifies any appointment by Rod Blagojevich for the vacant United State Senate seat from Illinois.
Yet, it is unclear whether the Secretary of State has the power to block a Governor’s appointment. As defined by state law, the certification function appears to be little more than a procedural step. Just like Lisa Madigan’s mid-December attempt to unseat Blagojevich and Harry Reid’s promise to block Burris’s seating, White’s statement might be more about posturing than anything that is legally feasible.
In fact, White’s office has already partially acknowledged that it is not sure it has the power to slow down Blagojevich’s appointment, calling his position more of a “moral” stance.
All of this said, Blagojevich has a point in arguing that he had suggested that he supported a bill to call a special election, and it is Democrats in the state legislature that backed off plans to strip him of his appointment powers. Since he remains the Governor (and faces no immediate threat of being incapacitated), Blagojevich is simply exercising his prerogative, and it is somewhat hypocritical for Illinois Democrats to denounce him when they had ample time to pass a bill requiring a special election.
—
And here’s one last question to make matters more complicated: What happens if Burris drags the Senate to court for refusing to seat him (a suit he should win based on precedent) but the Illinois state legislature impeaches Blagojevich and elevates Pat Quinn as Governor before the court renders its decision? (In fact, this scenario appears quasi-certain since an appeal would be almost certain.) Could Pat Quinn cancel Blagojevich’s decision and appoint a new Senator since Burris would not yet be seated?
Would that depend on whether White has certified the appointment? Even if White has no legal right not to sign the document, could he delay legal proceedings long enough for the legislature to impeach Blagojevich?
That last question is the one that interests me the most. There is a good chance that by next week Blagojevich will be indicted, as the 30 day time frame from the original arrest is coming Jan. 9th. If this happens the pressure on Blogo to quit will be huge.
Assume he does and Quinn is his replacement. He could then,in theory name the Senator. We could then have two appointments and if the Quinn appointment is not black there would be hell to pay.
Whatever happens Obama should stay as far away as possible from it.
The amount of race baiting by some black politicians and Blagovich is rather appalling. Certainly it would be rather embarssing for the Senate (especially the Democrats) to refuse the only black member of the chamber, but it would be even worse for Democrats to allow him to stay, if not for Democrats nationally, than at least (and especially) in Illnois. That Obama is against Burris filling his seat does give Reid some valuable cover, and I think that any political damage in terms of loss black support will be minimal. For one, it is primarly African American Elites (i.e. some members of the Congressional Black) and they probably have limited influence in effectively punishing the Democrats, especially when the new Senator would be appointed by a corrupt Governor. It is hard to see Bobby Rush or anyone else act against many pieces of Obama’s agenda as retailation because alot of what Obama wants to do will will help the Black community alot. More importantly, the African American masses (myself included) will probably not feel like retailation because of the specfic situation this is.
One thing that is clear, and one thing Taniel will probably need to do in his next Senate rankings, is that this appointment makes Illnois the Democratic seat most vulernable to take over. Democrats had been pushing against a special election, but because of the appointment there is little chance that they can avoid one now. Of course, even if there is no special election, the taint of Blagoveich will likely induce Republican Mark Kirk to run. In my opinion, he is not only the strongest Republican, but he is strong enough to make the Illnois senate race a toss-up (with perhaps an exception for the Illnois attorny general Lisa Madegin, in which the race would probably lean Democrat) no matter if it was a 2009 special election or the regular 2010 election. The issue was that he would be less likely to run as a non-incumbent in 2010 than in 2009. These events mean that he is all but certain to run in a 2009 special election and is probably more willing to give up his house seat for a 2010 run because of the taint that Blagoveich has.
All an all, this will be a massive distraction for Democrats who prefer to work on the massive stimulas package that everyone is talking about.
The problem for Kirk is that his House seat would be almost certain to go to Democrats without him running.
Ron,It is true that if Kirk gave up his House Seat that Democrats would be overwhelmingly favored to take it. On the other hand, Kirk, as well as the National and Illnois GOP, probably prefer the idea of taking a Senate seat from Democracts, and the symoblic value of taking President Obama’s Senate seat is very appealing. In the next election cycle Senate Republican’s have little focual points for offense: Illnois would be an opportuinty that they likely wouldn’t get again in long time.
Losing a House seat out of 435 in comparision is probably a minor loss, especially with Illinois GOP still being pretty weak everywhere in the state, let along the Chicago suburbs where Kirk’s seat is. The main issue would for Kirk: would he be willing to risk losing a house seat that is pretty safe for him for a chance of moving up to the upper chamber? If their is a special election for the Senate seat in 2009, then Kirk wouldn’t have to retire from the house to run in the Senate, and if he did win, the GOP would be more than happy with losing Il-10 as a result. The real issue is that if there is no 2009 special election, will Kirk run in 2010? Because you then have the possiblilty of the GOP losing both Il-10 and the Senate seat.
As bad as it may be for Illinois Democrats, it is still a strong Democratic state with a bench that is much deeper if not much stronger than the GOP. Any Republican other than Kirk would running for the Senate would have a disadvantage, despite the Blagoveich thing. Roskam would number be number 2: he won big in his district (Il-06) despite Obama carrying it by double digits, and of course he narrowly defeated Ducksworth in 2006 in what was one of most watched races of that cycle. However Roskam is a relative political novice and it’s important to note that his district actually leaned slightly Republican in 2000 and 2004, while Kirk’s district has generally leaned Democrat, including out of state nominee’s like John Kerry. He would probably outright struggle against Lisa Madegien and would probably be behind all the other Democrats in mid single digits (with the exception of course Burris as the nominee).
There aren’t really anyone else the GOP has to offer that could be competive in a statewide race against a anti-Blagoevich, clean Democrat.
Interesting scenarios presented, but, in the absence of proof of specific illegality by Burris, I see no reason why the Senate should not seat him. He’s entitled to be judged on his own merits (just like any other Senate appointee in any other state and whether the appointer is a Democrat or a Republican). He’s obviously just going to be a placeholder until the next election, whether that election is held in 2009 or 2010. There’s no way he’d be elected then. It’s not like he’d be getting the appointment to a guaranteed lifetime job.