Home › Blogs › Warner Todd Huston's blog ›

Illinois GOP Wrong On Special Election to Fill Obama's Senate Seat

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 01:53
in

This is sure to be a provocative argument, but it looks like Illinois is stuck with Burris thanks to the incompetence of Illinois Democrats. -Patrick

Once it became known throughout the state that Governor Balgojevich was being entertained by the U.S. Attorney for his creative attempts to shore up his retirement plans and once it was realized that the Governor had yet to pick a replacement to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, the Illinois GOP latched on to the call for a special election as the solution for that issue.

Unfortunately, they're wrong.

Oh, don't get me wrong, it is definitely the only way a Republican could possibly be sent to Washington as our junior senator from Illinois. But special elections are not the constitutional way we fill a vacated senate seat. It just isn't.

Even Judicial Watch, normally a conservative watchdog group, knows it. They have today filed suit for Harry Reid to immediately seat Roland Burris, the governor's pick.

Regardless, Illinois State Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) is still demanding a multi-million dollar special election that the state can neither afford, nor can constitutionally justify.

"It's not about Roland Burris," Brady said. "It's not about anything other than a scandalous party whose governor has been arrested and continues to give him the power to make this appointment."

Senator Brady, I couldn't agree with your sentiment on that particular point more. We cannot trust this governor in any way. He has been a disaster since day one. We Illinoisans should not accept anything from this man. Guilty of what Fitzgerald has charged him with or not, Rod Blagojevich has thoroughly lost the confidence of every last citizen of Illinois except, perhaps, Mrs. Blagojevich. And even her loyalty might be questionable once Fitzgerald starts to use what he has on her to get cooperation.

But, Senator Brady, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot, as Republicans, claim we want to stand by the law and get rid of a purportedly lawbreaking governor, and at the same time propose obviating our own constitutionally mandated process to fill a senate seat.

The Illinois Constitution clearly states that it will be the governor's duty to fill a vacated senate seat. The constitution does not make provisions for a special election.

If you want a different process to prevail, you will have to change the constitution.

Let us not claim to be the more law abiding party and at the same time offer solutions that break that very law.

Yes it will mean that this time we will certainly get a Democrat replacement for Barack Obama. But principle is principle and the law is the law. It isn't convenient for us to abide by the constitution. But it is the right thing.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Burris

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 13:36.

Illinois had the opportunity to change the law last month.  They failed to seize the opportunity.  Their fault.

That said, let's recruit Roskam (or Mike Ditka) to run against Burris in 2010.

Love the idea of Mike Ditka...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 14:41.

...or Senator Mike Ditka R-Ilinois. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. DD

RE: Your view on Burris

Submitted by right-andcenter on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 14:07.

I respectfully disagree with your view on the propriety of a special election to fill the Obama/Burris seat:

"But special elections are not the constitutional way we fill a vacated senate seat. It just isn't."

The 17th Amendment to the (U.S.) Constitution should be considered the highest authority on this, and clause 2 of said amendment states that "when vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do read this as putting the legislature in the drivers' seat, why can they not schedule an election?

You are

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 01:41.

You are confusing what constitution we are talking about. You DO know that states have constitutions, right?

17th Amendment

Submitted by Crow on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:28.

But the 17th Amendment controls the selection of senate replacements.  When Gov. Nelson Rockefeller appointed Charles Goodell to fill Robert Kennedy's seat without calling a special election, the case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled for Rockefeller, but explicitly stated that their rulling should not serve as a precedent. So the exact procedure for selecting a US Senate replacement is constitutionally  up in the air.

Appoint an interim replacement & hold a special election as soon as possible.

As usual, with 1st & 10, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell's secret weapon, punted.  Reid deserves  vigorous primary & general election opposition in '10.

If Roland "Tombstone" Burris, with his children, Roland & Rolanda, were white, he would be the butt  of late-nite jokes.  As it is, he's just pathetic.  His seating is opposed  by most Illinoisans.

Justice & democracy would be served by an interim appointment by the Lt Gov followed by a forthwith special  election.

The US Constitution cannot,

Submitted by BulldogsRule on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:05.

The US Constitution cannot, and must not be allowed, to over ride the State Constitution. That is a particular slippery slope that no one should want to start down.

I see that as the proper stance

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 05:27.

Beat Burris in the general.

I don't see a 2yr appointment as a secure seat.

 

I'll admit, you surprised me WTH.  I'm quite pleased to see you take a principled position. 

??

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 05:30.

What would make you think otherwise?

;)

WTH, do you think...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 14:31.

...that Burris, spurned by his own democrat party, might be "befriended" by some of the GOP senators and crossover on crucial votes?  Maybe become a blue dog?  You know democrats are all about "payback".  Even amongst themselves.   Or is he way too radical to the left for that?  

I agree, let the Ill. democrats stew in their own juices.  And that includes  PE Barry O.  DD

Not a Chance

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 15:29.

Burris is a longtime partisan hack.  Any chance he can get re-elected means sticking as close to the Democrat Party leadership as he possibly can.

I agree

Submitted by Chance_Haywood on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 16:26.

Regardless of how ill it might make us by the governor's choice the law should be respected. Besides Burris has demonstrated he is weak candidate repeatedly. If he makes it out of the primary two years from now he is the sort of incumbant that can be taken down.

It is this attitude that costs us elections

Submitted by BulldogsRule on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:09.

This seemingly easy to beat Burris attitude. Until we Republicans start listening to what people really want and then run candidates that can full fill those wishes, we are doomed to continue to wander here folks.

Thinking it will be easy to beat a 2 year incumbent is your first mistake. Thinking he will be wasy is your second.

Burris

Submitted by Crow on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:38.

Bulldog,

That was one of my implict points.  If you have the right product, people will beat a path to your door [Capitalism 101.]

Why do so many Republicans want to seat this jackass?  

 

We the People, or we the Govenor ?

Submitted by 4speed on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:17.

It may be the Law, but there is a principle here, that the Senator from illinois represent the People of Illinois.  There can be a special election if called for, and it would certainly be the 2nd option, not the First choice option of the Law and the Democrats in charge.

There needs to be a better option, and elections of representatives sent to DC,  is what it is all about.  2nd option or not, the flaws of an appointed representative are staring us in the face.  It doesn't look legal, doesn't smell right, even if it is.

Yes, WTH, we do know states have their own constitutions, but...

Submitted by Xrlq on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:34.

Last time I checked, where a state constitution conflicts with its federal counterpart, the U.S. Constitution wins every time.  As right-andcenter rightly noted (only to have you dismiss his valid concern with a snippy and totally uncalled for "you DO know that states have constitutions, right?"), the 17th Amendment of the federal Constitution calls for special elections by default, subject only to the power of the legislature - not the governor, not the courts, not even the state constitution - to empower the governor to appoint the successor instead.  What the federal Constitution empowers the Legislature to giveth, it also empowers the Legislature to taketh away.  Any state law, including a state constitution, that purports to strip the Legislature of this power conferred by the federal Constitution is to that extent unconstitutional.  [And if the idea of the constitution being unconstitutional makes your head explode, just remember that we are talking about two constitutions, one of which enjoys  supremacy over the other.]

Your dubious constitutional arguments notwithstanding, it is true that a special election isn't the answer now, for the simple reason that it's too late.  Burris has already been appointed in accordance with existing law, so any legislative fix aimed at preventing his appointment will necessarily fail in that regard.  However, it's never too late (until it is) for the Legislature to act to prevent the next Rod Blagojevich (who, given IL's overall track record, will likely come sooner rather than later) from appointing the next Roland Burris.  If they also have the votes to clean up their own constitution and bring it in line with the federal one, so much the better.  But if they don't, a simple majority and the signature of the next governor will suffice.

Refreshing.

Submitted by jaydedman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 12:12.

Conservatives have a horrible reputation these days because of the policy "shortcuts" they take when they want something to happen. Latest example: http://bit.ly/zywm. If conservatives are going to win back hearts and minds, then do it by the book, openly, logically, and proudly.

Tiffany Jewellery is the best

Submitted by dizhi on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 22:02.

Tiffany Jewellery is the best online United Kingdom jewelry stores where you can buy the cheapest Tiffany & Co silver jewelry. Our huge selection of Tiffany provides the best Tiffany & Co jewelry, including Necklaces, Pendants, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings at the lowest prices. Tiffany co In 1950 Tiffany's had its biggest boost in popularity as Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's was published. Tiffany's was shot to worldwide fame in 1961 when the film adaptation staring Audrey Hepburn was released. This film and its star became icons, as did Tiffany's links of london Hundreds of links of london jewellery in stock,Free Gift Wrapping,Complete links of london jewellery collection,including links of london necklaces,links of london bracelets,links of london earrings.