Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » AG Madigan: Legislators can force special election
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
AG Madigan: Legislators can force special election

Thursday, Feb 26, 2009

* I’ll have more on Sen. Burris in a different post this morning, but this should kickstart the day in an interesting way…

In the latest installment of the saga of U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, Atty. Gen Lisa Madigan issued an opinion late Wednesday saying she thinks it would be legal for state lawmakers to move up the date of the Senate election to choose a successor to President Barack Obama, who vacated the seat.

The legal opinion by Madigan, which was sought by Republicans, means legislators in theory might be able to force Burris to run in a special election if he wants to retain the U.S. Senate seat he was appointed to by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich amid a cloud of scandal. Right now, Obama’s former Senate seat is set to be decided by Illinois voters in a February 2010 primary and a November 2010 general election.

If Burris lost, he would be out of office sooner than January 2011, when the term he is filling is set to end. That would also be the case if Burris chose not to run—Illinois’ new senator would take over shortly after a special election.

In a letter to members of the General Assembly, Madigan said such a move would be legal under the U.S. Constitution.

Read the opinion by clicking here.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Concerned Observer - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:28 am:

    So what options are there:

    A) the state does nothing (this is always likely)
    B) legislators order a special election. Burris sues to stop it, stalling the process enough that it doesn’t matter whether he wins or loses, we’re into the 2010 election anyway.
    C) legislators order a special election. Burris doesn’t sue because of the legal fees, and runs.
    D) legislators order a special election. Burris doesn’t sue, but doesn’t run because it would be too costly, and is ousted from office whenever the election happens.

    A) is still the most likely option in my opinion, but we’ll see. I’m sure I’m forgetting E) and F) options too.

  2. - Esteban - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:32 am:

    Prrhaps Lisa was absent the day her law professor
    explained the concept of an “ex post facto law”…

  3. - OneMan - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:32 am:

    So someone would get to be senator for a year before they had to run again? Seems like a bit of a waste…

  4. - BGA Dave - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:39 am:

    Special election. Now.

    This isn’t an ex post facto law. The nature of the appointment is inherently temporary. This opinion simply weighs in on one interpretation of the special appointment power.

  5. - George - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:43 am:

    I am sure this help get a little media buzz for her, but will probably (and maybe rightly) go the way of her supreme court maneuver back in December.

  6. - Redbright - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:49 am:

    Regardless of the legalities, won’t this force future candidates to reveal themselves more quickly just to be sure they are part of the dialogue.

    I was at a large gathering of a mixed group of unrelated people this week in Chicago. A joke was made about the need for a new Senator. The African-Americans in the audience frowned greatly while everyone else howled.

  7. - ken - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:50 am:

    The seventeenth amendment allows a temporary appointment, until such time as a special election can be held. It does not state that the special election must coincide with a general election. In fact, temporary appointments until the general were not the intent of the amendment, but governors have generally sought to keep their appointees in office as long as possible, and not incur the expense of a special election.

  8. - Ghost - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:50 am:

    Estaban, it is no an ex post facto law. It does not apply retroactively. it is not changing the legal status or criminalizing a prior act. A special election would be a future event that in now way changes the original temp appointment. The temp appointment had no set time, such as a term of office. The temp appointments length is framed in by the ocurence of an election. The legislature is free to set when that election is scheduled. Scheduling that election at a futre date does not change the status of a prior act or consitute in any way an ex post facto law. its not even a grey area it is co clear this is not an ex post facto law.

  9. - Lakefront Liberal - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:54 am:

    I’d like to make the case for special elections in all circumstances *except* statewide office. And I say this not because of any desire to affect our current situation, but as something that I think is the best policy generally.

    It is possible, albiet difficult, for an outsider/newcomer to run a competitive race for something the size of a congressional district or smaller in the time given for a special election. It is not possible for that person to do so statewide. Not only that but it is not possible for even an established candidate to be accessible to voters/stakeholders *statewide* during the time frame of a special election. As rushed as the race in the 5th has been, there have been ample opportunties for community groups and others throughout the district to meet with the candidates. For anything larger than a CD that would not be possible.

    To me the ideal would be to have the governor appoint someone who would be prohibited from running for the seat to serve until the next federal election. However, I am not sure if legally you can prohibit someone from running for public office. None the less, my feeling is that there should be special elections for all seats except statewide.

    And just to clarify, I mean all offices. In other words I don’t think Daley should be able to appoint Aldermen, I don’t think Committeemen should be able to appoint new Cook County Board Commissioners or state legislators, etc. These seats should be left vacant until a special election can be held.

  10. - Ghost - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:55 am:

    An example of an ex post facto law would be a law which removed the Govenors authority to make a temp appointment retroactively to the Burris apointment. Thus the act was legal when commited, but has been made illegal retroactivley.

    That said, any special election would be occuring at best near the end of 2009, so we are spending 50 million to knock 12 months off the elction ina state that can;t pay for medical bills, prescription bills, drug and rehab centers etc? Just because we can do a thing does not mean we should.

    The better solution, opressure the US senate into voting Burris out. ALl it takes to remove Burris is a 2/3 vote in the senate. Then put in a new temp until the next election. Save 50 million.

  11. - EmptySuitParade - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:56 am:

    Those laugh a minute jokesters at StateWideTom’s brain trust are using Michigan firm to place their misinformation calls about Commando/Congressman Kirk’s senate campaign.
    Can’t find an IL outfit ?????

  12. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:58 am:

    Esteban, you have no idea what you’re talking about on this subject. The ex post facto thing is a red herring, people, move along.

  13. - LOL - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 9:59 am:

    This state is over 9 Billon dollars in debt and we want to spend more money for a special election so we can then have a primary in less than a year? Wow what a great way to spend the people’s money! Of course the next thing will be raising our taxes to pay for the wasteful spending!

  14. - Deep South - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 10:16 am:

    Let’s move on here…allow Roland stay in the Senate…he can’t do much harm since most senators don’t really want to be seen with him. Let the regular election cycle run it course and Roland will be gone.

    All these other plans are too time consuming and too expensive.
    If we can just stand to be patient, Roland will get gone soon enough.

  15. - Dan S, a Voter, Taxpayer and Cubs Fan - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 10:18 am:

    I still contend that 1)Burris needs to be removed from office and 2)save money by simply waiting for the next scheduled election cycle. We have been short representaion since Peter Fitzgeralds term expired whats a little longer going to hurt. Problem solved.

  16. - Keep Smiling - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 10:21 am:

    The GA would need to move very quickly - and without legal delay from Burris - to hold a special election concurrent with the April 7 consolidated municipal elections to contain cost like they originally discussed. Absentee and early voting begins mid-March. I heard a reporter say the month of May on the news today, but it seems like back-to-back elections would negatively impact voter turn out.

    I apologize for my ignorance, but I still don’t understand how the candidates for a special election would be determined. Wouldn’t we end up with a long list of candidates like the 5th Congressional District? Would Burris automatically be placed on the ballot as the currently appointed candidate? Ironically, if voters are confronted with a long list of names, Burris might just find himself elected.

  17. - 618er - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 10:22 am:

    LOL I agree. The cost is ridiculous. Campaigning will probably start oh say August this year for the next primary. If he’s an embarrassment to the party, the dems should back another horse. If all he has left is the race card, and is loved by so many people maybe, he should have no problem running either as an independent or as the new face of the green party.
    Lieberman didn’t need party backing to get reelected.

  18. - Bill - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 10:54 am:

    What is the point? Roland votes the same way Obama would have. This is what the people voted for. Leave him alone. He is not hurting anybody. It is not like someone caught him in an airport bathroom or with a freezer full of cash or someone bought him a massage table. Just leave him alone. If he runs next time don’t vote for him if you don’t like him. I really don’t understand the uproar what with the real problems we face as a nation.

  19. - Esteban - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 10:54 am:

    My point was simple: in order to fill a vacancy,
    one has to exist. The vacancy has already been
    filled, per state law….

  20. - wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:02 am:

    Whether in a special or the regularly scheduled election, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some mischief-making in the Green Party primary, as in a Dem of GOPer seeking to snatch the nomination there.

  21. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:08 am:

    The “too expensive” to hold a special election argument is not very persuasive. Considering the special language of the 17th Amendment, it sounds like a special election can still be called. I see no language in the 17th Amendment that says ” . . . except where the cost of such an election may be deemed too burdensome.”

    The “regular ‘frozen ice’ February primary is getting closer so let’s not bother” argument justifies the foot dragging on this issue. A special election should have been called for last November.

    The “lets just keep him around he won’t hurt anybody” argument is equally absurd. If that truly were the case, then the seat should have been left vacant.

    The “race card” is something I will not bother to comment on. That one has been argued to death the past two months.

    The Tribune editorial hit the nail on the head. Burris is the albatross of the Democratic Party and will continue to be one until they start taking steps to remove him from office. If calling for a special election is the only way out, then they should go for it.

    Otherwise, they all remain Burris enablers. He “belongs” to the Democratic Party of Illinois who now shrug their shoulders at how he repeatedly lied to get into office and keep it. They can try to pass the blame to Blagojevich, but they could have called for that special election last November to avoid such a mess, and they didn’t.

    He does not belong to the People of the State of Illinois.

  22. - Ghost - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:10 am:

    Esteban there is no logical or legal basis for your syllogism. The correct statement is, in order to elect a senator, you must hold an election.

  23. - Esteban - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:14 am:

    The vacancy was filled in the manner prescribed
    by law at the time it was created by Obama’s
    resignation. If it could be “undone” or rescinded,
    Quinn would have done it by now.

  24. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:16 am:

    ===Quinn would have done it by now.===

    You’re completely missing the point. Quinn can’t undo it. The problem is that state law doesn’t provide for a special election. That can be changed, according to LMadigan.

  25. - Who Id It? - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:18 am:

    A special election will allow a dozen or more people to run without giving up their current elected positions. Look for city, county and statewide officials to jump into a special election. 25% the vote could make someone the democratic nominee. Focusing on statewide officials at this point is much too limiting.

  26. - EmptySuitParade - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:39 am:

    Rich are going to have StateWideTom’s incoherent presser up soon?

  27. - Niles Township - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 11:39 am:

    Lisa, Lisa. Your letting your politics into your legal analysis. That is something you promised never would happen on your wacth. I, for one, would be the first in line to see Burris removed as Senator. However, it has to be done in accordance with the law. What you have proposed will be held to be illegal, and will cost the taxpayers plenty of money fighting.

  28. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 12:04 pm:

    What is the point? - Bill

    The end does not justify the means. You seem to have a problem with that.

    Illinois corruption need to be publically called out, humiliated and stomped to the ground. Those who benefitted politically from the Blagojevich adminstration’s taint of the Obama Senate seat should be used as an example and treated in this manner.

    If you do not do this, corruption will continue. These politicians thrive on public adoration. When they witness what one of their own endures due to their lies and manipulations, it is part of the political death sentence they have imposed on themselves.

    It isn’t good enough for Burris to get what he sold his soul for. He needs to be made an example of what happens when you sell your soul. Now!

  29. - Ghost - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 12:22 pm:

    Niles what LMad indicatred is completly lawfull. The temp office holder fills the office until a new official is elected. Period. The only term of office set for a temp appointment is the occurence of an election to fill the spot. The legislature by law is free to legislatively set a special election date. As I mentioned before, its not even a grey area of debate if this is legal, you would have a better chance of winning the lottery then previaling on a suit against a law setting a special election.

  30. - Fed-up - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 1:25 pm:

    Deep South –Let’s move on here…allow Roland stay in the Senate…he can’t do much harm since most senators don’t really want to be seen with him.— The bigger issue is that he can’t do much to help us either.

  31. - True Observer - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 1:36 pm:

    For the sake of argument -

    Under LM’s Theory, why couldn’t the legislature schedule a special election for Durbin’s Senate Seat?

  32. - Fed-up - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 2:27 pm:

    True Observer - because it isn’t vacant and he was duly elected.

  33. - Ghost - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 2:30 pm:

    TO, because an elected senator under the consitution has their seat for the term of the office. A seat vacated before the expiration of a term can be filled temp until a special election is set OR the next reguarly scheduled election. i.e. a temp appointment does not get the seat for a term of years, but only until such time as the next election, special or scheduled.

  34. - True Observer - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 3:50 pm:

    “because an elected senator under the consitution has their seat for the term of the office.”

    How about before the Senators started getting elected and were appointed by the Legislatures. Could the GA have replaced Douglas with Lincoln after it had already picked Douglas.

  35. - 10th Indy - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 4:43 pm:

    TO - please try google - 17th ammendment ratified in 1913.

  36. - Legaleagle - Thursday, Feb 26, 09 @ 4:58 pm:

    I have to seriously question the corectness of the AG’s analysis. Anyway, part of me thinks that Burris should remain in office until January 2011 to remind the voters of Illinois of the consequences of poor choices!

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
* Pritzker roundup
* Cook County Public Guardian sues DCFS: "Abject moral and human rights failure"
* Mendoza signature clearance rate is high during first round
* Your holiday season moment of Zen
* Pritzker criticized over lack of Active Transportation Alliance members on his transition committee
* Color me skeptical
* Pritzker heading to White House today
* Sen. Schimpf wants Satanic sculpture removed from rotunda as Rep. Bryant introduces condemnation resolution
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...






Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller