48 Comments - wndycty - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:16 am: Nope. Burris should resign but the legislature is spending TOO MUCH TIME dealing with the Blago/Burris issue. No extraordinary efforts should be employed, especially by our legislature which has more pressing business, to remove Burris. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:18 am: ===the legislature is spending TOO MUCH TIME dealing with the Blago/Burris issue=== Um, really? They haven’t spent much time on Burris at all, and just a few minutes on Blagojevich since he was impeached and removed. - erstwhilesteve - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:19 am: Yes, Forget about Burris, let’s make sure this nonsense doesn’t happen again… - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:21 am: Yes. After impeachment, the public image of the General Assembly improved. If they do this, they will once again benefit. Illinoians voted for reform in 2002. Isn’t it time to give it to them? - Bill - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:21 am: No. It is a waste of time and money. I don’t see anyone who would win doing the job any differently than Roland does. What is the point? - Levois - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:23 am: I would say no. We’re getting much closer and closer to an election anyway. We can wait until 2011 and even if Burris resigns now, Quinn could appoint him and there shouldn’t be any problems. - Anon - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:24 am: Yes. The powers at large in this state have turned a sarcastic running joke (illinois/chicago corruption) into a national embarassment. This should have been done months ago. Had it been, we could be looking forward to having a real, legit Senator in a few weeks. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:25 am: YES: - It should include popular election of the State Central Committee. - It should allow the Secretary of State to set the date of the statewide special election, within 180 DAYS. I’ll go further and say that I believe that the Illinois General Assembly WILL pass legislation that creates a special election, based on the Illinois Attorney General’s legal opinion. I’d say the odds are about 75% now that it will ALSO include election of the state central committee. And if Democrats are SMART, they’ll set the balloting for the first GOP state central committee at the SAME TIME as the special election, which ought to maximize the chaos and help assure that conservatives nominate Peter Roskam. - Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:26 am: Unless Senator Burris decides to resign, holding a special election will only confuse the matter and it will wind up in court…a process that could extend beyond 2010. Voters might not like it, but Burris was appointed by the Governor according to the existing law in Illinois; sworn in and seated by the U.S. Senate. That we now find out he was less than forthcoming during his appointment and seating process is damnable, but unless the Senate Ethics Committee decides to recommend expulsion for such conduct, he’s the Junior Senator for Illinois. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:30 am: Ideally, yes. But the practicality of the idea slowly ticks away with every day gone by, bringing us closer to the 2010 election cycle. Practicality trumps idealism more often than not. - Shore - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:31 am: No-but all appointees should have to stand at the next regular election cycle-i.e. congress in even years. Parties are accountable for their behavior and the people they put forward. - wndycty - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:33 am: Point taken Rich, but I just don’t want to see the legislature get involved in this because there are so many other pressing issues, not to mention the expense associated with it. Is a special election really in the best interest of the state? - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:33 am: Yes. It appears from the language of the 17th Amendment that such an election can still be called. The current occupant was appointed by someone who was impeached and removed from office a month later due to multiple malfeasance charges. The current occupant then repeatedly lied and changed his story as to how he was appointed and who he spoke to during the appointment process. The people of the State of Illinois should have a choice no matter what the expense. The last time everyone was scared off with inflated expense figures was the proposal for a Constitutional Convention, which we sorely needed. There is no price tag on Democracy. And our State image surely would improve with a special election over a tainted “insider” type of appointment process that went down. - vince glothor - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:34 am: No, pricetag toooooooooooooooooo big! for what to make a point? With Illinois $11 billion in the hole, what’s another $50 million. Come on! - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:37 am: No. We don’t have a problem in Illinois with filling vacancies. We had a problem before we removed a corrupt governor. Unfortunately we didn’t act in time to prevent the otherwise legal appointment of Sen. Burris. I’m not a lawyer, but if this law passes, I think the lawsuit and ensuing appeals will drag on far longer than the current term. And the acrimony from the suit will hang over our already sick political culture for even longer. We’re stuck with him until the new Senator is sworn in, sometime in January of 2011. Let’s try to make the best of it until then. - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:42 am: I don’t see anyone who would win doing the job any differently than Roland does. What is the point? You don’t reward malfeasance, and expect it and corruption to go away. Hasn’t Mr. Blagojevich taught you anything? It is that mentality that allows corruption to thrive. Find it, fight it, root it out, stomp on it in front of every voter. Show that our standards are to be higher than Roland Burris’. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:43 am: What 47th said. The real election is just around the corner. Burris can’t do any damage and there’s plenty of other work to do. - train111 - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:43 am: No–it costs too much. The Feb 2010 primary is less than a year away. We can get rid of Burris then if we choose to. For now we will just have to endure. train111 - Pat collins - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:46 am: There should be a law mandating elections for all FUTURE vacancies. If you try to apply it to Burris, it will end up in court. Will they rule within 21 months? Maybe. Maybe not though. Will they rule in less than a year, before the 2010 primaries? Very likely not. Now, if i wanted to drain Sen. Burris’ campaign fund, making him defend this seat, all the while letting my Favorite candidate save his/hers, then I would pass such a bill. - Mr. Know-it-All - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:46 am: No, for four reasons: 1. The authority of the General Assembly to truncate Burris’ term is legally questionable, and will surely become the subject of a vicious, lengthy, and expensive court battle. 2. We already have an election scheduled for this seat, in 2010. The additional time in which Burris will sit is relatively short - a year or so, tops, unless he’s re-elected. 3. A special election itself is costly, and we have better uses for the money. 4. Burris’ behavior is shady at best, but proving criminality is quite difficult. The standard for booting a Senator is quite high, and I don’t think we’ve met it (see, e.g.: Craig, Larry). - Wumpus - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:50 am: Yes, they should change the law for the future, not necessarily affecting Burris as he is their baby - Sacks Romana - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:50 am: I posted this in the other Burris thread, but it’s actually more appropiate here: Burris should have never been confirmed to the Senate for many, many reasons. It’s hard to tunnel all that anger into just Burris though, when Durbin, Reid, and others were against his appointment, then for it, and now are calling for his resignation. His “corrected” testimony basically confirms what almost everyone thought from the beginning, that an appointment by Blagojevich was going to be tainted, if not border-line criminal. All that being said, with the moved up primary, 2010 is rapidly approaching, and I think a special election would be a ridiculous circus, not to mention the cost, which we all know we can’t afford. This ultimately isn’t Burris The Egomaniac’s fault for doing what an egomaniac does. It’s all his enablers’ (Durbin, Reid, heck, even Obama if you remember) fault for trying to move things along too quickly, and sweep the awful appointment under the rug. Let them live with it. I’m fine with Burris being the pariah of the Senate and Illinois for less than two years. It’s far less than what we lived with before, and Burris isn’t really in a position to actually screw up our state or federal government. The scandals have dried up any sliver of political power he might ever have gotten, and turned him into the placeholder everyone wanted the candidate to be anyway. - IVote - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:51 am: No. It simply costs too much, at a time when the state is waaaaay too far in debt. Would those clamoring for a special election be willing to pay a $5 or $10 “ballot fee” to pay for it? Probably not–those insisting on a special election are generally the same (Republicans, conservatives) who would never vote for a tax increase. The money to run a special eleciton has got to come from somewhere–so tell us where! - Anon - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:56 am: (1) Any question as to whether it’s legal or not would not necessarily take “months or years”. There are no factual questions, just questions of law, therefore a court could rule on it as quickly as they wanted to. (2) I’d still like to know how projected costs of $5-20 million (the projection a couple weeks ago) somehow increased to $50 million. Besides the obvious answer of those opposed to a special election arbitrarily increasing their projection to scare off those who might support it. - Chanson - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:03 pm: No, enough on the national side-shows. If the parties come up with good candidates,there should be no problem getting rid of him at next scheduled election. - lake county democrat - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:24 pm: Yes — senator is one of the most powerful positions on the entire planet — the idea that you get this by lying under oath and dealing with a rogue governor is appalling. - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:27 pm: No, it will cost too much and the legislature already has a full plate. Let Durbin and Reid fuss and fume about it—they are the ones who backed down initially. Let the investigators handle Burris as he is already a lame duck—you’ve got a multi-billion hole (the most generic yet accurate term I can use) to plug, so get your thinking caps on! Now! Get those caps on NOW! - OneMan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:30 pm: No, The period of time for the temp senator to sit would be to short to be of much use before that person had to run again anyway. Also would it be worth spending that kind of money to seat a senator for 18 months or so. I doubt it. The leg should pass a good solid logical special election law and apply it the next time. - Amy - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:39 pm: yes. we need a clean slate. - Cubs Fan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:40 pm: Oops! Posted this in the wrong thread… I don’t see the point. I don’t care about cost because I tend to agree that there shouldn’t be a price for Democracy. What I have a problem with is the timeline. There is no way that this race could be added to the upcoming April elections. After all, we couldn’t add corrected language for the Con-Con referendum nearly two months before the November election and a judicial order. So, that leaves us scheduling the election when? May? June? Later than that? What about court challenges which are sure to come? The length of that process could push this whole thing back even further. At some point which I believe has long since passed, we have to admit that it’s simply not worth the headache. On another note, I’m concerned about the average voter’s interest. Take the special election in the 5th CD for example. The coverage and buzz is abysmal at best. Even with the scandal surrounding Burris, I don’t know that the average voter would be energized enough to take much notice. They are programmed to deal with politics at certain intervals and don’t want to hear about it in the off season. Now, here’s the part that I truly fear. A low turnout and crowded field could favor Burris if the AA community does in fact come out in force. Burris’ PR firm is laying the groundwork for that fight now. If you think Illinois is the laughingstock of the nation now, can you imagine the fallout if Burris won a special election designed to replace him? He has no power or ability to do damage where he’s at right now. The media will tire of this scandal as they do with all others, and we will “quietly” be able to take care of this in November 2010. I don’t think Burris deserves the seat, but I question whether a special election will in fact remove him. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:42 pm: –No, enough on the national side-shows.– On Sixty Minutes last night, Morley Safer asked Bobby Jindal about Louisiana corruption. His obviously well-rehearsed response was “we’ll leave that to Illinois.” When you can get stung by Louisiana, you’ve got problems. - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:47 pm: When you can get stung by Louisiana, you’ve got problems. Worse than that, we are being laughed at by an uber-geek! - Pat collins - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:50 pm: There are no factual questions, just questions of law, therefore a court could rule on it as quickly as they wanted to Yes, once they got around to doing so. Once you file, how long to hear it. You have 90 days to appeal, I think. Then the next level needs to schedule it. And another 90 days to appeal. - Ghost - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:50 pm: No. As I have mentioned in the past, the cost during a time of fiscal crisis to shorten an already close at hand normal election cycle is foolish at best. - Levois - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:10 pm: I think the whole costs argument for a special election is overused and overrated. Cost doesn’t matter if a special election is a viable alternative. Especially if viability is more political than financial. - Adam Smith - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:12 pm: If an election costs too much, what IS worth spending money on? Crappy member initiatives? Heck, let’s scrap the elections althogether and just let the oligarch families run the state like they used to run Europe. We can save tons of money that can be spent to entertain the peasants and make them forget the loss of their freedom. The state is wasting so much money on ridiculous waste and corruption, but everyone gets frugal when democracy is at stake. Make your legal arguments…they are worthy of debate, but don’t hide behind the money issue as an excuse. It is the ultimate in hyporcicy. - Capitol View - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:17 pm: Leave our “crypto” - junior US senator alone. He’s not federal pension eligible unless he wins re-election, which he won’t. And Obama needs another Democratic Senate vote for the coming months, so don’t force him to resign. If Burris is foolish enough to run for election in 2010, that overwhelming rejection in the primary will be the Illinois public’s last repudiation of everything Blago. - jake - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:23 pm: The legislature should prioritize this against all the other things that need doing at this time. By that measure, the special election issue is a very low priority. The highest priority is getting the state economy and the state budget/revenue situation improved. If Senator Burris perjured himself, if he bought the seat, are matters to be pursued by the Sangamon State’s Attorney and the U.S. Attorney. Let them deal with those issues. If the method for filling Senate vacancies needs to reformed, do it when we are not in the middle of a financial crisis. You need to varnish the deck of a ship to preserve it in the long term, but you don’t apply new varnish at the same time that you are frantically adjusting your sails to ride out a storm. - Fed-up - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:25 pm: A law should be enacted making the change regarless as to if it can be enforced with this Burris fiasco or not. The selection should always belong to the people…not one man. - Captain Flume - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:51 pm: Maybe not a special election now. As Bill wrote a couple hours ago, what’s the point. I would fully support an amendment to the Illinois constitution that would require an election within XX days to fill any statewide elective office that had been vacated. We put a lot more authority in the hands of our elected officials than we should, and I believe the public should have the initiative to take back some of that power. - Joe in the Know - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:00 pm: Ironically, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was put in place because the state legislatures could not be trusted to put the needs of the people ahead of their pocketbook. Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment allowed voters to cast direct votes for U.S. senators. Prior to its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures. Legislators, in Illinois and elsewhere, were notorious for selling the seat to the highest bidders. Now, some on this blog have suggested that the legislature get involved to unseat a Senator, who like it or not, was appointed by governor who was within his authority to make said appointment. My suggestion? Leave Burris where he is, and vote him out in twelve month’s time, when the Democratic primary will be held in 2010. Anything else would be a huge waste of taxpayers’ dollars. - Cheswick - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:23 pm: No. I don’t see how any good can come of it while Roland Burris is a sitting senator. If they want to pass such a law later, that would be okay, I guess. If the legislature does pass a law and the governor signs it to go in effect while Roland is still senator, Roland and his cadre of lawyers will find some law to challenge it in court (which law, I don’t know; but some). Then, the fate of the law, and of course, Roland’s seat in the senate will be will be in the hands of a court. Either way (the law is upheld or struck down), is that what we really want? - EmptySuitParade - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 3:06 pm: On Sixty Minutes last night, Morley Safer asked Bobby Jindal about Louisiana corruption. His obviously well-rehearsed response was “we’ll leave that to Illinois.”….. Obviously Boppin Bobby had something tied to tight LA continues to lead the nation in sleaze. It is interesting Bobby now thinks teh fed should not hand out cash after accepting billions to repair New Orleans. I guess you can be a hypocrite if you a GOP - Ghost - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 3:12 pm: Its a bit specious to say if we spend some money, then any money spent on a special election is worth it. Illinois is seeing phamracies, small doctor offices, rehab clinics and abuse centers that are going out of buisness or drastically cutting staff. I would say that long before a meaningless special election wo should pay the states medical bills. the state gains an empty empric victory by shoprtneing the election a few months, for a high price. No real cost benefit. Worse case scnerio, after saddling counties with this huge bill, or adding it to the states bills, Burris wins the special election. - Southern Illinois Voter - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 3:56 pm: Yes. We would not have been in this mess if calls for the special election had been heeded when first mentioned. Do it, get it over with, get rid of at least part of this embarrassment & start thinking of the people of the State of IL instead of your political careers. - Justice - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 5:23 pm: I feel all vacated seats whether senator, representative, or any Congressional seat for that matter ought to be voted on by the citizens of Illinois. It angers me that many select their sons, daughters, or wives to replace them and the citizens of Illinois end up paying for it! Let’s see who is picked for Hannig’s replacement. I must admit I am hopeful he can help with our economy and get DOT on track even though my personal experiences with him are less than what I would have expected. I will give him a chance, he could do no worse that what we have had and still are experiencing under some of Blago’s remaining hacks. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 8:53 pm: No. The best thing right now is to get rid of the distractions so that people can ease themselves into focusing on real issues again. A rude, surprising wake-up call needs to be avoided. - scafish - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:22 pm: Please can we have a special election? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.