To sign or not to sign

Posted: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:58 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Pete Williams

From NBC’s Pete Williams

Acting on the last possible day under local court rules, lawyers for the Illinois Secretary of State today urged the state supreme court not to order him to sign the appointment certificate for Roland Burris.

The Illinois Supreme Court allows seven days for filing objections in a case like this, and that deadline was today, given that lawyers for Burris asked on New Year's Eve for the court to order Secretary of State Jesse White to sign the certificate. U.S. Senate leaders say the lack of that signature is the reason he wasn't immediately seated.

(Here's the affidavit with just Blagojevich's signature and without Secretary of State Jesse White's.)

But in today's filing, the state attorney general said, "It would be a violation of his ethical obligations to the people of Illinois to lend his name and the state seal" to further Gov. Blagojevich's appointment. What's more, said state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, White isn't required to sign anything. What White has done, she said, is register the appointment in state records, which is all he is legally required to do.

Lawyers for Burris claim state law requires the Secretary of State to sign anything official that the governor signs, but White's lawyers say that applies only to state commissions, not to appointments like this.

Finally, White's lawyers say the Senate's leaders are wrong about their own rules. They say nothing in Senate rules requires the Secretary of State's signature. It's only recommended, they argue. In comparison, they note, there is a federal law requiring such a signature in the case of a Senate election.

Madigan, in a written statement issued along with her filing in the state supreme court, says, the Secretary of State "has done everything he is legally required to do regarding the Burris appointment."

A portion of her statement follows:
On December 31, 2008 -- the same day Governor Blagojevich submitted the U.S. Senate's recommended appointment form to the U.S. Senate -- Secretary White registered Burris' appointment pursuant to the Secretary's only legal duty regarding appointments.

According to 15 ILCS 305/5:

Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State:

2. To make a register of all appointments by the Governor, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, the date of the appointment, the date when bond or oath is taken and the date filed. If Senate confirmation is required, the date of the confirmation shall be included in the register.
Instead, what is at issue here is a form that is not required by law, but is merely "recommended" by a Rule of the U.S. Senate. Moreover, a U.S. Senate Rule cannot impose a legal obligation on the Illinois Secretary of State.

Standing Rule II of the U.S. Senate provides, "The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or an appointment is to be made so that they may use such forms if they see fit." (Emphasis added.)

In contrast, when the U.S. Senate creates a mandatory requirement for a Secretary of State's signature and seal, they enact a law, and they have not done so in this case.

For example, under federal law, when a U.S. Senator is elected, the State must certify the election under state seal, and the law explicitly requires that the certification of election "shall be countersigned by the secretary of state of the State." 2 U.S.C. §§ 1(a), (b).

There is no law requiring the Secretary of State to sign a "recommended" form of the U.S. Senate.

The decision to treat the U.S. Senate's "recommended" form as a legal requirement is a decision of the U.S. Senate. It remains up to the U.S. Senate to seat Mr. Burris.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Burris says he was appointed by God so God should sign it.

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:11 PM)

Can we all just get along ?

Remember the fairy tales about 'Bigoted Black people' ?????

Remember the indignation and the self righteousness ??

'...But an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California's black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent....'

About 58%

From SFGate.com:

'...Black support for Prop. 8 called exaggeration
Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Reports of overwhelming African American support for Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage were exaggerated in exit polls, a new look at the November election results has found.

"Party identification, age, religiosity and political view had much bigger effects than race, gender or having gay and lesbian family and friends," said Patrick Egan of New York University, who wrote the report with Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College of New York for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Exit polls found that 70 percent of black voters backed Prop. 8 on Nov. 4, even as they overwhelmingly supported Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who opposed the same-sex marriage ban.

But an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California's black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent.

That support among blacks is still well above the 52 percent Prop. 8 received from all voters in the Nov. 4 election. Much of that can be attributed to the strong religious tradition in the black community, where 57 percent of African American voters attend church at least once a week, compared with 42 percent of Californians overall.

"The study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8," Andrea Shorter, director of And Marriage for All, said in a statement. "But we clearly have work to do with, within and for African American communities, particularly the black church."

Religious voters were among the leaders in the pro-Prop. 8 efforts, with 70 percent of weekly churchgoers backing the same-sex marriage ban. Among voters who hardly ever attended religious services, only 30 percent voted for Prop. 8.

"This is a wake-up call to the (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community," said Jaime Grant, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. "We must do a better job of organizing in the faith-based community, using LGBT people who are themselves part of that community."...'

'...The study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8," Andrea Shorter, director of And Marriage for All, said in a statement. "But we clearly have work to do with, within and for African American communities, particularly the black church...'

Time for a little more dialog and a little less self righteousness

We're all in this together

(Oh, and thanks for burying this story, FR)

MSierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:12 PM)

-->"It would be a violation of his ethical obligations to the people of Illinois " <--

Violation of "ethical obligations"? What ethical obligations? Illinois, or any other state for that matter, hasn't codified their "ethical obligations". This is a lawyer writing this? Lisa Madigan, the states AG? She should be disbarred for wasting the courts time.

The Secretary of State of a state is not the gatekeeper to who the governor appoints to fill a senate position. If the Secretary of State is blocking the appointment by saying he/she is in fact that gatekeeper, then the Secretary of State should be impeached for not doing their job.

What do the people of Illinois put up with this cr*p?

CL Lawson, AZ (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:14 PM)

And the game of "hot potato(e)" continues.

Everyone says you have to appoint this guy, but no one wants to actually do it and they're passing the buck. I hate to sound like some of the sore-losers who post here, but I must agree that this is really looking like bad comedy here. Just seat the guy and be done with it.

jawillie, Philadelphia, PA. (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:25 PM)

good for mr. white. stand on your principles mr. white. if that stop burris from being seated then so be it. if he gets seated anyway then oh well.

ain't the truth (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:25 PM)

Considering the pay for play scandal, shouldn't this be investigated *first*? That way, if he is cleared, then he can be seated without incident.

Jackson, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:31 PM)

Another loser argument from the attorney general of Illinois. Don't you wonder what HER motivation is in all of this?

Anna Molly (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:31 PM)

If Roland Burris needs the Secretary of State Signature then take him to court and let them decide.

Memo to Roland Burris: No one wants you bcause you are a clown; which is confirmed every time you give a press conference. One of children should tell you to shut up.

justwaitandsee (Sent Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:32 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1736201