Seat Roland Burris

Why would I suggest this? Is it because I don’t think Governor Blagojevich is not corrupt? Do I think he’s “worthy”? Is it because I think Roland Burris is particularly well-suited to the job and somehow has a “right” to be in the Senate?

In fact, I have a very low regard for Governor Blagojevich, and Roland Burris has been unimpressive. I’ve been especially unimpressed with the claim that there is racism involved in the refusal of the Senate to allow him to take his seat. I’m certain that race played a role in his appointment precisely because of the imagery that would be evoked when he was refused his seat. It strikes me as questionable judgment on Burris’s part to accept the appointment under the circumstances.

But I am more concerned with law and procedure. We like to remake the law to suit the desired response. The Illinois legislature had an excellent opportunity to fix this situation by changing the way a replacement is selected to fill the term of a senator who leaves office, but they failed to do so.

I would note that I would oppose even that option unless one determined that the new method was a better way to handle the situation at all times, and was not just a means of avoiding a particular set of circumstances.

But for some very good reasons, the law doesn’t convict without a trial, and a governor is not impeached because he is accused. There is no “partial governor” provision in the law. Rod Blagojevich is the governor until he’s not any more.

Thus the law says that Roland Burris is entitled to a Senate seat because the legally elected and still legally in office governor says he is, and he should be given that seat. If Burris himself were convicted of something besides being boring and having lousy judgment, there would be a reason to either expel him or refuse him his seat. As it is, there he is.

We Americans have a real difficulty with procedural issues that get in our way. In the election of 2000, the Republicans, who would normally talk about states’ rights, were quick to go to the federal courts. Why? Because they were losing in state court, where such issues would normally be decided. I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would have been happy to go to the feds. In either case the idea would be to change the normal procedures in order to get a different result.

(As a note to those who would claim that Florida was violating those procedures, the proper forum for interpreting and applying Florida law was and is the Florida courts. The federal constitutional issue here was contrived.)

In this case most of us would prefer that Blagojevich not succeed in any of his little games. But there’s good reason that we have impeachment followed by trial. It’s to determine whether the person in question is actually guilty. We could have some form of temporary removal from office, but we don’t.

So for now the best option, in my view, is to follow the law and the established procedures, and not try to reorganize them to make the result be what we would prefer it to be.