Open Left - Roland Burris

Burris Not Committed To Voting Against Cloture

Chris Bowers — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:30:00 GMT

Following up on Monday's article "President Burris," yesterday I talked over the phone with Jim O'Connor, a spokesperson for Senator Roland Burris. In regards to Burris's statement that he would vote against any health care reform bill that does not include a public option, I had two questions:

1. Will Senator Burris deny unanimous consent on a motion to proceed with a health care bill that does not have a public option?
(Such a motion is required for a bill to be sent to the floor for debate and amendment. If a unanimous consent motion fails--and it only takes one Senator to object for it to fail--then a cloture vote is required for a bill to be sent to the floor for debate and amendment.)

2. Will Senator Burris vote against cloture on a health care bill that does not have a public option?
(This is the logical follow-up to question #1. Given that Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are the only two Republicans who would even theoretically vote for cloture on any health care bill, if three Democratic Senators say they will vote against cloture on any health care reform bill that lacks a public option, then it will be impossible for such a bill to reach the floor of the Senate.)

O'Connor's response to both questions was that Senator Burris stood by his statement to vote against any health care bill without a public option, bit that the Senator was still working on his floor strategy when it came to procedural votes. O'Connor stated that Burris did not seek to be an obstructionist, but to build consensus around the public option, which is good legislation and which polls show to be popular.

So, Burris is committed to voting against final passage of any health care bill that does not include a public option, but he has so far not committed himself to using procedural motions to block any such bill. As such, it is entirely possible he would still give unanimous consent, or vote for cloture, on a bill that does not contain a public option. Then again, he hasn't ruled that out, either.

Overall, this means that there is not even one Democratic Senator who has committed to blocking a health care reform bill without a public option. It would only take three, but right now the number is still zero.

President Burris!

Chris Bowers — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:15:00 GMT

President Obama may not be demanding a public option, but his replacement in the Senate, Roland Burris, is now saying he will vote against any bill without one:

For Democrats determined to get a health care bill, Sen. Roland Burris is like the house guest who couldn't be refused, won't soon be leaving and poses a plausible threat of ruining holiday dinner.
Suddenly, he can no longer be ignored.

The Illinois Democrat, appointed by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, says he'll only vote for a bill to provide health care to millions more Americans as long as it allows the government to sell insurance in competition with private insurers.

And he says he won't compromise.

"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," Burris, 72, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "That position will not change."

Can we start saying President Burris? Not just yet.

First, you would think that a proclamation like this from a Democratic Senator would get more attention. However, Roland Burris is only listed in 18 news stories on Google today, compared with 68 for Olympia Snowe (as of 4:15 pm eastern). Such a discrepancy strongly indicates that the national media simply doesn't believe Roland Burris--or really any other progressive, for that matter--when they claim they will bring down Democratic legislation because it isn't strong enough. If reporters and political types actually believed Burris, this would be a banner headline for dozens of national news outlets.

Second, one Democratic Senator opposing any health care reform bill without a public option is not enough to defeat any such bill, even in the 60-vote culture of the Senate. Given that President Snowe is still dangling the prospect of her support before the Democratic leadership, it would take two Senators (and, given Susan Collins, arguably three) for this to be an effective block. So, Roland Burris isn't enough, but if he were joined by another (hopefully more credible) Senator, then maybe we would really have something.

If someone in the Senate wishes to seize it, the opportunity is wide open. Last week, Senators Rockefeller and Wyden thought about it, but ultimately took a pass.

Of course, even if another Dem was to vow to vote against any health care bill that lacked a public option, it is still actually possible to pass a health care reform bill without a public option through the Senate. Reconciliation only requires 51 votes, is very much on the table right now, and can be used for non-public option health care bills, too.

Part of me would actually kind of like to see a bill without a public option pass through reconciliation. If this happened, it would simultaneously destroy the 60-vote process lie, and also clarify that the Democratic leadership simply wasn't pushing hard enough for the public option (right now, it remains unclear to me whether or not they are with us on this). Then again, we also wouldn't have a public option in that scenario, and satisfied recriminations are a poor substitute for potentially transformative legislation.

Burris To Be Seated

Chris Bowers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:56:54 GMT

"Barring objections from Republicans," Roland Burris will be the next Senator from Illinois:

Eager to put the scandal-tainted standoff behind them, Senate Democrats accepted Roland Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's Senate successor on Monday and said they expect to swear in the new Illinois senator this week.

"He is now the senator-designate from Illinois and, as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a senator-elect," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a joint statement after Senate lawyers determined that Burris' paperwork met Senate requirements to be seated.

The two senators said they expect Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, to be sworn in and seated this week, barring objections from Republicans.

Hard to imagine that there will be any objections from Republicans. If anything, they will salivate over Burris as a potential 2010 opponent, due to his connections with Blagojevich. They are right to do so, making it necessary to defeat Burris in the Senate primary next year, should he decide to run.

Still, in the meantime, it is best that Burris be seated. For one thing, it is a perfectly legal appointment. Second, it is a distraction, and there is much real governing that we need to focus on instead. Third, it is best not to start a precedent of rejecting Senate appointees for political reasons. That is a can of worms that Republicans would be certain to use in the future, once their numbers in the Senate increase.

This is the right outcome. Seat Burris, but let's work to make sure someone else in the Democratic nominee for Illinois Senate in 2010.

The Impact of 2 Missing Democratic Senators

Daniel De Groot — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:37:10 GMT

		Total Senate	98	99	100
		Dems	57	58	59
		Factor	0.581633	0.585859	0.59
Committee	Members		Dems without Franken, Burris	Dems with Burris	Dems with Both
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry	18		10	11	11
Appropriations	28		16	16	17
Armed Services	18		10	11	11
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs	18		10	11	11
Commerce, Science, and Transportation	20		12	12	12
Energy and Natural Resources	20		12	12	12
Environment and Public Works	18		10	11	11
Finance	20		12	12	12
Foreign Relations	18		10	11	11
Governmental Affairs	16		9	9	9
Judiciary	18		10	11	11
H.E.L.P.	18		10	11	11
Budget	22		13	13	13
Rules and Administration	16		9	9	9
Veterans' Affairs	12		7	7	7
Small Business	18		10	11	11
Aging	18		10	11	11
Intelligence	19		11	11	11
Indian Affairs	14		8	8	8

Total Dem Committee Seats			199	208	209

Details inside.
From my admittedly limited understanding, Senate Committee assignments are a matter of negotiation between the Majority and the Minority as they work out the Organizing Resolution for the 111th Senate (link is to the OR for the 110th). Senate Rule XXV spells out the size of each committee (source for numbers in table).

Except for Ethics (which is evenly split), the Majority party has to have at least a 1 vote lead on the Minority in each committee, which will work out as a 2-vote lead for even-sized committees (or the leaders resize them for that particular Congress).

Now that the Democrats have a substantial numerical advantage, I believe what happens is the proportion of the entire senate held by the Majority begins to matter in the allocation of committee seats (in theory and in the House the Majority decides how many seats the Minority gets, but of course the Minority can and would filibuster an Organizing Resolution that had a disproportionate allocation of committee seats).

So I took each committee, and figured out how many Democratic seats would be awarded by multiplying the size of the committee by the ratio of overall Democrats to Republicans in the Senate.

So if Franken and Burris aren't seated, the ratio is 57/98 = 0.581. If Reid admits Burris but Franken stays in limbo, it becomes 58/99 = 0.586 and if both are admitted it becomes 59/100 = 0.59 (actually I used more digits in making the calculation).

Surprisingly, it turns out that there is a substantial difference in committee allocations between 57 and 58 Democratic senators in Senates of 98 and 99 members respectively. The reason being that many committees have 18 members and the math works out such that this is a tipping point.

So the absence of both Franken and Burris lets McConnell demand an extra 10 committee seats. Admit either one of them, and he only gets 1 extra seat (on the largest and probably most important committee, Appropriations so even then it does matter a lot).

Now I don't know exactly how these negotiations go and how crucial this sort of thing is, but it wouldn't surprise me if McConnell is using this as a bargaining point. I don't imagine that he is meekly accepting Franken's win as legit and if Reid himself has refused to admit Burris or Blagojevich's right to appoint someone, Reid can hardly count him as part of the Democratic caucus either.

Burris should be admitted for the simple reason that his appointment was legal and constitutional. Democrats cannot complain about Republicans destroying the Rule of Law while pulling politically convenient (if popular) stunts like this. If this petulant and illegal refusal to admit a duly appointed Senator gives the Republicans an extra raft of committee seats that only compounds the self-defeating absurdity of the move.

On the other side, it provides some additional motive for Coleman to fight as hard as he is, and why we shouldn't expect to hear any Republicans call for him to concede at least until after an organizing resolution is passed.

Committee allocations can matter a great deal, particularly with Democrats so apt to cross over to prove how bipartisan they are. It would suck to lose contentious votes on key issues in committees because Reid chose the Burris appointment to make his inglorious stand for principle. Fortunately Democrats should have at least a 2 vote lead in almost every committee in the worst case above. Still, I'm sure it won't be hard to find a committee that will have any two of the Nelsons, Landrieu, Pryor, Lieberman or the new guy from Colorado in the 111th.

Hopefully Reid does what he can to ensure the worst offenders aren't in a position to hand Republican key legislative victories too often. What's interesting is that Oversight will have a 2 vote lead for Democrats, but what that means is that if Lieberman votes with the Republicans, it will be an 8-8 tie and I don't know off hand what that means. It would be better if there were 10 Dems to 6 Republicans on Government Oversight but that would have required 60 Dems, unless Reid wins it in negotiation somehow (I doubt McConnell would agree, he will want the possibility of a Lieberman double-cross).

Anyway, I could be wrong about all this since there's some black magic that goes into the Committee allocations in terms of horse trading but it's worth considering.

IL-Sen: Harry Reid On Meet The Press

Chris Bowers — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:45:00 GMT

Harry Reid was on Meet the Press this morning and, in regards to the Roland Burris situation, actually broke some real news on the program. This includes denying a report from yesterday that he urged Blagojevich not to appoint any of three leading Illinois African-American politicians to Obama's vacant seat. No transcript yet, so here is the AP (more in the extended entry):

Reid also denies telling Blagojevich that appointing three African-American lawmakers - Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Danny Davis or state lawmaker Emil Jones - would be unacceptable. He says Blagojevich is "making all this up."

Additionally, Reid pushed back against Bobby Rush's charge that Burris should be seated because there are no African-Americans in the Senate, by pointing out that Rush did not support Barack Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate primary when there were also no African-Americans in the Senate. Zing!

Reid also said that he plans to meet with both Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell to find a "bi-partisan solution on what to do about Senate appointee Roland Burris." While Senate #2 Dick Durbin says "there are no plans right now for the Senate to seat Roland Burris in the chamber," Reid offered a far more open-ended response:

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Reid said he plans to meet with Blagojevich's choice for the Senate, Roland Burris, 71, the former Illinois attorney general, a fellow Democrat. Asked if there was room for a possible settlement, Reid said, "I'm an old trial lawyer. There is always room to negotiate."

A decent overall response by Reid, but I still don't trust him. Even if the Senate has the legal authority to bar whoever they want from the chamber, Burris would not be denied because of any charges of illegality surrounding either anything he did or his specific appointment. That is undeniably legal. Thus, denying Burris is entirely a political move based on the idea that Burris can't be an effective Senator entirely because he was appointed by Blagojevich.

In regards to this specific appointment, the bottom line for me is that is not a good enough reason to deny someone entry into the United States Senate. This is particularly the case because the Senate, under Reid's leadership, has repeatedly taken action not because of the rule of law, but rather because of the perceived political outcome. Enough is enough with this course of action in the Democratic Senate.

In regards to the more general issue of Senate appointments that has arisen over the past couple months, I stand by my assertion that none of the problems we have faced about corruption and aristocracy would have occurred if we simply take away the power of Governors to appoint Senators. To remedy the situation, we need a Constitutional amendment that reads:

When vacancies happen in the Senate from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

This provides for the U.S. Senate what the Constitution already provides for the U.S. House. This is the best solution, and another step toward making our Union more perfect.

How About Strident Action On Behalf Of Democrats?

Chris Bowers — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:59:55 GMT

So, Senate Democrats have threatened to block Roland Burris from being seated in the Senate. As I, and several others, have noted recently , this level of aggressive action is in direct contradiction with past timidity. It is also quite a contrast to their public statements on Al Franken (emphasis mine):

The top Senate Republican said his caucus would block any attempt to seat Democrat Al Franken until an anticipated court case over Minnesota's close election is finished and an official election certificate is conferred.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn said Friday that Republicans would object to seating the race leader Franken sooner. A filibuster would require 60 votes to break - a few more than Democrats currently hold in Washington. (...)

Senate Democrats have not indicated what they would do if Franken's lead over Coleman holds up after the recount ends.

So, Senate Democrats will take aggressive action to deny a Democrat from being seated, but not take aggressive action to seat a Democrat. To paraphrase Lisa Simpson, their paper-thin commitment to legally appointed and legally elected Democrats--especially when considered in contrast to their commitment to Lieberman--sends a shiver down my spine.

Selective Outrage Over Burris

Chris Bowers — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:49:16 GMT

If Senate Democrats do indeed block Roland Burris from entering the Senate chamber, as they have threatened to do, it will be the strongest action they have undertaken, like, ever. Hearing Democrats invoking Article One, Section Five of The Constitution is more reminiscent of Republican attempts to impeach President Clinton or destroy filibusters than it is of anything under Harry Reid's leadership. It is worth noting that blocking a Democrat who was unquestionably appointed legally, from being seated in the Senate is the issue where Democrats decide to grow a spine and play hardball. I mean, really, this is the issue where Senate Democrats decide to stand up for themselves?

The selective outrage over this appointment kills me. The dry powder brigade rubberstamped a war of choice "justified" by a pack of lies. They accepted torture, domestic surveillance and the total politicization of the DOJ. They swallowed brazen defiance of lawfully issued subpoenas. They never even seriously considered censure, much less impeachment.

Now, when a crooked Dem gov pulls off a cheap political stunt that, like it or not, is entirely lawful, the dry powder brigade opens fire w/ both barrels. Where was this outrage when Mukasey wouldn't admit that waterboarding was torture? Where was it when AGAG lied under oath to Cong. committees knowing that they knew that he knew he was lying? Where was this outrage on retroactive FISA immunity? How about when Miers, Rove, et al thumbed their noses at Cong. subpoena power?

If Reid wanted to be consistent here, he'd send a strongly worded letter to Blago and then agree to let Burris be seated and to get committee assignments.

It is more than a little worrying that the only moment when Senate Democrats decide to take the gloves off is to block a Democrat who was legally appointed to the Senate from being seated. Kind of makes you think that Senate Democrats are more willing to stand up to other Democrats than they are to Republicans.

Perhaps this will herald in a new era where Senate Democrats are willing to use aggressive tactics in many areas, rather than, say, allowing a record number of filibusters to pass without actually forcing those threatening to the filibuster to actually filibuster. If that were the case, then this would be a hopeful move. Article One is in desperate need to revitalization. It is more likely, however, that this will be an isolated incident and not representative of a new tone from the Senate leadership. Don't expect this sort of action if, say, the 2012 Presidential election turns out like the 2000 election. It isn't worth spending political capital when Republicans steal a Presidential election, but it is worth blocking a legally appointed Democratic Senator because you don't like the guy who appointed him.

IL-Sen: Blagojevich To Attempt Appointment

Chris Bowers — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:03:11 GMT

In a surprising move, embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich will make an appointment to fill Obama's Senate seat. From the looks of it, this appointment will be difficult for the U.S. Senate to refuse:

-I've learned that Gov. Blagojevich is poised to name former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President elect Barack Obama in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. The embattled Blagojevich is fighting impeachment charges in the Illinois House for, among other reasons, trying to auction off the Senate seat held by President elect Barack Obama. Blagojevich called a press conference for 2 p.m. Chicago time at the Thompson State of Illinois Center.

Burris was the first African American to win statewide office in Illinois when he was elected comptroller, serving from 1983 to 1991. He served as Illinois Attorney General from 1991 to 1995. Burris previously ran and lost bids for the U.S. senate and governor. Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) had said he would ask the Senate not to seat any Blagojevich appointee, in order to make sure the seat is free of taint.

I don't think it will be easy for Reid to refuse to seat Burris, unless Obama publicly supports the refusal. Refusing to seat a history-making African-American to the Senate, especially one ~~who will be a caretaker and~~ who appears to have kept himself squeaky clean in an often corrupt state

My home state's culture of political corruption is well documented. Roland Burris managed to build a career in politics in this state without falling into that muck. He is, to the best of everyone's knowledge, squeaky clean, and he's highly respected. He's 71 years old, so I wonder if he intends to serve as a caretaker. But he's an honorable guy, well liked by people across the state in both parties. It's a stroke of brilliance by Blagojevich in my opinion.

Reid might still refuse to seat Burris, but this is a fairly shrewd move by Blagojevich. Refusing to seat Burris will not come without at least some backlash, especially if the seat stays vacant instead.

Update: It seems likely that, if Burris is appointed and seated, he would run in 2010. After all, that is what he said Obama's appointment should do.