I haven't gotten a copy of the petition; if you can point me to one, please e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu. In the meantime, here's the provision of the Illinois Constitution that seems to be in play:
SECTION 6. GUBERNATORIAL SUCCESSION
(a) In the event of a vacancy, the order of succession to the office of Governor or to the position of Acting Governor shall be the Lieutenant Governor, the elected Attorney General, the elected Secretary of State, and then as provided by law.
(b) If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed.
(c) Whenever the Governor determines that he may be seriously impeded in the exercise of his powers, he shall so notify the Secretary of State and the officer next in line of succession. The latter shall thereafter become Acting Governor with the duties and powers of Governor. When the Governor is prepared to resume office, he shall do so by notifying the Secretary of State and the Acting Governor.
(d) The General Assembly by law shall specify by whom and by what procedures the ability of the Governor to serve or to resume office may be questioned and determined. The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to review such a law and any such determination and, in the absence of such a law, shall make the determination under such rules as it may adopt.
The last sentence seems most relevant; I know of no Illinois statute on the subject, so Supreme Court Rule 382 appears to be relevant. But neither the Constitution nor the Rule clarify what constitutes a "disability," and whether the Governor's being prosecuted (but being out on bail) qualifies.
The Capitol Fax Blog has more, but not much more. The National Center for State Courts has a Backgrounder on Gubernatorial Removal and the State High Courts, but that's a national perspective, with little details about this particular item. The Backgrounder also points to In re O'Bannon (2003), in which the Indiana Supreme Court declared Gov. O'Bannon disabled, but that involved a clear disability — a coma following a stroke.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- "Illinois Supreme Court rejects [Illinois Attorney General] Madigan bid to declare Blagojevich 'unfit'":
- More on the Illinois Attorney General's Asking the Illinois Supreme Court to Remove Gov. Blagojevich:
- Illinois Attorney General's Petition to Have Governor Removed:
- It depends on what the meaning of the word "Contact" is....
- Government Attempt to Get Newspaper Editorial Board Members Fired:
- SEIU ties in the Gov. BLAGOJEVICH Complaint.
- Holiday Sale: An Open Senate Seat From Illinois.
I wouldn't shed a tear to see Bleggo go; I would be worried about the rule set by such a precedent.
If the IL legislature can't impeach this guy before Xmas, they are even more corrupt than he is.
If the legislature impeaches and tries him, do they have to tie it to a criminal offense? Or is it just a factfinding procedure? If they can prove that he actually said the things on the wiretaps, then that seems like enough to convict him of something nebulous like loss of confidence. But if they have to go beyond that and determine whether those facts amount to a conspiracy involving the interstate mails, etc., then it might take longer.
In Illinois that could be arranged.
Brief, Motion for TRO, Supporting Record TRO.
Should he be impeached based merely on the indictment?
Shouldn't he get some kind of due process? The opportunity to contest the impeachment charges? Shouldn't the legislature have to have some evidence other than an indictment? I'd be surprised if due process could be afforded by Christmas.
One may as well seek to reform the entirety of Chicago and Illinois politics via fiat from the AG's office. In fact, by going after Blago in this manner one could argue it's little more than distractive of the far larger scope of political corruption within Illinois and Chicago styled politics; in that sense singling out Blago, while necessary within a due process regimen, is otherwise distractive.
As to what this represents in general, relative to Rahm Emanuel to cite a prominent example, the rule of the day seems to be: incuriouser and incuriouser.
How would you like to be the lucky individual appointed by Bloggo for US Senator?
Would you wish that appointment on your worst enemy?
I think the only way for the appointmenr to not be controversial now is to pick some really old person who will not hold the seat for long and who everyone in Illinois respects and is not considered corrupt or particularly partisan. Maybe a retired general or major CEO or judge who lives there who has never run for office before. I am not saying that there is such a person living in Illinois, but that is one way to do it.
Nick
I don't like the idea of removing a governor because he supposedly is doing a bad job. For example, Gray Davis of California. Recall election, judicial removal petition, same principle. "Bad job" is subjective and inherently political (and thus partisan). Probable cause of having committed serious crimes is not. He should be removed immediately. There's ample evidence.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.