SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 10
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
Docket No. 107816.


                        IN THE
                   SUPREME COURT
                          OF
                 THE STATE OF ILLINOIS




ROLAND W. BURRIS et al., Petitioners, v. JESSE WHITE,
           Secretary of State, Respondent.

                   Opinion filed January 9, 2009.

   JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
   Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride,
Garman and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                              OPINION
    The issue presented by this original action for mandamus is
whether Jesse White, the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, is
required by section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS
305/5(1) (West 2006)) to countersign and affix the seal of the state to
the document issued by Governor Rod R. Blagojevich on December
31, 2008, certifying the Governor’s appointment of Roland Burris to
the United States Senate. For the reasons that follow, we hold that
section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West
2006)) is inapplicable to the Burris appointment, and that no further
action is required by any officer of this state to make that appointment
valid. We further hold that the only ministerial act required of the
Secretary of State in this case is that he register the appointment in
accordance with section 5(2) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS
305/5(2) (West 2006)). The Secretary of State having performed that
responsibility on December 31, 2008, the writ of mandamus is
denied.
                               Background
     Following the November 4, 2008, general election, a majority of
the members of the Electoral College voted in favor of Barack H.
Obama for the office of President of the United States. See U.S.
Const., amend. XII. At the time of the general election, President-
elect Obama was the junior United States Senator from Illinois. In
anticipation of assuming the Presidency, President-elect Obama
resigned his Senate seat, leaving that post vacant.
     The seventeenth amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that
             “[w]hen vacancies happen in the representation of any
         State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall
         issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That
         the legislature of any State may empower the executive
         thereof to make temporary appointment until the people fill
         the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” U.S.
         Const., amend. XVII.
     Pursuant to the power conferred on it by this amendment, the
Illinois General Assembly empowered its executive, i.e., the
Governor, to make temporary appointments for the office of United
States Senator. It has done so through enactment of section 25–8 of
the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/25–8 (West 2006)). That statute
provides that “[w]hen a vacancy shall occur in the office of United
States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary
appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of
representatives in Congress.” 10 ILCS 5/25–8 (West 2006).
     In accordance with the authority conferred on him by section 25–8
(10 ILCS 5/25–8 (West 2006)), Rod R. Blagojevich, the Governor of
Illinois, appointed Roland Burris to temporarily fill the United States
Senate seat previously held by President-elect Obama. The Governor
made that appointment by letter dated December 30, 2008. The
following day, December 31, 2008, the Governor executed a
document entitled “certificate of appointment,” which was addressed
to the President of the Senate of the United States. In that document,
the Governor certified that he was appointing Mr. Burris to represent
Illinois in the United States Senate until the vacancy caused by

                                  -2-
President-elect Obama’s resignation “is filled by election as provided
by law.” The certificate was on a preprinted form and included, below
the Governor’s signature, a space for the signature of “Jesse White,
Secretary of State.” The space for the Secretary of State’s signature
was left blank.
    The form used by the Governor was apparently based on
“recommended forms” contained in Rule II of the Standing Rules of
the United States Senate. As their name indicates, these forms are
merely recommended. State officials are not required to adopt them,
but “they may use [them] if they see fit.” Standing Rule II, United
States Senate, Committee on Rule & Administration.
    The Illinois Constitution sets forth the Secretary of State’s duties.
It provides that
             “The Secretary of State shall maintain the official records
        of the acts of the General Assembly and such official records
        of the Executive Branch as provided by law. Such official
        records shall be available for inspection by the public. He
        shall keep the Great Seal of the State of Illinois and perform
        other duties that may be prescribed by law.” Ill. Const. 1970,
        art. V, §16.
    Consistent with this provision, the General Assembly provided,
by law, that
             “[i]t shall be the duty of the Secretary of State:
             1. To countersign and affix the seal of state to all
        commissions required by law to be issued by the Governor.
             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 [State] Senate confirmation is required, the
        date of the confirmation shall be included in the register.” 15
        ILCS 305/5 (West 2006).
These duties are set forth in section 5 of the Secretary of State Act (15
ILCS 305/5 (West 2006)). Section 5 includes additional provisions,
but none pertain to the present discussion.
    On December 31, 2008, the same day the certificate of
appointment was signed by the Governor, the appointment was duly
registered by the Secretary of State’s office pursuant to section 5(2)

                                  -3-
of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 35/5(2) (West 2006)). That
same day, the Secretary of State’s senior legal advisor sent a letter to
Mr. Burris’ attorneys confirming that the appointment had been
registered. The letter directly tracked the language used in section
5(2) and specifically cited to that provision. There is no dispute that
the Secretary of State did not also sign and affix the state seal to the
Governor’s certificate of appointment or his appointment letter dated
December 30, 2008.
     On January 2, 2009, Mr. Burris, joined by two registered voters
(hereinafter Petitioners), filed a motion pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 381(a) (188 Ill. 2d R. 381(a)) seeking leave to file a complaint
for mandamus in our court. The motion invoked our original
jurisdiction under article VI, section 4(a), of the Illinois Constitution
of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(a)) and sought an order
compelling the Secretary of State to countersign and affix the seal of
the state to his appointment papers under section 5(1) of the Secretary
of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)). In a separate motion to
“accelerate consideration of their motion for leave to file a complaint
for writ of mandamus and to accelerate consideration of [their]
complaint for writ of mandamus,” Mr. Burris and the other two
Petitioners alleged that prompt resolution of the matter is required
because without the Secretary of State’s signature and the seal of the
State, his appointment would not be recognized by the United States
Senate, and the people of the State of Illinois would not be fully
represented in the Senate when the new United States Congress
convened on January 6, 2009.
     In a supplemental memorandum which we allowed Mr. Burris to
file, he advised the court that on January 5, 2009, the chief of staff to
the Governor hand-delivered Mr. Burris’ certificate of appointment
to the secretary of the United States Senate. While the secretary
retained the certificate, she declined to enter it into the Senate’s
certificate book. The following day, when the Senate convened, Mr.
Burris appeared at the Capitol Building to be sworn in as a United
States Senator. He was not permitted to do so and was barred from
the Senate floor on the grounds the Secretary of State had not
countersigned or affixed the state seal to Mr. Burris’ appointment
papers.
     Pursuant to the rules of this court, the Secretary of State had until

                                   -4-
January 7, 2009, to respond to Petitioners’ motions. The Secretary of
State filed a timely response, and by separate order, we granted
Petitioners’ request for accelerated consideration of the motion for
leave to file a complaint for writ of mandamus. We also allowed
Petitioners’ request for accelerated consideration of the mandamus
complaint itself. Because resolution of this case turns on questions of
law which the parties have carefully examined and forcefully argued
in the materials already submitted to us, additional argument is
unnecessary. The numerous memoranda of law submitted by the
parties’ shall stand as their briefs, and we shall proceed to the merits
without oral argument.

                                Analysis
    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to enforce, as a matter of
right, “the performance of official duties by a public officer where no
exercise of discretion on his part is involved.” Noyola v. Board of
Education, 179 Ill. 2d 121, 133 (1997), quoting Madden v. Cronson,
114 Ill. 2d 504, 514 (1986). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a
party must establish a clear right to relief, a clear duty of the public
official to act, and a clear authority in the public official to comply
with the writ. People ex rel. Madigan v. Snyder, 208 Ill. 2d 457, 465
(2004). We agree with the Secretary of State that Petitioners in this
case cannot satisfy that burden.
    Petitioners’ claim is predicated on the Secretary of State’s failure
to countersign and affix the state seal to the documents appointing
Mr. Burris to the Senate. According to Petitioners, the Secretary owes
such a duty under section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS
305/5(1) (West 2006)). Under the express terms of that statute,
however, the duty to sign and affix the state seal only pertains to
“commissions required by law to be issued by the governor.” There
are situations in Illinois law where officer holders are specifically
required to obtain gubernatorial “commissions.” These include county
clerks (55 ILCS 5/2–2006 West 2006)), members of the boards of
county commissions (55 ILCS 5/2–4001 (West 2006)), coroners (55
ILCS 5/3–3001 (West 2006)), sheriffs (55 ILCS 5/3–6001 (West
2006)), clerks of the courts (705 ILCS 105/3 (West 2006)), and
commissioned officers in the Illinois State Guard (20 ILCS 1805/37
(West 2006)). No provision of Illinois law, however, requires a

                                  -5-
commission to be issued by the Governor in case of appointments to
fill vacancies to the United States Senate.
     The relationship between “commissions” and the Governor’s
appointment powers was considered in an Attorney General opinion
issued in 1978 at then Governor Thompson’s request. The opinion
states:
             “To constitute an appointment to office, there must be
         some open, unequivocal act of appointment on the part of the
         appointing authority empowered to make it. (Molnar v. City
         of Aurora (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 580, 583; 63 Am. Jur. 2d
         Public Officers and Employees §99.) An appointment to
         office is made and is complete when the last act required of
         the appointing authority vested with the appointing power has
         been performed. People v. Lower (1911), 251 Ill. 527, 529.
             ***
             While the appointment of an officer is usually evidenced
         by a commission, it is not essential to the validity of the
         appointment that a commission be issued to the officer.
         (Fekete v. City of East St. Louis (1924), 315 Ill. 58, 60.) The
         commission is not the appointment; it is merely the written
         evidence of the appointment. (63 Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers
         and Employees §114.) Where the issuance of a commission
         is not made by law a necessary part of the appointment, the
         appointment is complete when the appointing officer makes
         his choice. 67 C.J.S. Officers §36.” 1978 Ill. Att’y Gen. Op.
         138, 139.
While Attorney General opinions are not binding on the courts, a
well-reasoned opinion of the Attorney General is entitled to
considerable weight, especially in a matter of first impression in
Illinois. Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board, 158 Ill. 2d
391, 399 (1994). We think this opinion, grounded as it is on
precedent from our own court, is entitled to such weight and
accurately characterizes Illinois law.
     Because gubernatorial appointments only require issuance of an
actual commission when the governing law so provides and because
no provision of law makes issuance of a commission necessary for
the validity of a gubernatorial appointee to a United States Senate

                                  -6-
vacancy, no commission was required by law to effectuate the
appointment of Mr. Burris to the United States Senate. And because
the Secretary of State’s “sign and seal” duty is triggered only in cases
where commissions are required by law, it necessarily follows that the
Secretary of State had no duty to sign and seal the certificate of
appointment issued by the Governor in this case. Under section 5(2)
of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), the
Secretary of State’s sole duty was to register the appointment, which
he has done.
    Our research has disclosed but one reported decision pertaining
to refusal by the Secretary of State to countersign and affix the seal
to a commission for a gubernatorial appointment. It is People ex rel.
Ewign v. Forquer, 1 Ill. 104 (1825). That case involved the
Governor’s attempt to make an appointment to the post of paymaster-
general in the state militia. Mandamus was ultimately denied for
reasons unrelated to the questions before us today, and nothing in the
court’s decision is in any way inconsistent with the analysis we have
just set forth. Although the opinion does not give a useful citation to
the governing statute, the law in question was a precursor to the
Military Code of Illinois (20 ILCS 1805/1 et seq. (West 2006)), and
while the current Code no longer addresses the specific post of
paymaster-general, that post would have fallen within the category of
positions for which gubernatorial commissions are, in fact, required.
For the reasons just explained, a United States Senate vacancy is not
such a position.
    The suggestion has been made that the General Assembly
intended the term “commission” to be used in a more general sense
to encompass any appointments by the Governor. Historical analysis
of Illinois law will not support such a construction. The “sign and
seal” duty contained in section 5 of the Secretary of State Act has
antecedents in earlier statutes. For example, a version of the law was
in effect in 1874, and it also contained a “sign and seal” duty for
commissions. Significantly, however, it differed from the current law
in that the registration requirement, now set forth in subsection (2) of
section 5, was also directed specifically to commissions. That is no
longer the case. Public Act 86–398 amended the statute in 1989.
Present law clearly differentiates between “commissions” under
subsection (1) of section 5 and the more general “appointments”

                                  -7-
contained in subsection (2) of section 5. Under established rules of
statutory construction, we must assume that the General Assembly
made that distinction for a reason, and the reason is apparent: under
present law, commissions are no longer necessary in every case to
make a gubernatorial appointment valid. Where commissions are
required by law, the “sign and seal” duty applies. Where, as here, no
commission is required, there is only a duty to register the
appointment.
    As noted in the Attorney General opinion cited above, the only
purpose a signature and seal could serve in this case is an evidentiary
one. It would confirm that the appointment had, in fact, been made.
At this point, however, there is no question at all that the Governor
did, in fact, make the appointment. If there was ever any question
about that on the part of the United States Senate, it should have been
removed when the Governor’s envoy appeared at the Senate with a
copy of the certificate of appointment in hand.
    In their pleadings, Petitioners suggest that the United States
Senate has taken the view that the Governor’s signed, hand-delivered
certificate of appointment is insufficient to meet the requirements of
the Senate’s own internal rules. We note, however, that nothing in the
published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require
that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the
seventeenth amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s
secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how
any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of
tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on
the states by the federal constitution. Under these circumstances, the
Senate’s actions cannot serve as the predicate for a mandamus action
against the Secretary of State. The only issue before us is whether the
Secretary of State, an official of this state, failed to perform an act
required of him by the law of Illinois. He did not.
    Petitioners argue, in the alternative, that the Secretary of State had
a mandatory duty under certain acts of Congress to sign and affix the
seal of this state to Mr. Burris’ appointment as Senator. This
argument is wholly without merit. The provisions invoked by
Petitioners, 2 U.S.C. sections 1a and 1b, apply, by their terms, to
situations where a vacancy is filled by election. The situation here
involves the filling of a vacancy through appointment.

                                   -8-
There is one final point we feel constrained to mention. While the
Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the
state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor, he
does have a duty under section 5(4) of the Secretary of State Act (15
ILCS 305/5(4) (West 2006))
         “to give any person requiring the same paying the lawful fees
         therefor, a copy of any law, act, resolution, record or paper in
         his office, and attach thereto his certificate, under the seal of
         the state.”
The registration of the appointment of Mr. Burris made by the
Secretary of State is a “record or paper” within the meaning of this
statute. A copy of it is available from the Secretary of State to anyone
who requests it. For payment of the normal fee charged by the
Secretary of State in accordance with this statute, Petitioners could
obtain a certified copy bearing the state’s seal. Because such relief is
possible, no order by this court is necessary or appropriate. See
People ex rel. Devine v. Stralka, 226 Ill. 2d 445, 450 (2007) (for
mandamus to issue, the petitioner must be without any other adequate
remedy).

                                Conclusion
     Because the Secretary of State had no duty under section 5(1) of
the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) to sign and
affix the state seal to the document issued by the Governor appointing
Roland Burris to the United States Senate, Petitioners are not entitled
to an order from this court requiring the Secretary to perform those
Acts. Under the Secretary of State Act, the Secretary’s sole
responsibility was to register the appointment (15 ILCS 305/5(2)
(West 2006)), which he did. No further action is required by the
Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor’s
appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under
Illinois law. Moreover, to the extent that additional proof of the
validity of the appointment is necessary, Illinois law provides a
mechanism for obtaining it without the need for judicial intervention.
     For the foregoing reasons, petitioners’ request for issuance of a
writ of mandamus is denied. Mandate to issue forthwith.



                                   -9-
Writ denied.




-10-

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Ch 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad Black
Ch 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad BlackCh 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad Black
Ch 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad Blackrebeccamendelsohn
 
Fourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-Blankenship
Fourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-BlankenshipFourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-Blankenship
Fourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-BlankenshipBrandon L. Blankenship
 
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Rich Bergeron
 
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownGEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownJRachelle
 
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...Rich Bergeron
 
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Rich Bergeron
 
07/14/14 - RULE 60 & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...
07/14/14 - RULE 60  & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...07/14/14 - RULE 60  & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...
07/14/14 - RULE 60 & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...VogelDenise
 
Second district-court-of-appeal-ruling
Second district-court-of-appeal-rulingSecond district-court-of-appeal-ruling
Second district-court-of-appeal-rulingRepentSinner
 
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)Rich Bergeron
 
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)VogelDenise
 
Rokita Denies Shabazz Open Records Request
Rokita Denies Shabazz Open Records RequestRokita Denies Shabazz Open Records Request
Rokita Denies Shabazz Open Records RequestAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
2009 Maloney V. Cuomo Sotomayor
2009 Maloney V. Cuomo   Sotomayor2009 Maloney V. Cuomo   Sotomayor
2009 Maloney V. Cuomo Sotomayormaldef
 
2007 Hankins V. Lyght Sotomayor
2007 Hankins V. Lyght   Sotomayor2007 Hankins V. Lyght   Sotomayor
2007 Hankins V. Lyght Sotomayormaldef
 
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Rich Bergeron
 
Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8
Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8
Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8Mauricio Albarracín Caballero
 
Holcomb v. Indiana General Assembly
Holcomb v. Indiana General AssemblyHolcomb v. Indiana General Assembly
Holcomb v. Indiana General AssemblyAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...Guy Boulianne
 

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ch 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad Black
Ch 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad BlackCh 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad Black
Ch 5 presentation Will Kumi, Rebecca Mendelsohn, Conrad Black
 
Wyoming v blm nd mtn to intervene
Wyoming v blm   nd mtn to interveneWyoming v blm   nd mtn to intervene
Wyoming v blm nd mtn to intervene
 
Fourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-Blankenship
Fourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-BlankenshipFourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-Blankenship
Fourteenth Amendment Brandon-L-Blankenship
 
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...
 
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownGEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
 
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...
 
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
 
07/14/14 - RULE 60 & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...
07/14/14 - RULE 60  & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...07/14/14 - RULE 60  & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...
07/14/14 - RULE 60 & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY...
 
Second district-court-of-appeal-ruling
Second district-court-of-appeal-rulingSecond district-court-of-appeal-ruling
Second district-court-of-appeal-ruling
 
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)
 
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)
 
Rokita Denies Shabazz Open Records Request
Rokita Denies Shabazz Open Records RequestRokita Denies Shabazz Open Records Request
Rokita Denies Shabazz Open Records Request
 
2009 Maloney V. Cuomo Sotomayor
2009 Maloney V. Cuomo   Sotomayor2009 Maloney V. Cuomo   Sotomayor
2009 Maloney V. Cuomo Sotomayor
 
2007 Hankins V. Lyght Sotomayor
2007 Hankins V. Lyght   Sotomayor2007 Hankins V. Lyght   Sotomayor
2007 Hankins V. Lyght Sotomayor
 
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...
 
PDAF : TRO
PDAF : TROPDAF : TRO
PDAF : TRO
 
Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8
Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8
Sentencia matrimonio gay Caso California Contra La Prop.8
 
Arizona immigration ruling
Arizona immigration rulingArizona immigration ruling
Arizona immigration ruling
 
Holcomb v. Indiana General Assembly
Holcomb v. Indiana General AssemblyHolcomb v. Indiana General Assembly
Holcomb v. Indiana General Assembly
 
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press comes to Project Veritas' de...
 

Ähnlich wie Roland Burris Senate Appointment Court Decision - Illinois Supreme Ct

CmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptx
CmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptxCmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptx
CmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptxVikasSingh969943
 
Volume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-states
Volume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-statesVolume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-states
Volume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-statesAmerican Lands Council
 
Christian Schussele Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docx
Christian Schussele  Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docxChristian Schussele  Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docx
Christian Schussele Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docxtroutmanboris
 
A2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studies
A2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studiesA2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studies
A2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studiesitskit
 
5. us constitution and commerce lecture
5. us constitution and commerce lecture5. us constitution and commerce lecture
5. us constitution and commerce lectureholmeskm
 
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22Sharon Anderson
 
Texas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaint
Texas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaintTexas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaint
Texas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaintDaniel Alouidor
 
Supreme Court History Essay
Supreme Court History EssaySupreme Court History Essay
Supreme Court History EssayAnn Johnson
 
Caleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 Project
Caleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 ProjectCaleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 Project
Caleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 Projectglennrmoses
 
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of GovernorIN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of GovernorAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
Executive Order 906 Summary
Executive Order 906 SummaryExecutive Order 906 Summary
Executive Order 906 SummaryLaura Olson
 
National Bar Association / American Bar Association
National Bar Association / American Bar Association National Bar Association / American Bar Association
National Bar Association / American Bar Association ICJ-ICC
 
The Impeachment Of President Clinton Essay
The Impeachment Of President Clinton EssayThe Impeachment Of President Clinton Essay
The Impeachment Of President Clinton EssaySheila Brooks
 
NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)
NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)
NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)JoeCheray
 

Ähnlich wie Roland Burris Senate Appointment Court Decision - Illinois Supreme Ct (20)

CmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptx
CmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptxCmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptx
CmC_P1&2_Comparing_Constitution_USA.pptx
 
It's a file
It's a fileIt's a file
It's a file
 
Presidency key terms
Presidency key termsPresidency key terms
Presidency key terms
 
Volume ii-jurisdiction
Volume ii-jurisdictionVolume ii-jurisdiction
Volume ii-jurisdiction
 
Volume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-states
Volume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-statesVolume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-states
Volume ii-jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-states
 
Volume ii-jurisdiction
Volume ii-jurisdictionVolume ii-jurisdiction
Volume ii-jurisdiction
 
Christian Schussele Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docx
Christian Schussele  Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docxChristian Schussele  Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docx
Christian Schussele Men of ProgressOil on canvas, 1862Coope.docx
 
A2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studies
A2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studiesA2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studies
A2 Edexcel Government & Politics Unit 4 examples and case studies
 
5. us constitution and commerce lecture
5. us constitution and commerce lecture5. us constitution and commerce lecture
5. us constitution and commerce lecture
 
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22
 
House special committee report
House special committee reportHouse special committee report
House special committee report
 
Texas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaint
Texas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaintTexas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaint
Texas v.-pennsylvania-et-al.-us-supreme-court-motion-to-file-bill-of-complaint
 
Supreme Court History Essay
Supreme Court History EssaySupreme Court History Essay
Supreme Court History Essay
 
Caleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 Project
Caleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 ProjectCaleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 Project
Caleb B - The Three Branches of Government - Unit 3 Project
 
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of GovernorIN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
IN Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Governor
 
Executive Order 906 Summary
Executive Order 906 SummaryExecutive Order 906 Summary
Executive Order 906 Summary
 
National Bar Association / American Bar Association
National Bar Association / American Bar Association National Bar Association / American Bar Association
National Bar Association / American Bar Association
 
constitution
constitutionconstitution
constitution
 
The Impeachment Of President Clinton Essay
The Impeachment Of President Clinton EssayThe Impeachment Of President Clinton Essay
The Impeachment Of President Clinton Essay
 
NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)
NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)
NFDW 2022 position paper on era (1)
 

Mehr von LegalDocs

Madoff I.G. Report
Madoff I.G. ReportMadoff I.G. Report
Madoff I.G. ReportLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled Companies
FindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled CompaniesFindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled Companies
FindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled CompaniesLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges DismissedFindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges DismissedLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic Scholar
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarFindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic Scholar
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against Superman
FindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against SupermanFindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against Superman
FindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against SupermanLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over Pez
FindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over PezFindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over Pez
FindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over PezLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...
FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...
FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...LegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA case
FindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA caseFindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA case
FindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA caseLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act CaseFindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act CaseLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism Indictment
FindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism IndictmentFindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism Indictment
FindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism IndictmentLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' Indictment
FindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' IndictmentFindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' Indictment
FindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' IndictmentLegalDocs
 
FIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge Ruling
FIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge RulingFIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge Ruling
FIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge RulingLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Madoff Trustee Report
FindLaw | Madoff Trustee ReportFindLaw | Madoff Trustee Report
FindLaw | Madoff Trustee ReportLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case Opinion
FindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case OpinionFindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case Opinion
FindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case OpinionLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to Intervene
FindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to InterveneFindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to Intervene
FindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to InterveneLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Ruth Madoff
FindLaw | Ruth MadoffFindLaw | Ruth Madoff
FindLaw | Ruth MadoffLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage Act
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage ActFindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage Act
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage ActLegalDocs
 
FindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security Guards
FindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security GuardsFindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security Guards
FindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security GuardsLegalDocs
 
Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...
Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...
Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...LegalDocs
 

Mehr von LegalDocs (20)

Madoff I.G. Report
Madoff I.G. ReportMadoff I.G. Report
Madoff I.G. Report
 
FindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled Companies
FindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled CompaniesFindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled Companies
FindLaw | Hillwood Center Partners Sues Mark Cuban-Controlled Companies
 
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges DismissedFindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
 
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic Scholar
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarFindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic Scholar
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic Scholar
 
FindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against Superman
FindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against SupermanFindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against Superman
FindLaw | Criminal Charges Filed Against Superman
 
FindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over Pez
FindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over PezFindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over Pez
FindLaw | Trademark Lawsuit Over Pez
 
FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...
FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...
FindLaw | Butner, North Carolina Federal Correctional Complex Visiting Regula...
 
FindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA case
FindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA caseFindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA case
FindLaw | Government Response to Motion to Dismiss AETA case
 
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act CaseFindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
 
FindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism Indictment
FindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism IndictmentFindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism Indictment
FindLaw | Animal Enterprise Terrorism Indictment
 
FindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' Indictment
FindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' IndictmentFindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' Indictment
FindLaw | Telemarketing 'Boiler Room' Indictment
 
FIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge Ruling
FIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge RulingFIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge Ruling
FIndLaw | California DUI Breathalyzer Challenge Ruling
 
FindLaw | Madoff Trustee Report
FindLaw | Madoff Trustee ReportFindLaw | Madoff Trustee Report
FindLaw | Madoff Trustee Report
 
FindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case Opinion
FindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case OpinionFindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case Opinion
FindLaw | YouTube Copyright Infringement Case Opinion
 
FindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to Intervene
FindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to InterveneFindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to Intervene
FindLaw | Proposition 8 Motion to Intervene
 
FindLaw | Ruth Madoff
FindLaw | Ruth MadoffFindLaw | Ruth Madoff
FindLaw | Ruth Madoff
 
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage Act
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage ActFindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage Act
FindLaw | Mass. Sues Over Federal Defense of Marriage Act
 
FindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security Guards
FindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security GuardsFindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security Guards
FindLaw | GAO Homeland Security Report on Security Guards
 
Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...
Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...
Order Dismissing Yahoo's fantasy football lawsuit against NFL Players' Associ...
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinIpsos France
 
Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde NewsFeed1
 
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...virgfern3011
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...University of Canberra
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioAlexisTorres963861
 
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfSABC News
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduDreamTamilnadu
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (9)

Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
 
Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde
 
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
 
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
 

Roland Burris Senate Appointment Court Decision - Illinois Supreme Ct

  • 1. Docket No. 107816. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ROLAND W. BURRIS et al., Petitioners, v. JESSE WHITE, Secretary of State, Respondent. Opinion filed January 9, 2009. JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Garman and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION The issue presented by this original action for mandamus is whether Jesse White, the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, is required by section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) to countersign and affix the seal of the state to the document issued by Governor Rod R. Blagojevich on December 31, 2008, certifying the Governor’s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate. For the reasons that follow, we hold that section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) is inapplicable to the Burris appointment, and that no further action is required by any officer of this state to make that appointment valid. We further hold that the only ministerial act required of the Secretary of State in this case is that he register the appointment in accordance with section 5(2) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)). The Secretary of State having performed that responsibility on December 31, 2008, the writ of mandamus is
  • 2. denied. Background Following the November 4, 2008, general election, a majority of the members of the Electoral College voted in favor of Barack H. Obama for the office of President of the United States. See U.S. Const., amend. XII. At the time of the general election, President- elect Obama was the junior United States Senator from Illinois. In anticipation of assuming the Presidency, President-elect Obama resigned his Senate seat, leaving that post vacant. The seventeenth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[w]hen vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointment until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” U.S. Const., amend. XVII. Pursuant to the power conferred on it by this amendment, the Illinois General Assembly empowered its executive, i.e., the Governor, to make temporary appointments for the office of United States Senator. It has done so through enactment of section 25–8 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/25–8 (West 2006)). That statute provides that “[w]hen a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress.” 10 ILCS 5/25–8 (West 2006). In accordance with the authority conferred on him by section 25–8 (10 ILCS 5/25–8 (West 2006)), Rod R. Blagojevich, the Governor of Illinois, appointed Roland Burris to temporarily fill the United States Senate seat previously held by President-elect Obama. The Governor made that appointment by letter dated December 30, 2008. The following day, December 31, 2008, the Governor executed a document entitled “certificate of appointment,” which was addressed to the President of the Senate of the United States. In that document, the Governor certified that he was appointing Mr. Burris to represent Illinois in the United States Senate until the vacancy caused by -2-
  • 3. President-elect Obama’s resignation “is filled by election as provided by law.” The certificate was on a preprinted form and included, below the Governor’s signature, a space for the signature of “Jesse White, Secretary of State.” The space for the Secretary of State’s signature was left blank. The form used by the Governor was apparently based on “recommended forms” contained in Rule II of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate. As their name indicates, these forms are merely recommended. State officials are not required to adopt them, but “they may use [them] if they see fit.” Standing Rule II, United States Senate, Committee on Rule & Administration. The Illinois Constitution sets forth the Secretary of State’s duties. It provides that “The Secretary of State shall maintain the official records of the acts of the General Assembly and such official records of the Executive Branch as provided by law. Such official records shall be available for inspection by the public. He shall keep the Great Seal of the State of Illinois and perform other duties that may be prescribed by law.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. V, §16. Consistent with this provision, the General Assembly provided, by law, that “[i]t shall be the duty of the Secretary of State: 1. To countersign and affix the seal of state to all commissions required by law to be issued by the Governor. 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 [State] Senate confirmation is required, the date of the confirmation shall be included in the register.” 15 ILCS 305/5 (West 2006). These duties are set forth in section 5 of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5 (West 2006)). Section 5 includes additional provisions, but none pertain to the present discussion. On December 31, 2008, the same day the certificate of appointment was signed by the Governor, the appointment was duly registered by the Secretary of State’s office pursuant to section 5(2) -3-
  • 4. of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 35/5(2) (West 2006)). That same day, the Secretary of State’s senior legal advisor sent a letter to Mr. Burris’ attorneys confirming that the appointment had been registered. The letter directly tracked the language used in section 5(2) and specifically cited to that provision. There is no dispute that the Secretary of State did not also sign and affix the state seal to the Governor’s certificate of appointment or his appointment letter dated December 30, 2008. On January 2, 2009, Mr. Burris, joined by two registered voters (hereinafter Petitioners), filed a motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 381(a) (188 Ill. 2d R. 381(a)) seeking leave to file a complaint for mandamus in our court. The motion invoked our original jurisdiction under article VI, section 4(a), of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(a)) and sought an order compelling the Secretary of State to countersign and affix the seal of the state to his appointment papers under section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)). In a separate motion to “accelerate consideration of their motion for leave to file a complaint for writ of mandamus and to accelerate consideration of [their] complaint for writ of mandamus,” Mr. Burris and the other two Petitioners alleged that prompt resolution of the matter is required because without the Secretary of State’s signature and the seal of the State, his appointment would not be recognized by the United States Senate, and the people of the State of Illinois would not be fully represented in the Senate when the new United States Congress convened on January 6, 2009. In a supplemental memorandum which we allowed Mr. Burris to file, he advised the court that on January 5, 2009, the chief of staff to the Governor hand-delivered Mr. Burris’ certificate of appointment to the secretary of the United States Senate. While the secretary retained the certificate, she declined to enter it into the Senate’s certificate book. The following day, when the Senate convened, Mr. Burris appeared at the Capitol Building to be sworn in as a United States Senator. He was not permitted to do so and was barred from the Senate floor on the grounds the Secretary of State had not countersigned or affixed the state seal to Mr. Burris’ appointment papers. Pursuant to the rules of this court, the Secretary of State had until -4-
  • 5. January 7, 2009, to respond to Petitioners’ motions. The Secretary of State filed a timely response, and by separate order, we granted Petitioners’ request for accelerated consideration of the motion for leave to file a complaint for writ of mandamus. We also allowed Petitioners’ request for accelerated consideration of the mandamus complaint itself. Because resolution of this case turns on questions of law which the parties have carefully examined and forcefully argued in the materials already submitted to us, additional argument is unnecessary. The numerous memoranda of law submitted by the parties’ shall stand as their briefs, and we shall proceed to the merits without oral argument. Analysis Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to enforce, as a matter of right, “the performance of official duties by a public officer where no exercise of discretion on his part is involved.” Noyola v. Board of Education, 179 Ill. 2d 121, 133 (1997), quoting Madden v. Cronson, 114 Ill. 2d 504, 514 (1986). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish a clear right to relief, a clear duty of the public official to act, and a clear authority in the public official to comply with the writ. People ex rel. Madigan v. Snyder, 208 Ill. 2d 457, 465 (2004). We agree with the Secretary of State that Petitioners in this case cannot satisfy that burden. Petitioners’ claim is predicated on the Secretary of State’s failure to countersign and affix the state seal to the documents appointing Mr. Burris to the Senate. According to Petitioners, the Secretary owes such a duty under section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)). Under the express terms of that statute, however, the duty to sign and affix the state seal only pertains to “commissions required by law to be issued by the governor.” There are situations in Illinois law where officer holders are specifically required to obtain gubernatorial “commissions.” These include county clerks (55 ILCS 5/2–2006 West 2006)), members of the boards of county commissions (55 ILCS 5/2–4001 (West 2006)), coroners (55 ILCS 5/3–3001 (West 2006)), sheriffs (55 ILCS 5/3–6001 (West 2006)), clerks of the courts (705 ILCS 105/3 (West 2006)), and commissioned officers in the Illinois State Guard (20 ILCS 1805/37 (West 2006)). No provision of Illinois law, however, requires a -5-
  • 6. commission to be issued by the Governor in case of appointments to fill vacancies to the United States Senate. The relationship between “commissions” and the Governor’s appointment powers was considered in an Attorney General opinion issued in 1978 at then Governor Thompson’s request. The opinion states: “To constitute an appointment to office, there must be some open, unequivocal act of appointment on the part of the appointing authority empowered to make it. (Molnar v. City of Aurora (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 580, 583; 63 Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees §99.) An appointment to office is made and is complete when the last act required of the appointing authority vested with the appointing power has been performed. People v. Lower (1911), 251 Ill. 527, 529. *** While the appointment of an officer is usually evidenced by a commission, it is not essential to the validity of the appointment that a commission be issued to the officer. (Fekete v. City of East St. Louis (1924), 315 Ill. 58, 60.) The commission is not the appointment; it is merely the written evidence of the appointment. (63 Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees §114.) Where the issuance of a commission is not made by law a necessary part of the appointment, the appointment is complete when the appointing officer makes his choice. 67 C.J.S. Officers §36.” 1978 Ill. Att’y Gen. Op. 138, 139. While Attorney General opinions are not binding on the courts, a well-reasoned opinion of the Attorney General is entitled to considerable weight, especially in a matter of first impression in Illinois. Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board, 158 Ill. 2d 391, 399 (1994). We think this opinion, grounded as it is on precedent from our own court, is entitled to such weight and accurately characterizes Illinois law. Because gubernatorial appointments only require issuance of an actual commission when the governing law so provides and because no provision of law makes issuance of a commission necessary for the validity of a gubernatorial appointee to a United States Senate -6-
  • 7. vacancy, no commission was required by law to effectuate the appointment of Mr. Burris to the United States Senate. And because the Secretary of State’s “sign and seal” duty is triggered only in cases where commissions are required by law, it necessarily follows that the Secretary of State had no duty to sign and seal the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor in this case. Under section 5(2) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), the Secretary of State’s sole duty was to register the appointment, which he has done. Our research has disclosed but one reported decision pertaining to refusal by the Secretary of State to countersign and affix the seal to a commission for a gubernatorial appointment. It is People ex rel. Ewign v. Forquer, 1 Ill. 104 (1825). That case involved the Governor’s attempt to make an appointment to the post of paymaster- general in the state militia. Mandamus was ultimately denied for reasons unrelated to the questions before us today, and nothing in the court’s decision is in any way inconsistent with the analysis we have just set forth. Although the opinion does not give a useful citation to the governing statute, the law in question was a precursor to the Military Code of Illinois (20 ILCS 1805/1 et seq. (West 2006)), and while the current Code no longer addresses the specific post of paymaster-general, that post would have fallen within the category of positions for which gubernatorial commissions are, in fact, required. For the reasons just explained, a United States Senate vacancy is not such a position. The suggestion has been made that the General Assembly intended the term “commission” to be used in a more general sense to encompass any appointments by the Governor. Historical analysis of Illinois law will not support such a construction. The “sign and seal” duty contained in section 5 of the Secretary of State Act has antecedents in earlier statutes. For example, a version of the law was in effect in 1874, and it also contained a “sign and seal” duty for commissions. Significantly, however, it differed from the current law in that the registration requirement, now set forth in subsection (2) of section 5, was also directed specifically to commissions. That is no longer the case. Public Act 86–398 amended the statute in 1989. Present law clearly differentiates between “commissions” under subsection (1) of section 5 and the more general “appointments” -7-
  • 8. contained in subsection (2) of section 5. Under established rules of statutory construction, we must assume that the General Assembly made that distinction for a reason, and the reason is apparent: under present law, commissions are no longer necessary in every case to make a gubernatorial appointment valid. Where commissions are required by law, the “sign and seal” duty applies. Where, as here, no commission is required, there is only a duty to register the appointment. As noted in the Attorney General opinion cited above, the only purpose a signature and seal could serve in this case is an evidentiary one. It would confirm that the appointment had, in fact, been made. At this point, however, there is no question at all that the Governor did, in fact, make the appointment. If there was ever any question about that on the part of the United States Senate, it should have been removed when the Governor’s envoy appeared at the Senate with a copy of the certificate of appointment in hand. In their pleadings, Petitioners suggest that the United States Senate has taken the view that the Governor’s signed, hand-delivered certificate of appointment is insufficient to meet the requirements of the Senate’s own internal rules. We note, however, that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the seventeenth amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution. Under these circumstances, the Senate’s actions cannot serve as the predicate for a mandamus action against the Secretary of State. The only issue before us is whether the Secretary of State, an official of this state, failed to perform an act required of him by the law of Illinois. He did not. Petitioners argue, in the alternative, that the Secretary of State had a mandatory duty under certain acts of Congress to sign and affix the seal of this state to Mr. Burris’ appointment as Senator. This argument is wholly without merit. The provisions invoked by Petitioners, 2 U.S.C. sections 1a and 1b, apply, by their terms, to situations where a vacancy is filled by election. The situation here involves the filling of a vacancy through appointment. -8-
  • 9. There is one final point we feel constrained to mention. While the Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor, he does have a duty under section 5(4) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(4) (West 2006)) “to give any person requiring the same paying the lawful fees therefor, a copy of any law, act, resolution, record or paper in his office, and attach thereto his certificate, under the seal of the state.” The registration of the appointment of Mr. Burris made by the Secretary of State is a “record or paper” within the meaning of this statute. A copy of it is available from the Secretary of State to anyone who requests it. For payment of the normal fee charged by the Secretary of State in accordance with this statute, Petitioners could obtain a certified copy bearing the state’s seal. Because such relief is possible, no order by this court is necessary or appropriate. See People ex rel. Devine v. Stralka, 226 Ill. 2d 445, 450 (2007) (for mandamus to issue, the petitioner must be without any other adequate remedy). Conclusion Because the Secretary of State had no duty under section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) to sign and affix the state seal to the document issued by the Governor appointing Roland Burris to the United States Senate, Petitioners are not entitled to an order from this court requiring the Secretary to perform those Acts. Under the Secretary of State Act, the Secretary’s sole responsibility was to register the appointment (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), which he did. No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor’s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law. Moreover, to the extent that additional proof of the validity of the appointment is necessary, Illinois law provides a mechanism for obtaining it without the need for judicial intervention. For the foregoing reasons, petitioners’ request for issuance of a writ of mandamus is denied. Mandate to issue forthwith. -9-