Deputy Majority Leader Lou Lang now took the floor in the role of prosecutor, speaking as a well-informed lawyer and continuing to establish the legislative record. He reminded the house that the Illinois Constitution requires that the governor be responsible for the “faithful execution of the laws” and that the governor had violated his constitutional oath. Reiterating Durkin’s remarks, he reported that during committee hearings, the governor’s attorney had argued that the governor was being denied the right of due process. Lang again emphasized that although the Illinois Constitution does not specify any provisions for due process in the impeachment process, the governor was given an “extraordinary, unprecedented level of due process.” The committee, he said, allowed the governor to have lawyers attend and participate in the committee hearings, and he contrasted their level of participation with the procedures followed in the Clinton impeachment trial. “We afforded them the opportunity to ask questions and afforded the opportunity to challenge exhibits, to challenge witnesses,” he noted (17–18).
Lang cautioned that the investigative committee was not a “criminal tribunal” but that the governor’s failure to refute the allegations could “be used against him” in the impeachment proceedings. The governor’s attorney had tried to impose the standards of proof for criminal proceedings, “beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, even a preponderance of the evidence, but,” he pointed out, “the fact is that the Constitution of the State of Illinois says none of those things.” He reminded the house that the Constitution states “one word as a standard” for impeachment, and “that word is cause.” And “cause means whatever the 118 members of the house individually think it might be.” Emphasizing the administrative indictments of the resolution, Lang cautioned that the governor’s administrative conduct was just as important as any criminal allegations. The governor had violated his “gubernatorial oath,” and he emphasized, “a violation of the Constitution is the same level whether it was an abuse of power because he committed a crime or an abuse of power because he violated the separation of powers or an abuse of power because he fraudulently . . . purchased flu vaccine for the State of Illinois knowing he would never take possession of it” (18–19).
The governor was charged by the federal government with allegations concerning criminal activity, but Lang wanted to establish that the charges of maladministration determined by the investigative committee were as important to the impeachment process as were the pending federal allegations. “The criminal is more emotional, the criminal is sexier, the criminal is something people want to talk about, but as it relates to this chamber and this Governor and this decision we must make, the fact is that what he has done within government separate and apart from any crimes is just as important as the criminal allegations,” he concluded (20).
Next to speak was Susana Mendoza, a five-term state representative from Chicago’s Near Northwest Side and a designated alternate member of the investigative committee. She had attended every committee meeting, sitting in the area designated for legislators, intently focused on the proceedings. At times Mendoza sat with the committee and asked questions of the witnesses. She took a particular interest in the proceedings. When Blagojevich took office, the bright, young, and idealistic Mendoza had been an enthusiastic supporter of the Democratic governor. She supported his legislative initiatives and attended press conferences with him. Over the years, as she came to learn of his misdeeds and manipulations, her support turned to disappointment and then to anger. When the investigative committee was formed, she went to the Speaker and asked that he appoint her as a member.3
Her remarks on the house floor seemed to synthesize the feelings of the entire house, reflecting a sense of sadness, anger, and shame. “Today we’re one day closer to healing the gaping wound inflicted upon the State of Illinois by Governor Rod Blagojevich,” she said. Her poignant delivery riveted the attention of the house chamber. Her choice of words also expressed her emotions: “Our state’s reputation has been sullied and, worse yet, people in our state have been seriously hurt by the unmeasured rapaciousness of this Governor.” She expressed outrage at Blagojevich’s “greed and arrogance” and his “brazenness and recklessness,” and she declared that it was “amazingly fitting” that Blagojevich should be impeached on the birthday of his “self-admitted hero Richard Nixon” (21–22).
Mendoza said that as an alternate committee member, she had listened to all the testimony and studied all the evidence with care and consideration, and she concluded that the only course was immediate impeachment to end the “continuing threat to the health of our state.” She was particularly incensed by the governor’s alleged extortion of Children’s Memorial Hospital and called the deed “repugnant.” Mendoza had sponsored HB 5331, the bill that provided the grant to the hospital. “Governor Blagojevich promised those physicians that money so that they could care for our sickest children,” she said. “Those sick children, Governor, they’re still waiting.” With measured anger, she amended her earlier statement: “Repugnant is too kind a word to describe [the governor’s] action.” She then spoke directly to the governor: “Rod Blagojevich, you should be ashamed of yourself, but I won’t pretend to think that you feel any [shame]. You’ve already shown us that you have none.” With that, Mendoza asked the house to “all vote” for the resolution and impeachment of the governor (22–24).
David Miller, a veteran legislator whose district included several southern suburbs of Chicago, was then recognized and began to ask Currie and Durkin some clarifying questions. Miller was respected by members of both parties, and many assumed that he also was simply trying to support the resolution. But his questions seemed dissonant and disjointed; he was hesitant and unsure. The night before, Miller had been a guest on WVON radio, a popular station among Chicago’s black community. The program featured a call-in format, and several of the callers expressed anger and skepticism about the upcoming impeachment. Miller took note. His district was predominantly minority populated, Miller himself was African American, and he was aware of the importance of the occasion. “The whole country was watching,” he later confided.4
Blagojevich was popular in the black community. He attended black church services, appeared at black-sponsored events, and appointed African Americans to positions in government. The black community was important to his electoral success. The governor’s personal narrative was that he had come from immigrant parents who worked in the steel mills with no advantage in life and had worked his way up, always struggling, fighting the odds, perpetually the outsider. He insisted that he was the crusader of good and truth, fighting for the people. Now he was again being opposed by the established powers, an evil cabal of greedy politicians. Blagojevich’s narrative resonated within the black community, and many could identify with what he was saying. Many black people felt that Blagojevich was being railroaded by the established powers. Miller’s radio appearance the night before provided him with an instant poll of black feelings. The reaction of listeners prompted some trepidation, and he felt he had “to get these things out.” He had whispered to Currie, “I’m going to ask you some questions.”5
He posed two questions to Currie and Durkin. The first question, “Why now?,” was straightforward. The second question seemed imprecise, somewhat curious. Speaking of the abuse of power that Lang had discussed, Miller asked, “How does that reflect in the criminal issues that Mr. Blagojevich is facing now? Does that have a bearing on this?” Currie explained that the criminal complaint “sparked the flame that led to the creation of the committee” but cited that other administrative actions such as that related to the flu vaccines along with the disregard for legislative authority, taken together with the criminal allegations, constituted justification for impeachment. Miller responded by stating that the governor had not been granted the right of due process under the US Constitution. “Haven’t we circumvented it?” he asked. Currie reiterated what she had expressed many times in the impeachment hearings, tha
t the investigative committee was not a criminal jury and that “nothing in our Constitution nor any State or Federal Constitution suggests that our standards should be a criminal one.” Currie argued that the governor “spent a lot of time figuring out how to sell state actions and state money for his political and personal benefit” and that the testimony before the committee was “not refuted.” Taken as a whole, Currie said, Blagojevich was not “fit to govern and he should be removed from office.” Miller agreed and said that the points made by the investigative committee, taken by themselves, did not constitute grounds for impeachment, but taken as a whole, “collectively,” they represented “a slow train wreck moving that has all sort of accumulated to our actions that will be today.” Currie agreed that Miller’s analogy was “exactly the way to think about it” (27–29).6
Wishing to conclude his questions, Miller began to make a statement on the “matter at hand today,” but Durkin sought recognition. The former Cook County prosecutor was aware of the importance of the moment. He knew that everything he said and everything the house did would be analyzed and dissected, and he knew the world press was watching. He wanted to expand on Currie’s remarks. Miller had asked “a few questions,” he said, and he wanted to add clarification. Addressing the “why now” question, he explained that the governor’s criminal allegations might take two to three years to be settled in federal court. In the meantime, the governor could still make appointments and sign laws and would have all the rights and authority he had under the statutes and the Constitution. Durkin stated that the impeachment process was “strictly a legislative process.” He also reiterated that although the state Constitution does not provide for due process in the impeachment process, the investigative committee had afforded the governor “due process plus.” Durkin said that a federal agent had signed and sworn an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the recordings of the governor, and a federal judge had authorized the wiretaps contained in the criminal complaint. The committee had weighed the evidence carefully and paid particular attention to the affidavit concerning the wiretaps, he said, because the governor’s attorney Edward Genson “went to great length . . . to challenge the integrity of that document.” Due process was afforded, Durkin said, but the governor and his attorney did not avail themselves of it. “That’s their decision,” he said. Durkin then answered Miller’s first question by saying, “Because I think we have to right now” (29–30). Durkin’s comments provided the rationale—the political cover—many needed to vote for impeachment.
Miller said that he agreed with the committee’s report and that as a member of JCAR, he had voted to reject the governor’s health expansion program “time and time again.” “The end doesn’t justify the means,” he said, and it was his responsibility as an elected official to work with others to “lobby Members on both sides of the aisles, in both chambers to hopefully agree upon things that I feel that is [of] value to my community and the State of Illinois.” Miller then called for support of the impeachment (31).
Discussion of most important issues brought up before the Illinois General Assembly is generally accompanied by a degree of political posturing, with for-the-record speeches that establish positions for constituent consumption or are intended for use in future press releases, but on the occasion of this momentous resolution, the political rhetoric and bombast were limited. Tom Cross and Jim Durkin were the only Republicans to speak, and the other random speakers on this issue limited themselves to a few brief remarks.
Barbara Currie delivered brief closing remarks. She declared, “This Governor has violated his oath of office. This Governor has breached the public trust. This Governor must be impeached.” The house did not need to hear anything further. Most were deeply saddened by what was about to take place. Speaker Madigan then posed the question: “Shall the House adopt House Resolution 1671?” (44). The tally was 114 voting yes, 1 voting no. Before the vote, Madigan had asked Ellis how he should announce the results. Ellis told him to simply say that the governor was impeached.7 Now the Speaker announced the vote: “The House does adopt House Resolution 1671 and Governor Blagojevich is hereby impeached” (44).
The results did not immediately register with all observers, perhaps because the house announces thousands of vote results in the course of a session in the same staccato cadence with which the results of HR 1671 were officially announced. But in a few moments the magnitude of what had just happened became clear, and the legislators slowly left the house floor. It was the first time in the state’s history that the house had voted to impeach a governor. There were no cheers among the members or in the galleries. Those present did not feel joy, just relief, sadness, and regret.8
Chapter 5
Senate Preparations
In early December 2008 the newly elected Democratic senate president John Cullerton had a great deal on his mind: numerous meetings and decisions to select a staff and organize the senate. His initial task was to plan the swearing-in ceremonies. “I had to worry about everything, even ordering flowers,” he recalled. He was also attempting to focus on the immediate legislative issues that faced Illinois, mainly a capital bill to fund the state’s crumbling infrastructure. He had reached out to the new Republican senate minority leader, Christine Radogno, and the two agreed that they could start with a “clean slate” and not continue the hostile relationship that had existed between Emil Jones and outgoing Republican leader Frank Watson. They felt that they could do better than their recent predecessors.1 Animosity between Jones and Watson was well known, and in the past year tension between the party leaders had gone from bad to worse. When Watson became ill and Radogno called Jones to go over the day’s legislative agenda, she recalled, Jones would not speak to her.2 Party politics in Illinois had developed a rough edge, and the earlier give and take, compromise, and camaraderie between Democrats and Republicans, when they would negotiate and come up with a compromise over coffee, a drink, or dinner, seemed lost memories of a bygone era.
Deep animosity also existed between Rod Blagojevich and Michael Madigan, often resulting in vituperative rhetoric and open hostility. Blagojevich used every opportunity to embarrass the Speaker. He openly mocked the Speaker in front of other legislators and staff, and on Democrat Day at the Illinois State Fair he bused in demonstrators to heckle Madigan. Cullerton felt that he could help “bridge the gap.” He and Blagojevich spoke infrequently, and in fact, the new senate president recalled only two conversations of substance during the governor’s six-year term in office. Cullerton represented the governor’s home district, he was from the neighborhood, and he had been supported by the governor’s now-estranged father-in-law, Chicago alderman Dick Mell, but his political relationship with Blagojevich was strained. Cullerton, however, was optimistic that he could provide some common ground between the governor and the Speaker.3
John Cullerton’s election as senate president deviated from the usual pattern of someone moving into the leadership position. He was not the leader of a minority party that had gained the majority. He did not hold a position on the leadership team of outgoing senate president Emil Jones. He did not have a new leadership team in place, and by early December he had not made two important appointments, his chief of staff and his chief legal counsel. In late November he focused on two individuals, Andy Manar, the current senate Democratic budget director, and Eric Madiar, an attorney in private practice in Springfield. Madiar had legislative experience with house Democrats and with a state agency. The arrest of Rod Blagojevich and the prospects of a senate trial presented an added challenge to Cullerton’s already full agenda.
In the days after the governor’s arrest Cullerton and Democratic senator Don Harmon, from Oak Park, had urged Emil Jones to form a committee to begin developing rules for conducting a senate trial. Jones would be senate president until January 14, 2009. An ally of the governor, Jones was hesitant. John Cullerton was in an awkward position; if Jones refused to form a committee, Cullerton would have to do it alone, with no
official staff and no official sanction by the senate. Rules for a senate trial needed to be in place quickly. The house was moving to impeach. After some discussion, Jones relented. Senate Resolution 966 created a committee to develop trial rules in the event that the governor was impeached. The resolution was passed by the senate the same day that the house held its first investigative hearing.4 The committee consisted of five Democrats and four Republicans, and Cullerton was named committee chairman.
Cullerton felt that when the house impeached the governor, it was important to hold a trial quickly. The thought of Blagojevich being impeached by the house and continuing to hold the position of governor while legislation was debated and passed was unacceptable. An array of negative scenarios could be contemplated. The trial had to be held immediately, as soon as the Ninety-Sixth General Assembly was sworn into office.5
Eric Madiar, a Springfield lawyer with the Chicago firm of Freeborn and Peters, had worked for the Illinois house Speaker from 2000 to 2003. He then worked as an attorney for the Illinois Commerce Commission before entering private practice. Madiar was a meticulous, detailed attorney, familiar with administrative law but also politically astute. He had watched the leadership change in the Illinois senate and felt that it was a good time to return to government. A few days before Blagojevich’s arrest, he began to talk with Cullerton about the position of chief legal counsel. He presented the incoming senate president with research concerning the potential appointment of Roland Burris to fill the vacant US Senate seat of president-elect Barack Obama. Blagojevich’s appointment of Burris had been rumored ever since Obama’s election, and many Illinois Democrats felt that the appointment “would be a blemish” on the party and the state.6
A Just Cause Page 13