Full representation in Senate is ideal, but not a requirement

BE-ELECTED
by Chad Rubel

The Senate is supposed to have 100 members, but we only have 98. Soon we will have 99 with the expected arrival of Senator-designate Roland Burris (D-IL).

One of the major arguments for seating Burris as quickly as possible is "full representation."

Burris has said the people of Illinois should not have to wait for "full representation and equal voting rights at such a crucial time."

Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, and the senior senator from Illinois, has said "the people of Illinois deserve full representation in the U.S. Senate."

But what does "full representation" really mean, and why is that so important?

To be fair, I've argued that full representation is an ideal, and should not be thwarted unless absolutely necessary. But clearly there are realities where exceptions are made.

Minnesota doesn't currently have a junior senator, or maybe senior senator, anyway Amy Klobuchar is the only U.S. senator from Minnesota.

South Dakota had a significant period of time, almost nine months, where the state had a senator, but he couldn't do any work; Tim Johnson spent months recovering from a brain hemorrhage.

Even though Arizona had a senator in John McCain in 2008, it wasn't like he made many votes, having a more sparse voting record than the guy with the brain hemorrhage.

Wyoming had three weeks without a senator after the death of Craig Thomas, as many states have a small period of time when a senator dies. Alaska would have had a small period of time without representation if Ted Stevens had won in November, between Stevens being kicked out of the Senate and a possible special election.

Oregon went over 4 months without a senator when Bob Packwood resigned on October 1, 1995. His successor, Ron Wyden, won a special election and took the seat on February 6, 1996.

Barack Obama resigned his Senate seat on November 16, 2008, so the people of Illinois have been a senator short since that time. But if the timeline is expected to be followed on the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich, the governor should be thrown out, and Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn able to make a choice in an overall shorter period of time than the Oregon 1995 vacancy.

The people of South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon et al might have felt temporarily cheated, but certainly they understood that circumstances force a situation where, temporarily, you are one senator short. The current residents of Minnesota have a more legitimate gripe, but again these are strange circumstances.

And while the House has different rules, House seats go empty all the time for short periods of time.

Harry Reid had it right the first time: don't seat anybody picked by Rod Blagojevich. Reid took some shots for that decision, but Majority Leaders get paid to make tough decisions. But this one was pretty easy: stand up for integrity. If the period of time was reasonable - say the time period involved in the Packwood or Tim Johnson situations - then waiting was the right call.

Now you could argue that if impeachment was going to be a tough road to go, or would be really close, then Reid might have to waver. A 114-1 vote sends a pretty clear message that Illinois will soon have a legitimate, taint-free governor.

Yet the Senate leadership, Reid and Durbin, are folding their cards, their subconscious trigger response as if George W. Bush was standing in the room.

As a resident of the state of Illinois, I want full representation, but I want legitimate representation. Even if it is a cliché, "good things happen to those who wait" are words to live by. A few more weeks without a U.S. Senator wasn't going to hurt the democratic process, not to mention that Quinn's pick would have been seen as legitimate, which would have led to a more effective senator than Burris will ever be. Though while I may have the appearance of "full representation," I'll still feel underrepresented until November 2010.