* 12:02 pm - From ABC7…
The Illinois Appellate Court ruled Monday that Rahm Emanuel is not a resident of Chicago and is therefore not qualified to run for mayor.
The court reversed a lower court’s decision Monday. Emanuel is expected to appeal
* Chicago News Cooperative…
“We conclude that the candidate neither meets the the municipal code’s requirement that he have ‘resided’ in Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement.”
* The vote was 2-1 against Emanuel…
Appellate judges Thomas Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall ruled against Emanuel. Justice Bertina Lampkin voted in favor of keeping President Obama’s former chief of staff on the Feb. 22 ballot.
* Download and read the opinion by clicking here.
* From the opinion…
Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that, under subsection 3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code, a candidate must meet not only the Election Code’s voter residency standard, but also must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate unquestionably does not satisfy. Because the candidate does not satisfy that standard, he may be eligible for inclusion on the ballot only if he is somehow exempt from the Municipal Code’s “reside in” requirement.
More…
We agree with the candidate that his service constituted “business of the United States” and thus that this exception applies to him. We disagree, however, with his position that the exception saves his candidacy. In our view, the exception embodied by section 3-2 of the Election Code applies only to voter residency requirements, not to candidate residency requirements.
And more…
…our supreme court has explained unequivocally that “it is elemental that domicile and residence are not synonymous.”
* From Justice Lampkin’s dissent…
To the extent the majority addresses the long-held principle that a party’s intention when he leaves or acquires his residence largely controls the determination of whether he has abandoned the residence, the majority distorts this principle (see discussion of Smith below). Then, the majority simply reads the principle out of its analysis, choosing instead to adopt a completely new standard.
More from the stinging dissent…
Since the majority could not meddle with the Board’s fact findings or its ruling based on the proper application of the manifest weight and clearly erroneous standards, the majority attacks the Board’s ruling from another angle. Specifically, the majority promulgates a new and undefined standard for determining candidate residency requirements despite the plethora of clear, relevant and well-established precedent that has been used by our circuit courts and election boards for decades.
Oof…
Nothing in the text or context of these statutes distinguishes “has resided in” as used to define a “qualified elector” from “has resided in” as used to define the length of time a candidate must have been resident in order to run for office. Moreover, if the legislature had intended the phrase “has resided in” to mean actually lived in, as the majority proposes, then the legislature surely would have chosen to use the more innocuous word live rather than the verb reside and the noun residence, which are charged with legal implications. […]
The majority attempts to support its creation of a completely new candidate residency standard with an exhaustive (or, rather, exhausting) discussion of section 3.1-10-5(d) of the Municipal Code regarding the military exception. The candidate here was not in the military and did not attempt to claim an exemption under section 3.1-10-5(d). Nevertheless, while the majority spends five pages of its opinion on a subsection of the Municipal Code that has no applicability to the present case, the majority does not write a single sentence explaining how it defines “actually resided in.” It is patently clear that the majority fails to even attempt to define its newly discovered standard because it is a figment of the majority’s imagination.
How many days may a person stay away from his home before the majority would decide he no longer “actually resides” in it? Would the majority have us pick a number out of a hat? A standard which cannot be defined cannot be applied. If the majority had picked even an rbitrary number of days that voters need not sleep in their own beds before they violated this new arbitrary standard, then at least we would be able to apply this new standard. Should a court consider just the number of days a voter or candidate is absent or are there other relevant factors under the new standard?
Apparently, only the majority knows but, for some reason, fails to share it with those charged to abide by it if they want to be a candidate for municipal office.
The majority’s promulgation of a new undefined standard cuts off the various boards of elections and circuit courts of this State from over 100 years of precedent. […]
The majority’s decision disenfranchises not just this particular candidate, but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him. Well-settled law does not countenance such a result. […]
An opinion of such wide-ranging import and not based on established law but, rather, on the whims of two judges, should not be allowed to stand.
* 12:49 pm - Statement from Gery Chico spokesperson Brooke Anderson…
“From day one, Gery Chico’s campaign has been about putting Chicagoans back to work, making our neighborhoods safer and giving our children the education they deserve.
“Today’s news is a surprise but it will not impact how we run our campaign. Gery will continue to work for every vote and lay out his plans to take Chicago in a whole new direction.”
Emanuel will make a public statement at 1:30 this afternoon.
* 12:52 pm - From the Emanuel campaign’s Twitter feed…
Today at 5: meet at the Chicago BOE to rally for Rahm’s right 2 b on the ballot and let Chicagoans choose. Dearborn/Washington, 5 pm
* Officially, he’s off the ballot right now, but Emanuel’s attorneys will likely ask for a stay…
The Board of Elections has not yet printed up the ballot.
Odelson said Board of Elections attorney Jim Scanlon told him that as of this moment, Emanuel’s name would stay off the ballot.
Emanuel’s attorneys will likely ask for a “stay” of the order today or Tuesday. If that is granted, Emanuel’s name could go back on the ballot.
Early voting starts a week from today.
* 1:22 pm - The Huffington Post breathlessly reports that Emanuel’s campaign website is down. Well, it works for me.
* 1:32pm - CBS2 is covering the Rahm Emanuel announcement live right now. Click here.
“Fundamentally, when the president asked me to serve the country as his chief of staff, that counts as serving your country. I have no doubt that we will, in the end prevail at this effort… Nothing’s ever easy. This is just one turn in the road.”
Emanuel said the “dissent opinion is pretty strong.” Said the circuit court and the city elections board back him up. Said his attorneys would ask for a stay to get his name back on the ballot.
Asked if he thought politics was involved in this decision, Emanuel deflected.
CBS2 has terminated its live stream. WBBM Radio is still streaming audio.
OK, now WBBM has terminated.
* 2:08 pm - Stating the obvious…
“We’re going to press with one less candidate for mayor.”
- Langdon D. Neal, Chairman, Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:05 pm:
Yikes, the Supremes are going to have to move quickly to settle this thing.
- How Ironic - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:06 pm:
WOW!
- Pat Robertson - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:07 pm:
Does he have to give the money back?!?!
- Juli - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:08 pm:
Further proof that the judiciary should be removed from the grips of Burke.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:08 pm:
I had a sneaking suspicion that the Appellate Court really didn’t want to overturn decades of case law by letting Rahm qualify for the ballot. Now it’s up to the Supremes and the question is: does Justice Burke recuse herself?
And will we ever learn who is paying Odelson?
- Concerned Voter - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:08 pm:
My question exactly Pat. What happens with all that $$$$$$$$$ he has raised if he can’t run?
- Jim - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:09 pm:
Don’t worry. The Dems on the high court will ride to Rahmbo’s rescue.
- Pat Collins - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:10 pm:
It is so ironic to see a “insider” getting tripped by all the arcane laws the insiders set up to keep others out.
- Obamarama - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:10 pm:
===Does he have to give the money back?!?!===
No.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:11 pm:
Yet another argument for merit selection of judges.
- amalia - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:12 pm:
which panel? the panels have four judges, the radio report said 2 of 3 had the opinion. colleague could not find anything on court web.
- MrJM - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:16 pm:
I am no Rahm fan, but this is OUTRAGEOUS!
– MrJM
- amalia - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:17 pm:
thanks for the info and the links.
- SR - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:17 pm:
===Further proof that the judiciary should be removed from the grips of Burke.===
===And will we ever learn who is paying Odelson?===
I expect this ruling will shine more light on both issues.
- KDS - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:18 pm:
Wow! What a big surprise! Aren’t the ballot being printed tomorrow or something?! What happens if the IL Supreme Court over turns?
- BOB - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:21 pm:
Looks like good news for Chicago.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:22 pm:
Who looks more in trouble … Del Valle or Rahm … you have to be honest and say its close, but Miguel is still a choice for mayor, will Rahm be? ….
- Been There - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:22 pm:
This is exactly what Oldeson has been banking on. From the opinion:
=== In its decision, to determine whether the candidate met the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have “resided in” the municipality for one year, the Board applied the test for residency
that has been used for voter qualification under the Election Code.
This approach is supported by several appellate court decisions that, without discussion, equate residency requirements imposed on voters with requirements that a candidate “resided in” his or her political unit.===
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:23 pm:
lol… ok, who will have more votes for mayor, Doc Walls or Rahm … 1 is greater than zero …
- just sayin' - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:23 pm:
Illinois becomes a laughing stock again.
- Holdingontomywallet - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:23 pm:
Great news for Illinois.
- Because I say so - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:27 pm:
This is a up day for the Chico camp.
- Knome Sane - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:28 pm:
He gone. (Man after the Bears’ loss, it feels good to invoke my favorite White Sox saying).
- Obamarama - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:28 pm:
Laugh it up, ya’ll. You’ll be sorry when Carol Mostly Wrong is Mayor.
- phocion - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:28 pm:
Wonder how Tom Dart feels today…
- Cuban Pilot - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:29 pm:
Justice Lampkin’s dissent is one of the most blistering dissents I have ever read. Reading between the lines of the dissent, Lampkin pretty much says the majority’s decision is political bull and the majority just made up a new standard for residency.
- Solomon - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:29 pm:
Laws should be strictly enforced on a face-value interpretation. If not, then the laws themselves have no value.
That having been said, the notion that someone who leaves to serve their country in a different capacity forfeits their local candidacy is unfair and absurd.
- frustrated GOP - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:30 pm:
wow, since when does a court over-rule an agency decision?
- Been There - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:31 pm:
===Wonder how Tom Dart feels today…===
Probably the same. He didnt get out because he thought he would lose.
- JCIII - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:32 pm:
Alright Chico just got a nice bump….Braun doesn’t have the cash to capitalize on this if this is upheld.
- Been There - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:33 pm:
===wow, since when does a court over-rule an agency decision?===
Probably a couple of times every election. But it usually is going the other way around. The agency throws candidates off the ballot and the courts but them back on.
- Just Observing - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:35 pm:
Are all you deriding the decision doing so based on what you think is fair or right, or are you deriding the Court’s interpretation of the law? It seems like a lot of the bashing is because you feel someone SHOULD be allowed to serve the Prez while maintaining residency, but that is not the role of the Judiciary.
- centrist - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:36 pm:
It’s a stupid law, but I believe that the courts interpretation of it is correct
- Newsclown - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:37 pm:
All this does is move the debate to where it was headed all along. I predict the supes will put Rahm back on. If Rahm somehow doesn’t get on the ballot after that, The Hispanics have the best potential for making a gain here. Braun is toast. Chico is ahead, but not by much.
- 44 - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:38 pm:
The court’s opinion that Rahm meets the “business of the United States” exception, but saying doesn’t affect his ability to run for office will be the big subject of appeal for the Supremes. Seems awfully tenuous logic to me.
My guess is Rahm asks the Supremes for an immediate stay of this ruling pending appeal soon.
- Louis Howe - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:41 pm:
Now the long knives will come out.
- JCIII - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:41 pm:
Okay so there have to be at least a dozen lawyers involved in the comments sections……odds it’s over-turned?
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:44 pm:
–Don’t worry. The Dems on the high court will ride to Rahmbo’s rescue.–
There are powerful Dems who like this ruling. And it’s not like there’s a Republican in the race.
- jake - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:48 pm:
I am not a lawyer, but read the opinion as best I could. As far as I could tell, the opinion hinged on whether “reside” means the same thing as “maintain one’s permanent residence”. If you think they mean different things, you vote against Emanuel. If you think they mean the same thing, you vote with him. If you think the law should have been written better, so that the decision would not come to such ridiculous word-parsing, that’s where I am.
- Aldyth - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:48 pm:
One way or the other, this was going to end up at the Supreme Court. Nobody should break out the champagne or start weeping and wailing until they rule.
- jayhawk97 - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:49 pm:
Question - could he still run as a write in candidate? I know this is a long shot, but would it be allowed under the interpretation of this ruling?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:51 pm:
A very strong part of Lumpkin’s dissent was noting that the majority voted against certifying the issue to the Illinois Supreme Court. That rule provides, in part: “Appeals from the Appellate Court shall lie to the Supreme Court upon the certification by the Appellate Court that a case decided by it involves a question of such importance that it should be decided by the Supreme Court.” The case clearly qualifies, and granting the certificate would speed up the appeal. The Supreme Court will likely grant review in any event, but it’s surprising the justices in the majority wouldn’t agree.
- Stones - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:51 pm:
Pretty interesting ruling. It definitely tightens up the ballgame a bit. The pressure is really on the State Supreme Court now.
- IrishPirate - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:51 pm:
I’m picturing Jay Cutler, Rahm and Jon Burge sitting in a bar.
“…..and you think you had a bad week”.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
There has been a bump on the way to the coronation. It appears that some of our branches of government are not afraid of dead fish and foul language.
Time for a Blagojevich interview.
Chicago is not looking like it is still the City That Works.
- MrJM - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
The Supremes will adopt the dissent opinion in its entirety.
– MrJM
- responsa - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
==could he still run as a write in candidate?==
Only if he’s ruled eligible.
- MrJM - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:53 pm:
* The dissent starts on p.25
- Nick Name - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
Can this go to the US Supreme Court? If so does Sotomayor and Kagan recuse thenselves?
- The Oncoming Storm - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
Wow! What a turn of events.
Outside of military service, you do not stay on ballot if you accept a.federal job that is not a seat in Congress.
Time for SCOTSIL to rule.
- SR - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:55 pm:
===–Don’t worry. The Dems on the high court will ride to Rahmbo’s rescue.===
There are powerful Dems who like this ruling. And it’s not like there’s a Republican in the race.===
Yep. It’s Dem vs. Dem, and you can’t ignore who appoints judges, or who has a wife sitting on the Supreme Court, and who he supports in this race. He’s definitely not on Rahm’s side.
===Question - could he still run as a write in candidate? I know this is a long shot, but would it be allowed under the interpretation of this ruling?===
Odelson said the other day he’d fight to support Rahm’s right to run as a write-in. Don’t know if he was joking, has a guilty conscience, or just wants another paycheck and to stay in the limelight. Regardless, I am sure some anonymous someone who feels their power slipping away would send a pack of lawyers to object to a write-in, too.
- Obamarama - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:56 pm:
If anyone can find a stream of Rahm’s statement at 1:30, that would be super helpful.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:58 pm:
That law!
That law!
Who in Chicago lets laws get in the way of political power?
This is not Toronto!
Tramp down those petty little laws so we can enter the new Kingdom of Rahm!
Now is not the time to elect Braun. I choose Chico.
- Been There - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 12:58 pm:
From Lumpkins dissent opinion
===Consequently, I believe this panel should certify this case under No. 1-11-0033
42 Supreme Court Rule 316, which would permit review of the majority’s decision in the most expeditious manner possible. The majority, however, has refused to certify this case under Rule 316.===
I am not an attorney so I don’t know if that is relevant to speeding the case to the Supremes. Does it just mean Rahm’s attorneys need to file extra paperwork instead of having it automatic? So all that happens is the attorneys have to stay up late tonight? Or does this really slow it down?
- Emanuel Collective - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
I’m only halfway through the text but my lord what I’ve read is a textcase example of a flimsy opinion
- phocion - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
Read Judge Lampkin’s dissent. Wow! It should be required reading for every law school’s legal writing classes. She completely scorches the majority opinion - especially targeting Hoffman’s intellectual dishonesty. Scary that the two in the majority refused to certify this to go to the Illinois Supreme Court. What is going on here?
- Thoughts... - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:01 pm:
Obamarama - loved the Carol Mostly Wrong annointment. FYI, I’m stealing that.
It will be very curious to see what Justice Ann does. If she doesn’t recuse herself, in my humble opinion, she’s discrediting herself and her office, and anyone who knows much about city politics would know which way she will rule.
What will also be interesting is to see what the R’s on the court do. One will have to side with the rest of the Dems to keep Rahm on the ballot, assuming Ann either recuses herself or stays in and sides with the Appellate Court. Does one though? There’s a lot of anger at Obama and this is a way to take a shot at him. On the other hand, Republicans will no doubt have some pressing electoral issues coming before the court in future years and they may not want this dangerous precedent upheld. Seems this ruling has put Justice Burke and the Republicans on the Court in a pickle.
- OneMan - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:03 pm:
So should/will/does justice Burke remove herself from this?
- responsa - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:03 pm:
==Odelson said the other day he’d fight to support Rahm’s right to run as a write-in. Don’t know if he was joking==
Just a hunch, but I think Odelson meant that if Rahm was “off” when the ballots were actually printed and later he was deemed eligible to run by a higher court, Odelson would not object to Rahm trying to be certified as a write-in.
- North of I-80 - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:04 pm:
Doing our best to make Illinois look good…
Hey for all of us who own investment property in Florida & hoping for a new definition of “reside”, I guess we’ll continue paying taxes through Illinois for the time being.
- Been There - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:04 pm:
===Today at 5: meet at the Chicago BOE to rally for Rahm’s right 2 b on the ballot and let Chicagoans choose. Dearborn/Washington, 5 pm===
Tony Perica is available to lead the charge.
- anon - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:05 pm:
Good news for Chicago. Wonder how Dart feels about all that extra time with the family now. Even if Rahm gets back on the Ballot this seals him from ever getting 50 percent of vote. Bottom line if he gets back on the Ballot, Braun gets momentum. If he’s off, Chico is the next Mayor. An aside, if DelValle drops out before the ruling, this further hurts Rahm. Makes him look like the spoiler. No doubt this Ruling hurts Emanuel, but is not the Knockout Punch yet.
- Thoughts... - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:11 pm:
===So should/will/does justice Burke remove herself from this?===
She sure as heck should, but will she? I suspect she will - recusal is like a present vote, they’d still need four to overturn and then she doesn’t have to take the ugly step of siding with the Appellate Court, keeping her stellar rep intact (stellar to some, not to me).
I’m not a lawyer so I have a question for those who are - if the IL Supreme Court upholds the Appellate, is there any U.S. Supreme Court relief?
- Formerly Fast & Freaky - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:15 pm:
“Since the majority could not meddle with the Board’s fact findings or its ruling based on the proper application of the manifest weight and clearly erroneous standards, the majority attacks the Board’s ruling from another angle.”
Wow. That is one of the most indicting phrases I have ever read from a dissenting judge. This insinuates the majority went out of its way to act purely on personal and/or political bias with the idea of making convenient law, instead of good law. In a nutshell, Judge Hall implies bad intent on the part of Hoffman & Hall.
I’m guessing there will be awkward moments around the coffee maker in the weeks to come.
- Matt - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:15 pm:
I would have loved to be in the room when Rahm found out. Well maybe not… but his reaction would have been entertaining.
As far as the US supreme court goes, I think a few things are important. Don’t they have sessions? I think they pick a handful of cases then rule on them during a session. I don’t know if they are in session now or selecting cases or what, but I highly doubt there is enough time with early voting starting in a week. If the timing were somehow right, they would have to appeal the court and the case would have to be chosen.
- Responsa - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:16 pm:
==is there any U.S. Supreme Court relief?==
According to all the talking heads on TeeVee the answer is “no”. It is a state election law issue and not something that SCOTUS would take.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:16 pm:
I don’t think there is a path to the US Supreme Court here. Rahm would have to allege a federal right was infringed upon, and I don’t see a case for that. It doesn’t look like Rahm would have any standing to bring this to the feds, and the federal courts are loathe to get involved in state issues like this.
I think the IL Supreme Court is the end of the line for this case.
- Formerly Fast & Freaky - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:17 pm:
“In a nutshell, Judge Hall implies bad intent on the part of Hoffman & Hall.”
The first Hall is Lampkin. Plus that was a sentence, not a phrase. Sorry.
- Because I say so - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:19 pm:
So what is the campaign strategy until the next court ruling? Does he stay on television or not risk throwing away money? Then again, I don’t think spending money is a big concern for Rahm.
- MrJM - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:20 pm:
phocion:
Agreed.
There’s nothing like the beauty of a well-reasoned, logical argument backed by settled precedent. (But as the majority demonstrated, not everybody appreciates such things.)
– MrJM
- mokenavince - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:26 pm:
Eddie Burke strikes again.If it’s between Braun & Chico,Chico’s the choice hands down.
- It's Just Me - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:27 pm:
It amazes me how many of my friends think Rahm is being treated unfairly, and how his enemies are using “unfair” tricks to deny the people the right to vote and/or they aren’t doing enough to explain why votes should vote for them.
Like Rahm never used tricks to get enemies off the ballot and Rahm’s been attending all the debates for forums. (I admit I’m leaning towards another candidate, but I still find my friends’ anger ironic.)
- DavE - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:28 pm:
Justice Burke will recue herself over her marriage to Ald. Burke in deciding cases when Lisa Madigan recuses herself over every question of Illinois law written by her father… Ie won’t happen.
- Good Dissent - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:28 pm:
As pointed out, the dissent is well reasoned and well stated.
The good news for Rahm is that he’s likely to get a quick hearing in front of the Supremes which will then become a bipartisan support for him. When Garman votes for Rahm, no one is going to claim politics.
- Matt - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:29 pm:
“The Huffington Post breathlessly reports that Emanuel’s campaign website is down. Well, it works for me.”
Wouldn’t work for me for a little bit. Probably extremely high traffic slowing it down.
- Irish - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:31 pm:
Am I correct in inferring from this ruling that a serviceman/woman returning from combat could not run for office until they had spent a year residing in Illinois after their tour of duty?
I wonder what portion of Rahm’s taxes for that year might have found their way to the funding of that court and those two judges. I don’t know if I would want to be them or their puppet master if Rahm finally does win this and goes on to be mayor. Or if he does not become mayor and returns to a job in Obama’s administration.
Obama could not run for office, if that was his inclincation once he leaves the Presidency, until he had resided in Chicago for a year.
- Pat Collins - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:33 pm:
Odelson would not object to Rahm trying to be certified as a write-in.
Uhhhh, in this state you need to FILE to be a write in! I wonder what the dead line for that is?
Justice Burke will recuse herself
There is a Fed Judge in CA who wont recuse himself, and his WIFE is head of one of the major plaintiffs.
So Mrs. Burke has quite the easy out to stay on the case, with a precedent like that at Fed. appeals level.
- Thoughts... - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:34 pm:
===When Garman votes for Rahm, no one is going to claim politics.==
When is Garman up for retention? ‘12? Doubt it’s her unless she wants to face a retention battle funded by conservative anti-Obamas after she supported his COS. Karmeier is up in ‘14, so he’s possible, but likely? Thomas is pretty close to tea party.
But in the end, it’s pretty sad we’re having a political argument about the interpretation of laws by the Supreme Court. We shouldn’t have to worry about that. I’m personally evolving away from thinking that judges should be subject to the electorate.
- Responsa - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:35 pm:
I wonder if today Mayor Daley is having any regrets or second thoughts on the way and timing of how he handled his departure. For a man who truly loves this city and always considered himself a steward of its legacy, Daley has (inadvertently) helped to put Chicago in a position of considerable peril. The last minute decision not to run and then not having groomed any quality heir apparents has come home to roost.
Sad.
- Because I say so - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:35 pm:
Now if we could only kick CMB off the ballot and prevent the possibility of that train wreck happening.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:41 pm:
My guess is the only way this gets into the federal courts is if someone files against the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act…both of which are long-shots to say the least.
- Loop Lady - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:43 pm:
Because: do not fret, CMB couldn’t possibly win unless she takes an oath of silence for the rest of the campaign and she finds a pot of gold…
don’t count out Rahm by any means…
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:43 pm:
–The majority’s decision disenfranchises not just this particular candidate, but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him. –
47, that, from the dissent, might be your path to the U.S. Supremes, if needed. When Bush was in his pickle in Florida, he got to the Supremes under the Equal Protection clause.
- Big D - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:44 pm:
- mokenavince - “Just another stupid Illinois law. We continue to be the laughing stock of the nation.Another sad day for our State.Go White Sox”
What is stupid about a law requiring people to live in their districts for 1 year?
- Montrose - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:46 pm:
Man, I wish del Valle was able to raise real money.
- irv & ashland - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:47 pm:
Does one reside in one’s residence?
That’s what the legal question comes down to. I find it amazing that neither the 2 judges voting to overturn the Election Board nor the one dissenting discussed this issue.
I know it sounds silly, but this is the central question.
- OneMan - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:48 pm:
== This might come back to bite Eddie Burke. It amazes me how people who should be intelligent enough to analyze ever possiblity before they act seem to have such tunnel vision. ==
Rahm would have reduced Eddie’s power so Rahm bad for Eddie, simple as that.
- McHenry Mike - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:49 pm:
Judge Hoffman is one of the most well respected and intelligent jurists in the state. He makes a good point where he distinguishes “residency” for voting purposes from residency for candidacy. You can become a resident for voting purposes overnight. Just move into town and legally change your address and then go and file a registration. The requirement that you live for a full year in the municipality is designed to ensure that a person who seeks to represent the citizens of that municipality has some history of involvement so he/she will know the local issues and concerns of the area by virtue of at least having been living there.
As mentioned in the decision, this may be a quaint notion in the age of modern communication, but the legislature has not seen fit to change it so there it is.
I think if the Supremes look at this rationally rather than politically, they will have to affirm.
Say hello to Mayor Moseley-Braun.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:50 pm:
Good point Word. But given that early voting starts very soon, I doubt this case has time to work its way through the system.
And Bush v. Gore was a unique case. Not sure it can be cited as a precedent.
- chi - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:53 pm:
Irish-
Your inference is incorrect.
- OneMan - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:53 pm:
== Okay so there have to be at least a dozen lawyers involved in the comments sections……odds it’s over-turned? ==
Not one, nor do I play one on TV but my odds are 80-20 overturned
- S - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:53 pm:
Irish, that’s my initial understanding as well.
The majority ruled that the “business of the United States” exception applies to voters but not candidates: “In our view, the exception embodied by section 3-2 of the Election Code applies only to voter residency requirements, not to candidate residency requirements.”
So, theoretically, a serviceman/woman could return home and vote without problem, but not run for office.
Doubtful the original intent of the residency exception was to specifically distinguish between voters and candidates.
Most likely never imagined it would be necessary to explicitly extend the exception to candidates as well, presuming that if someone returning on “business of the United States” met the residency criteria for voting they would also meet the residency criteria to run as a candidate. It seems like a straightforward thing, until one goes looking for loopholes to exploit.
Then again, this is Chicago… assume anything or leave any potential loophole at all and eventually someone will try to exploit it.
- Been There - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:53 pm:
===Say hello to Mayor Moseley-Braun.===
McHenry Mike, I agreed with your comments until the line above. It will be her and Chico in a runoff with Chico coming out on top.
- JN - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:55 pm:
== irv & ashland: Does one reside in one’s residence? [neither] discussed this issue. ==
It is in the dissent - page 27, quoting Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer.
- SR - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:56 pm:
Found the Odelson quip I referred to earlier on wlsam.com:
‘Richard Roeper asked Odelson if Emanuel is found to be ineligible, what would happen to any write-in votes for him.’
‘ “He could stage a write-in campaign,” Odelson said. “It’s been done before. In fact, I represented a candidate who ran successfully in the primary for mayor of Chicago on the Republican ticket as a write-in.” ‘
‘Odelson said he’d gladly represent Rahm if he asked him to.’
———-
====== This might come back to bite Eddie Burke. It amazes me how people who should be intelligent enough to analyze ever possiblity before they act seem to have such tunnel vision. ==
Rahm would have reduced Eddie’s power so Rahm bad for Eddie, simple as that.====
Burke thinks he is going to win, and if he doesn’t he has that 8 million in his war chest to obstruct a new Mayor who gets in his way. He’s done it before, why wouldn’t he do it again?
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:58 pm:
–I think if the Supremes look at this rationally rather than politically, they will have to affirm.–
Was conservative GOPer Joe Morris acting politically? The full CBOE? The Cook County judge? The dissenting appellate judge?
What’s their “political” interest?
- Logical Thinker - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:58 pm:
It’s over for Rahm and I think he and the other smart people who are following this closely know it.
There is no path into the Federal Judiciary and even if there was, it certainly wouldn’t be resolved by the election.
The date that is of importance is 1/31/11 which is when the ballots start to go out. If Rahm isn’t on the ballot, he isn’t going to win.
And Anne Burke isn’t going to recuse herself. That ain’t happening.
- Tom - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:58 pm:
How can they not have printed a ballot? Absentee voting started January 13th.
- S - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 1:59 pm:
In other words, it seems difficult to believe they would create a specific exemption for people serving our country (originally designed to protect the voting rights of service men and women, among others), only to say, “Well, thanks for serving our country in the military/overseas, but we’re not going to let you serve in public office. We’re protecting your right to vote, but not to run.”
- chi - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:00 pm:
S-
There is a clear exception for active duty members of the military. Rahm’s attorneys never argued (understandably) that he was an active duty member of the military. An active duty member of the military enjoys a specific exception to the residency requirement found in the Municipal Code.
- formerpolitico - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:01 pm:
What is the purpose of the Rally - to pressure the Supreme Court? The rally could backfire on Emmanuel.
- McHenry Mike - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:02 pm:
P.S. I am an attorney and have had some experience in election ballot access cases and have also been a candidate. I am presently a local elected official.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:03 pm:
As was pointed out above, 4 votes are needed to reverse. A 3-3 vote would leave the Appellate Court’s ruling intact. So if the revered Justice Burke recuses herself, she gets to appear ethical, while assuring the same result as if she voted against Rahm. Rahm would still need to get 4 votes from Justices not named Burke.
- Thoughts... - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:04 pm:
Is now the time to ask if there’s a legitimate Latino opponent to Ed Burke this spring? And if so, could that candidate see an infusion of serious cash if Rahm is kept off the ballot?
- Black Ivy - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:05 pm:
Oh wow! This makes up for the Chicago Bears loss yesterday. Finally, deference is given to long held Illinois law AND justice is served. Now, I hope and pray the Illinois Supreme Court will also respect its own laws.
A satisfied attorney…
- McHenry Mike - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:06 pm:
Been there- You might be right about the Chico part.He has some work to do to get known though, and won’t have much time. He really knows his stuff around City Hall and would probably do an excellent job.
- Bill F. - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:06 pm:
Tom, early voting starts the 31st, not the 13th.
- MrJM - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:07 pm:
If Rahm is ultimately allowed to run, but his name isn’t printed on the ballot, I can see how Carol Moseley-Braun could come out on top in February.
– MrJM
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:07 pm:
–(Odelson) In fact, I represented a candidate who ran successfully in the primary for mayor of Chicago on the Republican ticket as a write-in.” ‘–
That candidate recently relocated to Terre Haute, IN, but not because of the tax increase or entreaties from Mini-Mitch. The Justice Department insisted upon it.
–Rahm would have reduced Eddie’s power so Rahm bad for Eddie, simple as that–
Daley never could clip Burke’s wings. The guy knows too much. I think it’s more like Burke believes Chico would owe him, big, so he would be better.
- Been There - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:07 pm:
===And Anne Burke isn’t going to recuse herself. That ain’t happening.===
Does it make a difference? I think Rahm needs four justices to rule in his favor to overturn the appellate ruling. Her not voting is the same. Not sure what happens if three are for and three against with one not voting. My guess is the ruling would stand.
- Montrose - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:08 pm:
*What is the purpose of the Rally - to pressure the Supreme Court? The rally could backfire on Emmanuel.*
He is just trying to find a hook to finally raise some money.
- Math - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:11 pm:
Recent Tribune poll has Rahm getting 30% of African American voters. This in large part to Rahm’s record of service to Obama. If Rahm is out then is it reasonable to assume that African American Voters come back home to Carol?
- Because I say so - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:13 pm:
=If Rahm is out then is it reasonable to assume that African American Voters come back home to Carol?=
I don’t think so. My guess is that 30% of the AA voters that were swinging toward Rahm and better informed. I don’t think any informed voter will be voting for Mosley Braun.
- Tom - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:14 pm:
Bill F.
“Absentee Voting starts January 13th.
(10 ILCS 5/19‑2) (from Ch. 46, par. 19‑2)
Sec. 19‑2. Any elector as defined in Section 19‑1 may by mail, not more than 40 nor less than 5 days prior to the date of such election, or by personal delivery not more than 40 nor less than one day prior to the date of such election, make application to the county clerk or to the Board of Election Commissioners for an official ballot for the voter’s precinct to be voted at such election.
- Justice - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:14 pm:
Rahm would have made a great King of Chicago….still may.
If he doesn’t get on the ballot, he sure has a huge sum of cash to influence others. Hey, perhaps he’ll give it to charity…..or Obama?
- Responsa - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:15 pm:
Some people apparently don’t understand write in candidacy rules. Any voter standing in the voting booth can write in any name they want– from their own name to Mickey Mouse to Hugh Hefner. But unless that name has been previously and officially ruled eligible and certified as a legitimate write in candidate for that specific office, the vote does not count and it is a wasted vote. Election judges via the county clerks have a list of any and all the legitimate write in candidates for every election.
- irv & ashland - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:17 pm:
JN,
I think you’re missing my point. Kreitz, at least in the passage quoted and then delineated by Lampkin, helps define residence, but doesn’t address the question of whether one’s residence is where one resides. These are the different terms in the statutes involved. The majority decision depends on an understanding in which Emanuel has established residence on Hermitage but doesn’t reside there.
I’d add that his address is very near Irv(ing Park) & Ashland!! a name I took long before my particular neck of the woods became embroiled in statutory and potentially constitutional issues!!
- Obamarama - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:17 pm:
In my opinion, Burke recusing herself would be an admission that she’s unable to be an impartial jurist–not going to happen.
How’s the web traffic today, Rich?
- irv & ashland - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:19 pm:
I’d further note that in Walsh, the preceding Appellate decision that the new decision doesn’t deign to address, the court used “residence” and “reside” as reflexes of the same verb. Lampkin notes that Hoffman himself signed the Walsh decision, making it difficult for him now to construe these terms as unrelated.
This is the strongest case the Emanuel can make - that residence and reside are simply two forms of the same verb, and that they must be construed as equals, leaving no room for someone who has “residence” on Hermitage but does not “reside” there.
- Barton Miller - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:21 pm:
Poetic justice. Mike Kaspar has kicked tons of little fish off the ballot for years. Now, his big fish goes down.
While I disagree with the concept of removing someone from the ballot. There is a type of judicial karma at work here.
JUSTICE for all the littel fish happened today.
- McHenry Mike - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:22 pm:
You have 3 GOP and 4 Dem Supremes. If Burke recuses herself and the 3 GOP’ers decide it will be fun to watch Chicago implode, you have a tie, which affirms the appellate decision.
On the write ins, Rahm would not qualify as a write in either as he would have the same residency issue. A write in candidate is still a “candidate”.
- IrishPirate - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:23 pm:
Anyone remember the 70s’ TV series “Chico and the Man”?
I’m going to the Rahm rally with a sign with Gary Chico and Ed Burke’s faces on it and I’ll be humming the “Chico and the Man” theme. I need to find it on YOUTUBE.
I intend to vote for Del Valle, but as a question of fairness think Rahm should be on the ballot.
Of course if his position was reversed Rahm would do anything legal to throw an opponent off the ballot…………so THPPPPT to him.
If and it’s a big IF Rahm remains off the ballot the biggest beneficiary will be Chico. IF that happens expect a Chico v Braun runoff with Chico easily winning.
- Tre TC - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:24 pm:
I think the strongest case Emanuel can make is that the Appellate court had no reason to abandon the manifest weight of evidence standard as it clearly does for some reason….even if you disagree with the Board’s reasoning I don’t think anyone can legitimately say it wasn’t supported by substantial evidence
- irv & ashland - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:24 pm:
>–Rahm would have reduced Eddie’s power so Rahm bad for Eddie, simple as that–
I might have thought so, but I heard a case made by someone who knows her that west-sider Hall may have been less swayed by Burke’s interests and more swayed by her perception of the black community’s interest.
Even if that is part of the story, it would still leave us trying to explain Hoffman - who is the bigger quandary. In a vaccuum, Hoffman’s decision sounds quite plausible, so I can understand Hall supporting it on the merits.
In fact, one of the few judges who should have had trouble writing that opinion with a straight face is Hoffman himself - because of what Lampkin points out (cited above) about the Walsh case.
Does anyone relating the decision to Burke actually know of Burke’s relationship with either Hall or Hoffman?
- Louis Howe - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:29 pm:
Bottom-line: Rahm wanted to have it all. His family with him in D.C., rental income from his Chicago home, while still being considered a Chicago resident. He rolled the dice and put his political ambitions at risk. Ironically, the insiders he depends on rigged the rules against outsiders. Guess he’ll run for Congress in 2012. Maybe Madigan can be persuaded to write Rahm a district rigged for him to win.
- Responsa - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:31 pm:
== and the 3 GOP’ers decide it will be fun to watch Chicago implode…==
McHenry, that is truly one of the most irresponsible and egregious comments I have ever seen posted here. You are talking about supreme court justices, not political hacks.
- Cheryl44 - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:31 pm:
==the 3 GOP’ers decide it will be fun to watch Chicago implode,==
Then it would behoove the state to impeach them and remove them from office.
- Bill F. - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:32 pm:
Tom, that’s the earliest date one may request an application.
- irv & ashland - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:34 pm:
I take it back - Lampkin does zero in on p. 37 on the ridiculousness of the majority distinguising “unsupported by case law” between “residence” and “had resided in.”
- irv & ashland - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:37 pm:
Sigh. Rich pointed out Lampkin’s ridicule in his main post too. Too much to read - I’m a little behind.
- Honest Abe - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:37 pm:
This subject has been discussed on this blog many times during the past three months. I always maintained that the residency challenge to Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral candidacy was a serious one. Rich Miller, who actually read the applicable law, based upon his posts, was one of the few who did not dismiss the challenge as frivolous.
Emanuel could have worked in the White House while maintaining his legal residence in Chicago, but he chose to rent out his house rather than hiring a janitor or caretaker to watch the property during his absence. Emanuel is in this predicament because of his own actions.
The election and municipal laws were applied in conformity to previous case precedents by the appellate majority today. Everything that happened in the earlier proceedings were simply politics. Clout lost a round today, the law won.
- JN - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:38 pm:
== the question of whether one’s residence is where one resides. ==
So basically we need the Supreme Court to read from Merriam-Webster. This country really needs fewer lawyers…
- McHenry Mike - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:39 pm:
I’ll take that back. The Illinois Supreme Court has never allowed politics to influence any of their decisions. They were all elected because they were the most qualified jurists in the state and not because any of them played for local sports franchises.
- formerpolitico - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:40 pm:
Based on my experience as a lawyer, I am absolutely convinced that Republican Justices Garman, Thomas, and Karmeier will call it as they see it, based on the law. Democrat Court politics is more complex and impenetrable to me, but I hope they will do the same. Supreme Court has a chance to avoid appearance of political taint here.
- Tom - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:43 pm:
Bill F.
Earliest date to request an application but also vote in person absentee, also the election commission is required to mail a ballot or notify of rejection within 2 days of application, that would be the 15th.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:43 pm:
–McHenry, that is truly one of the most irresponsible and egregious comments I have ever seen posted here. You are talking about supreme court justices, not political hacks.–
“Hacks” is a strong word, but they are partisan, elected officials.
I’m not sure why it’s assumed partisan GOPers would want to keep Emanuel off the ballot. Joe Morris, who made the initial CBOE ruling for Emanuel, is certainly a partisan GOPer.
As far as Illinois Supreme Court justices being above partisan considerations — or in the case of Seymour Simon, personal bias — Adlai Stevenson III might disagree. So might Al Gore when it comes to the U.S. Supremes.
- Palatine - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:45 pm:
Not having him as mayor is a blessing
- Ronald McFirbank - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:46 pm:
So has anyone done a poll of voters in a race without Emanuel? Everyone’s saying Braun is now the frontrunner but I think she has every vote she’ll ever get and the more people see of her, the less she’ll have in the end. But I don’t know who Emanuel’s absence does benefit (then again, I don’t know who I’m voting for, either, so that doesn’t mean the poll would tell you a lot in reality… still, it would be interesting to see.)
- Honest Abe - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:48 pm:
In answer to a previous post, the failure of the two justice majority to certify the case to the Illinois Supreme Court does not deprive Emanuel of an opportunity to petition the Supreme Court for leave to appeal the appellate court ruling. It does mean that Emanuel’s lawyers need to file the necessary paperwork and initiate the process.
- Because I say so - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:49 pm:
Since I have no legal background, can anyone give a predicted timeline for how things will proceed? What is the procedure? And, assuming the court accepts the case, can a decision realisticlly happen before early voting begins?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:51 pm:
I believe any candidate removed from the ballot can file to be a write in within a brief window of being removed from the ballot - Could be wrong on this though, but this may allow Rahm to run as a write in.
Regarding Federal courts - Wouldn’t he say that the residency law violates equal protection, as an employee of the Federal executive branch, he is being treated substantially different from someone who was not in that position?
Mail in Applications were being accepted as of 1/13 - as of yet have not seen any actual ballots being mailed out to voters - so I would question whether the ballots are printed yet, I would doubt they are.
- ReverendSlappy - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:53 pm:
===But I don’t know who Emanuel’s absence does benefit===
Good point. I think what you’d see immediately is the number of undecideds skyrocket. And then Election Day would, without a doubt, be a complete and total crapshoot.
If this holds up (and in my non-lawyer, non-expert opinion, I don’t think it will) and Rahm’s not on the ballot, I think it really turns the whole thing inside out to the extent that I don’t see how anybody can make any meaningful predictions.
- Responsa - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 2:55 pm:
Word, fair enough. But I was reacting to the initial commenter’s ugly implication that anyone sitting on the high court might somehow be cheering for the City of Chicago to “implode”.
- Bill F. - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:03 pm:
Voter requests ballot APPLICATION starting 1/13.
Board mails application.
Voter applies.
Board mails ballot upon receipt OR when ballots are printed.
In-person absentee voting is Feb 18-21.
All from Chicagoelections.com.
- KC - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:05 pm:
Sunday 1-23-2011 - Bears go down in flames
Monday 1-24-2011 - RE gets the boot
Looks like the start of a great week.
- Honest Abe - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:08 pm:
What is the purpose of Emanuel holding a protest rally outside of the building which houses the Chicago Board of Elections? The Elections Board did not issue the ruling that removed Emanuel from the ballot. I know it is street theater, but does Emanuel really endorse a protest calling upon the Elections Board to disobey the appellate court ruling? This is just silly.
- SR - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:11 pm:
Honest Abe, I assume it’s to show support for the Elections Board ruling that the appellate court overturned.
- Nuance - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:13 pm:
With the money Rahm has raised, is it possible that he could not run for mayor and still run Chicago by getting behind another candidate?
He would also have leverage by being able to threaten to run in the next election if the elected mayor does not toe the line.
- Honest Abe - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:14 pm:
In answer to Anonymous, write-in candidates are subject to the same residency requirements as candidates whose names are printed on the ballot, so waging a write-in candidacy does not help Rahm.
The residency law requirement for municipal officers has been previously analyzed and found to be constitutional in the courts. There is a rational purpose in requiring candidates to residents rather than carpetbaggers. The Federal requirements for service in the US Congress are less restrictive than those in the Illinois Constitution or statutes, which explains Alan Keyes, but that does not make the Illinois laws less valid. The residency requirements date back to the 1870s — nothing new there. Emanuel fumbled the ball.
I am not predicting what may or may not occur on appeal to Springfield if the State Supreme Court revisits the issue.
- Pilgrim - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:14 pm:
If all else fails, Rahm can always count on Pat Quinn finding him a gig somewhere within the Illinois Prison System. Rahm won’t have to worry about being unemployed and homeless.
- McHenry Mike - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:19 pm:
On timing. There is no way to get anything through the federal courts in time for the election so the state Supremes are going to be supreme here.
I do think that the appellate decision is very well reasoned and would expect it to be followed if politics do not enter in. There is good reason to require someone who wants to represent the people of a municipality to actually physically live in that municipality for some period of time prior to becoming a candidate. It’s kind of a “horse and buggy” law but there are a lot of those on the books (ie. townships).
The parties can get a decision out of the Court by the 31st if the Court steps on it. The problem after that is that once early voting has started, the election has started and courts are loath to intervene. Absentee ballots can always be re-issued so the real deadline here is early voting. A decision can be issued by then if they drop everything to do it.
- 31st Ward - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:23 pm:
Assuming Rahm’s appeal fails, wouldn’t he support another candidate? He obviously wouldn’t support Chico, since Chico’s backers are behind the challenge. What If Rahm supports Del Valle and spots him $3,000,000?
- chi - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:27 pm:
A 3 million dollar contribution (or similar) to another candidate’s policitcal fund would violate the new caps that became effective 1/1/11.
- James - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:29 pm:
=Hoffman’s intellectual dishonesty=
I first met Justice Thomas E. Hoffman in 1982 when he was a young trial court judge in the Law Division. I noticed then, from being in his chambers, that he smoked unfiltered Camels and subscribed to the harness racing publication, Hoof Beats.
In the case I had before him, and in subsequent cases over the years, he has struck me as an extremely honest and intelligent judge with great respect for the law and legal precedent. He would have been a great law professor. In the trial court, he would outwork his brethren, routinely hand-writing detailed decisions that disposed of cases, so the files reflected and the litigants knew the reasons for the court’s rulings. (Most trial judges would just rule without explaining their reasons, letting the Appellate Court do the after-the-fact writing to justify their rulings.) It did not surprise me when Justice Hoffman was appointed to the Appellate Court, where he has served for many years.
I would not characterize the majority’s decision as either intllectually dishonest or political. It is scholarly, carefully researched and well-reasoned. It applies all the approaches that reviewing courts use to construe the meaning of statutes. To me, it is persuasive.
The dissent is certainly stinging, and more emotionally appealing. It accuses the majority of not discussing and distinguishing certain other cases cited by Rahm’s lawyers as precedent. Of course, the majority is not required or permitted to reply to dissents. Nor is the majority, in reaching a conclusion, required to distinguish every case presented by a litigant.
My prediction: the Supreme Court will read both opinions, find the majority persuasive, and will internally vote not to hear the case, letting the Appellate Court’s decision stand.
When I step out of my analysis of the law, I feel very bad about the impact of this decision, because I have high regard for Rahm Emanuel’s ability, and believe he is the by far the best of the mayoral candidates.
- D.P. Gumby - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:42 pm:
McHenry Mike…Having read the op and dissent, I have to disagree w/ you analysis. The maj. is convoluted and goes out of its way to complicate the issue and ignore existing precedent. Dissent is straightforward and incorporates existing law w/o stretching to develop a new standard. The opinion hop-scotchs around the statutes to fit a new analysis that is ultimately illogical based upon the existing facts and findings. I’m also baffled by the failure to certify. More than anything else, that seems to smell bad.
- D.P. Gumby - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:48 pm:
There’s nothing intellectually dishonest in the Majority op., it’s just “over lawyered”. It’s more like a law student’s note than an opinion.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 3:53 pm:
–that he smoked unfiltered Camels and subscribed to the harness racing publication, Hoof Beats.–
A good, honest smoke. Plays the trotters? Don’t trust them. I’ve seen too many winners at good odds disqualified for “breaking stride.”
I was at Quad-City Downs once with a newspaper photographer who happened to snap the digital odds board before a race. A track employee went off on him like Santino Corleone at Connie’s wedding and demanded the film. He didn’t give it to him, but it was a weird, thought-provoking episode.
- Bubs - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:10 pm:
D.P. Gumby,
It struck me as a very precise and thorough statutory interpretation analysis, covering statutory and constitutional origins of the legal principles right back to the Illinois Consitution of 1818, legislative history of the Municipal Code, the existence of a “safe harbor” for military in the Municipal Code candidacy provision that does not include other government workers, and the actual text of the statutes in question.
There is a difference between that and over-lawyered.
- Honest Abe - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:36 pm:
Having the appellate majority certify the case to the Supreme Court of Illinois is not critical.
Only a handful of ballot access cases reach the state supreme court. Many more petitions for leave to appeal are rejected. This case may prove to be the exception, but I would not be completely surprised if the case is not accepted.
At the end of the day, Emanuel, himself, is responsible for this hot mess. The laws have not changed, but the political landscape has. Emanuel was not prepared for Daley to announce his retirement. If he had been prepared, he would have leased an apartment or condo not later than early February of 2010.
- D.P. Gumby - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:39 pm:
Ah, Bubs, that’s why we have a Supreme Court. I do, however, have a difficult time seeing this in a macro context that this fact situation fits into the 1818 concerns about carpetbaggers. This is not Alan Keyes trying to run for mayor, but a person who is clearly a resident of Chicago and eligible on all rational basis to run for mayor.
- Champaign Dweller - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:08 pm:
Although the dissent is strong,it seems over the top to me. Every time someone is thrown off a ballot, the people who would have voted for that candidate have to find someone else to vote for–that hardly meets the definition of disenfranchisement.
- Just The Way It Is One - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:15 pm:
No big loss–I’ve been saying all along that Rahmbo was knee deep in trouble on this residency thing and was far from out of the woods. Burt Odelson is about as much of an “Ace,” as you’re going to find in the Election Law field in these parts, and once I heard HE’d taken on this cause, I figured it’d probably all end up in front of the Illinois Supreme Court–NOW comes the intriguing part…how will the 4-3 Democrat majority there rule? If past history is any indication, they could very well reverse the Appellate Court and find a way to justify it– and rule by that very same 4-3 party line vote– to keep him on the ballot–after all, why would GOPers on the High Court want a Dem/White House heavyweight-connected powerhouse (at least arguably) running not only the biggest city in Illinois by far, but biggest (i.e. most populous) in the Midwest? And yet, I’ve been in Judge Hoffman’s presence more than once, and he’s no dumb cookie–quite to the contrarty, his legal mind is quite well-respected…one thing’s for sure, MAN is this interesting–boy oh boy, there’s just never a lull in the political fireworks in good ‘ol Illinois…!
- grivetti - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:27 pm:
I have some experience with Illinois Election Law - check the name of the 1970 redistricting ruling concerning the Illinois Legislature. This ruling is in full accord with prior Illinois Law. While the legislature determines the qualifications of its members, a Democrat elected to the legislature some years ago was denies her office ON THIS VERY ISSUE. Her only absence from her district and residence was for school and to work for the state of Illinois, She won the election handily, and yet was denied the right to be seated for not having actual residence in the district. Was elected at a subsequent election, and then became an Appellate Justice. There is a real difference in the requirements for candidate residence as opposed to voter residency.
- 4th district - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:39 pm:
First, I know garman. She’ll play it straight. Second no thinking repub wants chicago to implode. Third, the definition of residency under court cases is different than the length of the residency. In the past those have been separate determinations. Fourth, there is a clear conflict between the first and fourth that clearly warrants sc action
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:53 pm:
@Grivetti -
Remember the Judge’s name?
I always remember former State Rep. Pat Bailey…I bet she wishes SHE could have argued it was always her INTENT to reside in the district when she was convicted on five counts and stripped of her office.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 11:03 pm:
@Gumby -
“Clearly a resident”, without actually residing in Chicago?
See the problem, i hope.
If Rahm is clearly a resident of Chicago, then why did we need a law to establish a right for armed forces members fighting in Iraq to run for office when they came back home?