* 4:44 pm - I’m hearing the Rahm Emanuel decision is going to be handed down any minute now.
* And, it turns out, I’m not the only one. From the Tribune…
Illinois Supreme Court officials said they will issue a ruling this afternoon on whether Rahm Emanuel can run for Chicago mayor.
The officials said the ruling could be expected at 4:45 p.m.
* 4:46 pm - Maybe not. Just talked with the Supreme Court again. Hang loose, but don’t stray far.
* 4:56 pm - From the Tribune’s Twitter feed…
L Supreme Court Justice Charles Freeman came out and said the Rahm Emanuel opinion would be released this afternoon.
* 5:06 pm - The Supremes have reversed the appellate court ruling. Emanuel is on the ballot. Click here to read the opinion.
* From the opinion…
Before proceeding to the merits, we wish to emphasize that, until
just a few days ago, the governing law on this question had been
settled in this State for going on 150 years. In Smith v. People ex rel.
Frisbie, 44 Ill. 16 (1867), this court was faced with a question
remarkably similar to that which is before us today. Smith, a longtime
resident of Illinois, had been appointed a circuit judge by the governor
of Illinois, and a quo warranto action was brought to remove Smith
from that office on the grounds that he had not been an Illinois
resident “for at least five years next preceding *** his appointment,”
as the Illinois Constitution then required. In support of their action,
the objectors pointed to the fact that Smith had moved with his family
to Tennessee for eight months during the relevant five-year residency
period.
In concluding that Smith’s eight-month sojourn to Tennessee did
not result in an abandonment of his established Illinois residency, this
court explained that, once established, “residence is lost *** by a
union of intention and acts” and that “the intention in many cases will
be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.” Smith, 44 Ill. at 24.
More…
Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the
principles governing the question before us were settled. Things
changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision
and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited
above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to
craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency.
… Thus, our review of the appellate court’s
decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of
whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the
particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court
was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor
of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not.
The Smith principles control this case, plain and simple. With the
sole exception of the prescribed time period, the provision at issue in
Smith is identical to one the issue at here.
* This opinion is a true beatdown of the appellate court decision. For instance…
All of that said, and putting aside the appellate court’s conclusion
that Smith is not binding in this case, the appellate court’s residency
analysis remains fundamentally flawed. This is because, even under
traditional principles of statutory analysis, the inevitable conclusion is
that the residency analysis conducted by the hearing officer, the
Board, and the circuit court was proper.
Major point…
Indeed, once a person has established
residence, he or she can be physically absent from that residence for
months or even years without having abandoned it
More beatdown…
[The appellate court’s] reasons for departing from over 100 years of settled
residency law are hardly compelling and deserve only brief attention.
More…
Although adopting a previously unheard-of test for
residency that would have applied to all future municipal elections, the
court made no attempt to explain what its standard means. The only
hint given by the appellate court is that, whatever its standard means,
this candidate did not satisfy it. The appellate court never explained
what it meant by “actually reside” or “actually live.” Indeed, as its
discussion of section 3.1–10–5(d) reflects, the entire appellate court
opinion can be read as nothing more than an extended exercise in
question begging, in which the appellate court sets forth the question
to be answered as what it means to “reside” (No. 1–11–0033, slip op.
at 11), and concludes that it means to have “actually resided” (No.
1–11–0033, slip op. at 21).
The difficulty of applying such a standard is immediately apparent.
For instance, consider a Chicago resident who owns a second home
in Florida and typically spends a month there every winter. Where is
that person “actually living” or “actually residing” during the month
when he or she is at the second home? Is such a person ineligible for
municipal office unless he or she sleeps at the Chicago house every
night for the year preceding the election? Is there a time limit with this
test? Would a week at the second home be short enough but two
months be too long? What about a Chicago resident whose job
requires him to spend extended periods of time out of the country
every year? Where is such a person “actually living” or “actually
residing” when out of the country? Assuming without deciding that
the appellate court was correct that the government service exception
does not apply to candidates, consider the example of Representatives
in Congress who often spend 4-5 days a week in Washington. If a
Representative from a Chicago congressional district owns a
condominium in Washington, where is that representative “actually
living” or “actually residing” when Congress is in session? Under the
majority’s test, would the candidate have been ineligible to run for
mayor even during the time he was serving in Congress? The same
confusion would arise with respect to State Representatives or State
Senators who must spend considerable amounts of time in Springfield.
* Emanuel’s intent…
This is a situation in which, not only did the candidate testify that
his intent was not to abandon his Chicago residence, his acts fully
support and confirm that intent. […]
The objectors claim that, once a person rents out a residence, he
or she has abandoned it as a matter of law. This is obviously incorrect,
as it is directly contrary to Smith. Indeed, Smith makes clear that
rental is merely one factor to consider in determining abandonment
(Smith, 44 Ill. at 24), and the terms of the rental and the circumstances
surrounding it must be considered.
* Conclusion…
So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear. This court’s
decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what
it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established
long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at
least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate
court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the
Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the
evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous. [Bolding added]
* There were no dissents. Two justices (Freeman and Burke) concurred in the result but not the reasoning.
- Helm - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:51 pm:
Word is that its in Rahm’s favor with Justice Theis writing the opinion. She is up for re-elect in 2012. Go figure. Perhaps I’ll eat crow shortly but that’s what I’ve been hearing since this afternoon.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:52 pm:
of course he’ll be on. let the coronation begin.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:52 pm:
For purely selfish reasons I hope you’re right. I’m an election judge in my ward, and I don’t want to have to deal with someone’s name being on the ballot but we can’t count those votes.
- hammer - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:53 pm:
Oh the suspense!!!!
- Formerly Fast & Freaky - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:59 pm:
Not suggesting anything but Judge Theis lives a few blocks from Rahm.
Oops, lives a few blocks from where Rahm intended to re-live, or something like that.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:00 pm:
amalia, do you live in Chicago? Because if you don’t, then all of our elections are coronations as far as you’re concerned. It insults me and the voters of Chicago when people use that term as if we’re not capable of electing a mayor on our own.
How do you define “coronation” anyway? Does the parade route to the coronation always go through the court system? Are you not paying attention? While you can argue that Mayor Daley was “coronated” every four years since 1991, nobody can claim that the term applies this year. Give it a rest please.
- Mr. Know-it-All - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:03 pm:
@Helm and @ FF&F: Justice Theis has an impeccable reputation (as do many, if not all, of the State Supremes). Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:04 pm:
I think they’ll find him guilty of residency and sentence him to 8-12 years in City Hall.
- PK - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:07 pm:
Appellate court decision reversed:
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf
- Formerly Fast & Freaky - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:07 pm:
Mr. Know-it-All-
Tounge planted firmly in cheek. I agree with you on Judge Theis.
- Knome Sane - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:08 pm:
To Mr Know it All and 47th Ward, you both need to relax.
- Cuban Pilot - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:10 pm:
supremes keep him on. special concuring opinion by burke. clean sweep for Rahm.
- Bigtwich - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:12 pm:
“JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the judgment of the
court”
So much for hearing.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:13 pm:
Everybody get out their Tinfoil Hats.
Shortly after the ruling went down, members of Opus Dei, the Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, the Elders of Zion, the Trilateral Commission, the Caryle Group, NBA Commissioner David Stern and George Clooney were seen at eating pizza at a Sbarros at O’Hare while they awaited a private jet to Davos to report to their superiors.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:14 pm:
dear 47th ward….it just seems so much like a parade of court supporters in the run up that the term seems applicable.
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:14 pm:
They smacked the appellate court pretty hard. The appellate court deserved it - and more. This whole thing is ridiculous.
- 60611 - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:14 pm:
I flipping through the opinion and found a shot directly squarely at the 2 judges on the appellate court:
“Before proceeding to the merits, we wish to emphasize that, until
just a few days ago, the governing law on this question had been
settled in this State for going on 150 years.”
- 60611 - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:15 pm:
Sorry — didn’t see it excerpted above. Anyway, that one stings.
- Democratic Voter - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:16 pm:
I’m glad it is 7-0. Otherwise, the conspiracy theorists would be out in full force if it was 4-3, or along party lines. It is a clean decision and the right one. Not sure what the Appellate Court was thinking.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:16 pm:
so this case impacts EVERYONE with residence requirements? radio says opening a can of worms.
- IrishPirate - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:16 pm:
vive la rahmolucion
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:18 pm:
===radio says opening a can of worms. ===
Radio is clueless. This is a 150 year old standard.
- Louis Howe - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:18 pm:
Like Sinatra might have said…The Illinois Supreme Court did it “Rahm’s Way”
- PPHS - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:18 pm:
This is what I have been saying for 6 months.
What a waste of time and $$$.
- soccermom - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:20 pm:
Is there someone who can say for sure whether this can be appealed to the federal side? I thought so, but colleagues disagree.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:20 pm:
Oh, snap! The Supremes slap back at the Appellate Court for overstepping their authority!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:20 pm:
Not 7-0, 5-2. And two certain judges went along with the majority to make it appear to be unanimous, to the public. But they didn’t agree with the reasoning, didn’t explain their own reasoning, and spent most of their concurrence expressing shock, shock!, that anyone would question the motive of a member of the Illinois judiciary.
- Big D - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:21 pm:
The concurring opinion took a few jabs at the justices in the majority, the appellate dissenting judge, and the media for attacking the appellate judges who voted in the majority.
Pages 23-24 state: “Spirited debate plays an essential role in legal discourse. But the
majority opinion here and the appellate dissent cross the line. Inflammatory accusations serve only to damage the integrity of the
judiciary and lessen the trust which the public places in judicial opinions. The present case, one of obvious public interest, raises
difficult questions regarding the legal concept of residency about which reasonable minds may differ. Indeed, as noted above, the meaning of the term “residency” has puzzled attorneys and judges since the term first appeared in the statute books. [] There is no reason for the majority here to cast aspersions on the appellate court’s motivations.”
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:21 pm:
“The appellate
court’s other basis for rejecting Smith was its determination that,
“although the supreme court’s discussion in Smith was based
nominally on principles of residence, it appears from its analysis that
it actually applied concepts of domicile.” No. 1–11–0033, slip op. at
7. In other words, the appellate court concluded that Smith is not
binding because this court did not know what it was talking about
when it wrote it.”
ZING!
- Cuban Pilot - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:21 pm:
—Indeed, once a person has established
residence, he or she can be physically absent from that residence for
months or even years without having abandoned it–
So,I guess we could have had a governor vallas after all and avoided a lot of this mess. Great. BTW, I kid. I kid.
- B - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:22 pm:
Unanimous court relying on clear precedent will go a long way toward keeping them clean in all of this. But afraid that it could put Hoffman and Hall under the microscope considering the strong language in the SC opinion.
Also, think this whole drama will help Emanuel clean up in the primary & avoid runoff
- BSP II - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:22 pm:
Agree with PPHS - maybe now Rahm can start showing his face at forums and the like. You fought so hard for it, now stop being a wimp and start acting like a mayor.
- phocion - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:23 pm:
Wordslinger, you slay me.
This is a great day for democracy and the rule of law in Illinois. Now, let the people decide.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:24 pm:
soccermom,
There is no standing for suit in federal court here. Period.
- IrishPirate - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:25 pm:
The combine strikes again.
The Kassian explanation of this ruling should proving ILLUMINATI ating.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:27 pm:
====So,I guess we could have had a governor vallas after all and avoided a lot of this mess.===
Vallas sold his house and registered to vote in Philadelphia and voted in Philadelphia. Huge difference.
- sal-says - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:30 pm:
One can only wonder how/why ‘appellate court justices’ are qualified to have their jobs?
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:31 pm:
==The Kassian explanation of this ruling should proving ILLUMINATI ating. ==
Won’t he just move out of town? Oh wait, doesn’t he live in a suburb?
- Muskrat - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:32 pm:
Well, that was fun. I’m waiting for the recap on ESPN. I want to see the slo-mo of the smackdown on the Appellate Court.
- soccermom - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:34 pm:
Let me stress — I am not supporting continued litigation through the federal system. I just wondered whether it was possible.
- Give Me A Break - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:35 pm:
Supremes to the Appellates, “Now go to your room without supper and we will let you know when you can come out”.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:37 pm:
Can’t wait to read Kass’ column on this decision.
- R.P. McMurphy - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:45 pm:
What a disastrous day for Chairman Burke:
1) The greatest threat to his dominion of power, a Mayor Emanuel, is still alive.
2) The result was so clear-cut that it was even a unanimous opinion. (Even though that didn’t stop his two wholly owned subsidiaries from writing a sore-loser concurring opinion.)
3) There might actually be some sort of focus on his abuse and domination of the judicial selection process going forward.
All in all, a terrible day for him.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:45 pm:
You should all read the concurrence. They strongly chided the majority for issuing such an unequivocal opinion and found that there is ample cause for confusion in the case law. They also questioned why members of the majority found it necessary to echo Lampkin’s incredibly uncivil tone.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:47 pm:
soccermom,
Sorry if I sounded harsh in my reply. But to further explain, the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to get in federal court with this via federal question jurisdiction (i.e. a U.S. constitution or federal statute issue) or by diversity jurisdiction (the parties being from different districts).
And when you litigate something in state court you can’t turn around and try in federal court just because the state court ruling is not what you liked.
The Illinois Supreme Court has given the final word here on this case.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:48 pm:
Thomas’ maj. opinion really “strongly worded” in slapping down App. Ct Maj. Rather excessive in same way the App. Ct op was. Freeman and Burke concurrence fully appropriate. Supremes should be more judicial in being judicial.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:50 pm:
@Rich 5:18 From Burke and Freeman “Because the court holds that residency has one settled meaning, and that meaning rests on a person’s intent, today’s decision will have implications for residency requirements for in-state tuition, residency requirements for municipal employees such as police officers and firefighters, residency requirements for school districts and other similar situations. This court should be prepared to address those issues as firmly and expeditiously as we have done today.” so, I guess da radioz were not too nuts.
- Bill - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:50 pm:
==This is a great day for democracy and the rule of law in Illinois==
Oh, Please!
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:50 pm:
Argh, my candidate will be negatively affected by this decision. Therefore, it is corrupt and wrong!
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:51 pm:
Imagine that. A sloppy opinion from that appellate court. Shocked and appalled.
- McHenry Mike - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:52 pm:
So now every firefighter and policeman in Chicago can move to a suburb and rent out their Chicago house. All they need to do is make sure the lease for the suburban home runs out at the same time as the lease for the one in the City so they can claim they “intend” to return….someday. This could come back to bite somebody who may happen to become mayor.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:54 pm:
MM, this is about candidates, not about firefighters. Take a breath. This standard has been in place for 150 years man. It was simply reaffirmed.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:55 pm:
Chicago Cynic,
The appellate court’s opinion was really stupid and the concurrence of Burke and Freeman looked like just them sticking up for the judges from their own first district to say they aren’t actually idiots even though this opinion isn’t right. Well, the truth hurts. The appellate court’s opinion was actually stupid and good for the dissenting judge and the majority calling them out on that.
Whatever merits of the actual complexity of the case that Burke and Freeman point out in their concurrence is completely undercut by the fact that they sided with the majority in the ultimate decision reversing the appellate court and the fact that, at least in Burke’s case, it just comes across as her whining at all the negative media coverage about her husband and his influence and the idea that she was supposed to recuse herself.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:55 pm:
I can see it now, Rahm is mayor and he files a lawsuit which questions residency for employees. and, of course, they will side with him. yes, can of worms.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:57 pm:
amalia, from the opinion…
So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear. This court’s
decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what
it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established
long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at
least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate
court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the
Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the
evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
So, yes, the radioz are nutz.
- Cuban Pilot - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:57 pm:
I know we have focused on the silly appeal’s court panel that made the decision. However, I would like to say that the Illinois Surpeme Court did a good job in handling this 1/2 legal, 1/2 political problem. They handled this in an efficient and open fashion. Their website gave the public access to all documents filed in their court, and the court did not waste their time in making an important decision. Most importantly, they quickly stayed the decision of the 1st District to make sure ballots were not printed without R.E.’s name. Further, because of the political importance, it was nice to see a 7-0 decision.
Over the last 15 years, there have been a few opinions where the Supreme Court got beat down by the public (mostly questions of mal practice caps, civil justice issues, etc). So, I would just like to say they got this one right and handled it in the proper manner. I know that it is odd to congratulate a highly paid government body for doing its job in a proper way. However, this is Illinois.
- Davey Boy Smithe - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:58 pm:
Reports at the Whole Foods in Lincoln Park on North Ave is that Rahm went there to return two dead fish. Claims he doens’t need them anymore.
- truthteller - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:00 pm:
Justice Hoffman has been known as an intellectual and very good judge. He was one of lifeguards as opposed to a swimmer if you recall the excellent Sun Times article on the state of the Judiciary. But reading his opinion made me wonder what was going on. The dissent was of a much higher quality and mocked the analysis for saying there was no law on the subject. Clearly the Supremes agreed. You don’t typically see the kind and amount of demeaning language of the lower court in a Supreme Court opinion as is int his one. there is no other way to read it than they were angered by the lower court’s decision. In one opinion Hoffman’s legacy is tarnished, but he had to know going in this was going to be the most significant public decision of his career.
Now the question is does the off and back on give Rahmbo a bounce? Do the voters who had to look at the remaining candidates and wonder why they were stuck with those choices now breath a sigh of relief and put Rahm over the 50% mark.
And when if ever do we get to a discussion of substantive issues????
- R.P. McMurphy - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:00 pm:
Hisgirlfriday - very well said.
Amalia - we get it: you don’t like Rahm. You don’t have to be as sour grapes as Freeman and Burke in that you didn’t get your way.
- Redbright - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:03 pm:
Has the back story on the App judges been explained? I know this is all about Burke trying to get a weak mayor so he can rule from the City Council but why did those judges destroy their reputations? It can’t possibly be just about getting on the ballot again.
- SR - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:03 pm:
If the President of the United States asks a firefighter, police officer, teacher, or any city employee to join the administration, I hope they would serve and would not lose their residency in the process.
- Big D - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:04 pm:
Maybe the Supreme Court will use as much passion in overturning the appellate court’s decision striking the capital bill?!?!
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:06 pm:
just sayin, there is some thought that it is an issue.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:07 pm:
I did not realize that pulling a quote from an opinion from two justices would qualify as sour grapes.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:11 pm:
For those mocking the appellate court this is from the Concurrence:
“Spirited debate plays an essential role in legal discourse. But the majority opinion here and the appellate dissent cross the line. Inflammatory accusations serve only to damage the integrity of the judiciary and lessen the trust which the public places in judicial opinions. The present case, one of obvious public interest, raises
difficult questions regarding the legal concept of residency about which reasonable minds may differ.”
and
“The majority bases its decision entirely on Smith v. People ex rel. Frisbie, 44 Ill. 16 (1867). As the appellate court correctly noted, the outcome in that decision turned solely on intent, a principle that is consistent with the legal concept of domicile. See Hayes v. Hayes, 74
Ill. 312 (1874). Unfortunately, Smith was not this court’s last pronouncement on the issue. Later decisions, namely Pope v. Board of Election Commissioners, 370 Ill. 196 (1938), Park v. Hood, 374 Ill. 36 (1940), and Clark v. Quick, 377 Ill. 424 (1941), each define residence in terms of domicile plus a permanent abode. In other words, under these cases, intent alone is not enough to establish residency.
Suffice it to say, therefore, that this court has not always spoken clearly on what is meant by residency, and the majority should acknowledge this fact. This is why both sides in this dispute can contend that their respective positions are supported by decades of precedent. Indeed, contrary to the majority’s assertions, the only thing that is well established in this case is the confusion that has existed on this subject. The majority today now makes clear that residency for all purposes is the equivalent of domicile. The majority, therefore, should overrule those portions of Pope, Park, and Clark which hold to the contrary.
It is for this reason that the tone taken by the majority today is unfortunate. Because our own case law was, until today, unclear, it is unfair of the majority to state that the appellate court majority “toss[ed] out 150 years of settled residency law” (slip op. at 10), adopted a “previously unheard-of test for residency” (slip op. 17), or was engaged in a “mysterious” analysis (slip op. at 16). In order to properly address the parties’ arguments, the appellate court had to reconcile this court’s conflicting pronouncements on the question of residency. That court did the best it could without the benefit of a supreme court opinion which clarified the standards. By refusing to acknowledge the role our own case law has played in creating the
dispute before us, the majority unwittingly adds credence to the inflammatory statements contained in the dissenting opinion below.”
- Responsa - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:12 pm:
==now breath a sigh of relief and put Rahm over the 50% mark==
For the mere relief of not being forced to watch additional months more of political ads, I predict voters will give Rahm 50% of the vote.
- McHenry Mike - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:16 pm:
Rich: Glad to see you are paying attention to the posts. Read the concurring opinion. They do talk about firefighters, policemen, and school children. There was just a story in the Tribune about someone in Ohio who now has a felony record for living outside of the school district and can never teach again. The thing that has shifted is that you can now rent out your old place. This allows you to maintain two residences financially while still claiming one of them is “official” for school or employment purposes.
We have a sheriff here who’s wife lives in Florida and takes a homestead tax deduction there, and also has a place in Wisconsin, and has Wisconsin vanity plates that read “Sheriff” on his car, and who just sold his only home in our county to one of his deputies. Is he still a “resident”?
- ZC - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:16 pm:
Rahm wins.
Maybe Chico could have caught him …. MAYBE, in the runoff. But after this … congrats, Appellate Court.
You just ensured Emanuel a critical layer of sympathy vote that’s going to carry him into da 5th floor, if not in the first round (which it might), then assuredly in the runoff.
- park - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:20 pm:
Shoot. I was hoping for 3 weeks of “write in” stories. Now, with the Bears out and Rahm in, there’s nothing to argue about.
At least the Judicial conspiracy theories on this blog are shut down. Thank God.
- Boone Logan Square - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:21 pm:
So, tonight’s debate should be fun.
- justice served - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:29 pm:
two questions i have from today -
will this drama with RE as the underdog translate into no run-off for him?
do the appellate judges have to run for retention?? because I have a couple “no” votes coming their way.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:31 pm:
Chicago Cynic,
From the bit of the concurrence you quoted did you notice the statement: “the majority unwittingly adds credence to the inflammatory statements contained in the dissenting opinion below.”
Do you really believe that the majority UNWITTINGLY added credence to the appellate court dissent? Do you think that Burke and Freeman really believe that the majority UNWITTINGLY did that? Please.
The court doesn’t use strongly worded language like this for no reason.
Just like Burke and Freeman don’t write a concurrence citing the Sun-Times and Tribune negatively writing about Burke’s husband’s influence on the appellate judges for no reason.
This concurrence was meant to try to give cover to the judges who threw away their reputations to do Ed Burke’s political bidding. Really it was the least Anne Burke (and her 1st district cohort Charles Freeman) could do. Understand it for what it is. The concurrence has no legal implications behind it.
- James - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:32 pm:
I was wrong the other day, so I’m just checking in, cause I know Rich wants me to eat some crow. I thought the Supreme Court would decline the case. I spoke of my high regards for Justice Hoffman; that is unchanged. Judges and pundits will err. But I’m thrilled with the result.
- Statewide - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:33 pm:
Hopefully it is now common-sense time for a day or two. I am no Rahm cheerleader, but it was silly and a waste of our time to consider that he may not be a Chicagoan, just because he went to work for the federal government and wanted his family to live with him in D.C.
Also, I am not a lawyer, but I think this ruling reinforces the important basic idea of freedom. Freedom of movement, freedom to make an economic action, and freedom to work somewhere else for a while, without giving up the all-important right to participate in your democracy as a candidate.
- SR - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:34 pm:
I should have noted that Rahm is one of the candidates open to the idea of letting city employees live outside the city as long as it’s shown not to affect their job performance.
I read it a few weeks ago but I can’t remember where, probably from a link posted here.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:46 pm:
Hopefully Rahm will throw some serious support to a write in candidate in the 14th Ward.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:51 pm:
Now that this Emanuel residency drama has ended, we can look at the race. I saw the Emanuel television commmercials, and said he’s going to fight corruption. Those were laughable comments, but were they directed at Burke?
- shore - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:52 pm:
if the debate is not broadcast downstate are we doing live blogging?
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:55 pm:
From the concurring opinion:
“Finally, it should be noted that today’s decision will raise questions beyond the facts of this case. Because the court holds that residency has one settled meaning, and that meaning rests on a person’s intent, today’s decision will have implications for residency requirements for in-state tuition, residency requirements for municipal employees such as police officers and firefighters, residency requirements for school districts and other similar situations. This court should be prepared to address those issues as firmly and expeditiously as we have done today.”
After complaining that the majority overreached in stating the law has been clear for 150 years and that they now have substituted domicile for residency in these cases, the two concurring justices overreach by adding residency of municipal employees to the mix.
For my continuing legal education CLE requirement, I can’t wait for the next class on civility in courtrooms. Between the appellate court dissent and this Supreme Court Decision, there will be plenty of examples to highlight of incivility.
When my back was turned, the Socratic method of testing the law evaporated into dissing the opposition.
It is a relief to see a 7-0 decision, however inelegantly written. Anything less would have continued the firestorm.
- MrJM - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 6:59 pm:
I believe there is a legal term of art for reversals like the majority opinion: Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.
– MrJM
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:02 pm:
How great is Justice Thomas’ life. He delivered the smack down on George Ryan’s opinion and now he saves Chicago. Just what everyone thought when the DuPage GOPer landed on the court.
Oh, and don’t forget that national championship winning kick against the Crimson Tide in the Sugar Bowl.
Guy’s living the dream.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:03 pm:
that should be George Ryan’s “pension”. Thomas authored the opinion telling Ryan he gets nothing.
- taxpayer - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:13 pm:
I guess they did take Chicago politics nationwide and back!!!!
- publius - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:15 pm:
Unfortunately, no court ever addressed odelsonn jaconetty nally argument laid ot in their app briefs, the majority focused solely on appellate argument. Closest was freeman and burke
- Enough - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:17 pm:
Wow!
The language from the majority’s opinion could have been cut and pasted from Kasper’s petition for leave to appeal.
This is one of the angriest opinions that I have ever read. Burke and Freeman concur in the result, but disagreed with the reasoning and scolded the newspapers and told the other court members that the Illinois Supreme Court has been less than clear as to residency issues.
I think that a number of subsequent cases may have to clarify what this means for cops and firefighters in residency spats.
- Abandon Ship - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:19 pm:
At least we know that our state supreme court is on a par with those of Florida and New Jersey.
- Steve Bartin - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:21 pm:
This is all inspirational! Can a Chicago city worker claim residence by renting an apartment in Chicago but moving their family to the suburbs? If their intent is to keep renting for years while kind of living in the suburbs: what’s the harm??? I hope all city of Chicago workers get the Rahm Emanuel treatment.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:39 pm:
The majority opinion and concurring opinions take me back to Heiple and Bob Green. None of which bodes well for anyone involved.
- What a waste - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:53 pm:
Perhaps those judges are mad like I am. The whole thing has been an unnecessary joke, brought on by a self aggrandizing lawyer.
For months Odelson told us how smart he was and how easy this case was. He just got his a$$ handed to him. To me he comes off looking like a fool.
- publius - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:07 pm:
He had an “argument” if you thought pope, pak amd clark controlled over smith
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:09 pm:
Yes, and after adopting a condescending tone for months, Odelson now offers no comment.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:28 pm:
Last Monday, when the Appellate Court’s decision came down, MrJM said:
“The Supremes will adopt the dissent opinion in its entirety.
– MrJM”
That’s the best prediction by far of the hundreds of wild guesses made here this week. Well done sir!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:37 pm:
Good article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/us/28cncchicagoway.html?hp
- SR - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:39 pm:
Odelson was on the phone with WGN right after they announced the decision, but the connection was so bad they couldn’t do the interview.
===This is all inspirational! Can a Chicago city worker claim residence by renting an apartment in Chicago but moving their family to the suburbs? If their intent is to keep renting for years while kind of living in the suburbs: what’s the harm??? I hope all city of Chicago workers get the Rahm Emanuel treatment.===
He owns a home and rents an apartment in the city. If he got the city worker treatment, he wouldn’t have had to live in the city until he got the job.
- Way Northsider - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:45 pm:
I am having trouble understanding why residency requirements for CANDIDATES are being used to discuss job related residency requirements for fire fighters, policemen etc. It seems a rather simple distinction. Congressmen can continue to run for reelection although they spend part of the year living in Washington. Firemen have to live in Chicago because their employer says so. The employer also has physical fitness requirements, height requirements, knowledge of how to fight a fire requirements…..None of those apply to candidates for mayor either.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:49 pm:
–150 year standard”RM,’. Yeah well Blacks were bought and sold too during alot of that time. Do we follow that precedent still? Some would still argue about that in your state. It does not make it correct.
Fitz, Burke, Freeman, machine elected regardless of where your court is located. –
Maurice, I’m glad you wrote YOUR state. Monitoring Illinois issues for Gov. Christie?
- Miss Priss - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:55 pm:
As another poster stated on another thread, what happens in Chicago affects the entire state. Rahm is Illinois’ best chance to turn things around.
Now that the Rahm-o-rama drama is over, I hope voters consider the real issues and what (and who) it’s gonna take to deal with them. If I lived in Chicago, I’d vote for Rahm. Hey, it’s Chicago…I’d vote for him twice!
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:02 pm:
Odelson was interviewed on WLS radio tonight. He expressed disappointment with the ruling.
- irv & ashland - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:03 pm:
>Rahm wins.
>Maybe Chico could have caught him …. MAYBE, in the runoff. But after this … congrats, Appellate Court.
Huh? We just learned who’ll be on the ballot. The race only started tonight with the WGN debate.
I’m glad he’s on the ballot once and for all so voters can start to focus on who he is. Having watched the debate, I don’t think it’s a run-away race. I have my favorite (MDV), but I think they were all presentable tonight, and I think if even 100,000 people watched, it’s going to soften his lead considerably.
- Esquire - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:10 pm:
Finished reading the entire decision — this one is not going to look too good in a bound volume in the law library.
Interesting to see the Supremes proclaim that no appellate decisions issued prior to 1935 are binding, but their decisions are all clear and correct since 1818, including the muddled cases that they relied upon and the others which the same state supreme court issued, but wilfully ignored today.
- colby - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:16 pm:
“Yeah well Blacks were bought and sold too during alot of that time.”
Not in Illinois they weren’t.
“Do we follow that precedent still?”
I’m like, 51% sure that we don’t. But then again, that “precedent” was specifically overruled by Constitutional Amendment, unlike the Smith principles.
“It does not make it correct.”
Doesn’t have to, because it makes it the law.
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:20 pm:
“I have my favorite (MDV), but I think they were all presentable tonight, and I think if even 100,000 people watched, it’s going to soften his lead considerably.”
I actually thought they were all four fairly unimpressive. And a tie goes to the leader, so I think Rahm’s strong position won’t change significantly.
- The Dark Horse - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:24 pm:
This attempt to remove Rahm not only failed, but backfired (reminds me a little of Cedra Crenshaw, but with sanity). Rich, I propose this question of the day: how many millions of dollars in free press has Rahm received from this?
- publius - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:25 pm:
They have to move the filing period up, so that when these judges get these cases there is moe time to put serious thought into the opinions. I think both the appellate and supreme opinions are a little light on substance and thereby a lot of flaws in logic. I am sure it was because they were rushed this should change.
- colby - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:25 pm:
“Interesting to see the Supremes proclaim that no appellate decisions issued prior to 1935 are binding, but their decisions are all clear and correct since 1818″
Why is that interesting? It’s a basic fact of every multi-tiered judicial system. A lower court just can’t tie the hands of the court of last resort. It’s not anything SCOIL came up with, today or any day.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:25 pm:
Who uses blacks as a noun other than newspaper headlines? It’s 2011.
- 42nd Ward - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:35 pm:
Strange opinion. Did not engage in much statutory analystis. Very subjective in it’s language. Smith is hardly “on point.”. But, they have the last word and it has been spoken.
- publius - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:45 pm:
“A permanent abode, occupied as one’s home or dwelling is essential for a residence.” Park v. Hood (1940). How did rahm comply with this requirement and why didn’t the supremes discuss this requirement?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:51 pm:
Have the Sun-Times and Tribune issued an apology on their editorial pages yet for impugning the character and judgment of our Supreme Court?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 9:58 pm:
Let’s review the bidding:
Bill Banks supports Rahm. According to the NY Times, Judge Ballard is an “old friend” of Banks and Banks made some calls to get him on the bench. Judge Ballard rules for Rahm.
Hoffman and Hall vote against Rahm. Some newspaper articles speculate about Burke’s past support for them. They take the unusual step of not voting to certify a heater case to the Supreme Court. In any case the majority of the Supreme Court thinks that Hoffman’s and Hall’s decision is beyond the pale and harshly criticize it when they reverse it.
Prominent Republican lawyers call for Rahm to be allowed to be on the ballot.
Chico used to work for Ed Burke, and Burke supports Chico. Reporters have speculated that Ed Burke backs the election challenge to Rahm.
The Republican justices on the Supreme Court, along with justice Kilbride and Theis, vote for Rahm.
Justices Burke and Freeman, the two justices most closely tied to the Eddie faction of the old Democratic machine, criticize the majority and defend the Appellate Court.
And some people think this case shows the Illinois judiciary is above politics?
- Hawkeye - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 10:02 pm:
Legal fees are probably more expensive than media buys (maybe not in Chicagoland!) - but Rahm’s name was all over the papers, radio & TV ad nauseum. Is it possible anyone in Chicago doesn’t now know his name and that he’s running for mayor? Not quite “free” publicity - but there’s no such thing as “bad” publicity.
- Chicago Resident - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 10:03 pm:
I won’t comment on the over-the-top-nature of most of these opinions, particularly those assuming that the ruling can be applied to city, fire, police, and CPS employees and their residency requirements. This was a ruling on running for office. If Rahm argued that he wanted to live in Oak Park and be mayor, that line may hold. But the argument - and opinion - is he lives here now and will moving forward. If a cop from Orland Park moves here and stays here more power to him. If he wants to get a job and never move him into the city, then yes, you are out of luck.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 10:11 pm:
Burke and Freeman from their special opinion: “Because the court holds that residency has one settled meaning, and that meaning rests on a person’s intent, today’s decision will have implications for residency requirements for in-state tuition, residency requirements for municipal employees such as police officers and firefighters, residency requirements for school districts and other similar situations. This court should be prepared to address those issues as firmly and expeditiously as we have done today.”
- publius - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 10:18 pm:
Wrong chicago resident the majority stated: “in illinois, the legal meaning of residence has been settled for well over 100 years, not only in the very context that section 3.1-10-5(a) concerns, but in virtually every other setting in which this court has construed a legal residency req.” Pg. 13. It does apply to chicago employees and students etc.
- ZC - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 10:25 pm:
irv & ashland, actually, I hope you’re right. I want this to be a competitive election … it would be good for Chicago.
But one of the key factors holding up Rahm has been, the perception that he’s somehow “anointed” or “the fix is in” or “the powers that be” have kind of shoved him down upon Chicagoans, from abroad.
I think he’s won sympathy points from many Chicagoans for all the ballot shenanigans and muted some of those critiques (deservedly or no). I thought the path to defeating him was always narrow. It can never be proven because you can’t rerun history, but I suspect this verdict was the middle of the end for his opponents.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 10:31 pm:
look, the quote is from Burke and Freeman. and Abdon and Fran are writing about it in the Sun Times currently on line. It’s up for discussion. by lots of people.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 10:58 pm:
amalia,
It may be up for discussion and it may be from Burke or Freeman’s concurrence, but that still doesn’t give that interpretation ANY force of law.
The majority opinion is the one that matters and if any lower court tries to use Burke and Freeman’s dissent to read something extra into this case and apply it to residency requirements for municipal employees rather than elected officials they’ll get smacked down by the majority just like the appellate judges did here.
- publius - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:02 pm:
Hisgirlfriday you’re wrong my last post was from the majority decision stating there is only one definition of residence in illinois.
- Liandro - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:03 pm:
Wow. I’m kind of…impressed. I think my respect for the legal system ticked up just a notch. They handled an important issue fast, decisive, and with great explanation. =o
- 42nd Ward - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:20 pm:
It was not great explanation, but it is. All done.
- Liandro - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:24 pm:
Lol, I stake no claim on having any kind of great legal mind…and possibly I just enjoy reading the smackdown. I do think this was the right way to go…favoring ballot access and respecting the local decisions. I say that as a conservative that has no love for Rahm…but, again, little legal knowledge.
- R.C. - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:41 pm:
It will be interesting to see how this effects the polls. All this hay may be to Rahm’s benefit.
- chicagoexpat - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:43 pm:
& Rich, do us all a favor — analyze why the first court ruled against Rahmbo - what were the politics involved?
who were the judges trying to help?
- MrJM - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:50 pm:
@47th Ward - Thanks!
– MrJM
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:53 pm:
==analyze why the first court ruled against Rahmbo - what were the politics involved?–
The first court ruled in Emanuel’s favor, upholding the ruling of the CBOE and GOP Joe Morris’ recommendation.
It’s been in all the papers.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 2:59 am:
chicagoexpat - that’s in the Friday NY Times piece, linked above.
- Aldyth - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 7:27 am:
It’s finally settled and this whole business has been a distraction for months. Get on with the campaigns, the debates, and let the voters make their choice. We need to know who is going to be the eight hundred pound gorilla in the political zoo that is Illinois.
- What a waste - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:06 am:
Publius,
the permanent occupied abode requirement was met by Rahm during all the time he lived in the house. Park itself also asserts that your residence is not lost with a temporary absence with an intent to return. So Park v. Hood was essentially reaffirmed in that aspect.
The 7-0 decision pretty much says it all. The law, statutory and case, is clear and those claiming otherwise have an agenda with little to support their case.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:32 am:
If I understand the pro-Rahm conspiracy to subvert the law, it includes:
–GOP Joe Morris
– The Chicago Board of Elections
– The original Cook County Court judge
–The dissenting judge of the appellate court
– Bigfoot GOP legal eagles Jim Thompson, Ty Fahner, Jim Ryan and Dan Webb
– All seven members of the Illinois Supreme Court (4 Dems, 3 GOPers) led by GOPer Bob Thomas.
Anyone else?
- Aldyth - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:44 am:
Wordslinger, I’m sure that Smoking Man should be on that list.
- jeff - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:49 am:
So in reading the opinion leaving for the service of the United States had no bearing on whether he was a resident? He could have been working for Goldman Sachs or Sisters of Charity and still be elgible is how I understand this.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:50 am:
Subert the law is so harsh. There are certain commonalities of interest in Cook County and Illinois. Going on the bench sometimes changes one’s perspective on those interests, and on one’s sponsors. Often it doesn’t.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:53 am:
–Subert the law is so harsh. There are certain commonalities of interest in Cook County and Illinois. Going on the bench sometimes changes one’s perspective on those interests, and on one’s sponsors. Often it doesn’t.–
They all took oaths. What are the commonalities of interest?
- Smoking man - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:57 am:
Gery Chico will never be mayor. Never.
- dupage dan - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:57 am:
Word,
Haven’t you just listed all the members of the “combine”?
- anon - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 9:07 am:
I can’t wait to hear the comments in 1 year and in 4 years. I don’t have a dog in this hunt but it wouldn’t matter because the game is done.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 9:08 am:
Actually, Kass today has the conspiracy figured out. Was there any doubt that he would?
It’s the Establishment and Big Media.
His truth marches on in the Chicago Tribune, an obscure, radical pamphlet, the tiny voice of the little guy, heroically struggling to speak truth to the sinister powers that control everything and everyone.
- Bigtwich - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 9:22 am:
==Interesting to see the Supremes proclaim that no appellate decisions issued prior to 1935 are binding, but their decisions are all clear and correct since 1818==
Appellate opinions before 1935 have no binding force on Illinois courts. Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill.2d 77, 95(1996) People v. Glisson, 202 Ill.2d 499 (2002)
There are older cases but do not remember them.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 9:30 am:
Rahm Emmanual woke this morning, stretched his arms and stiff back. He was tired and hungry. It had been a long couple weeks.
He thought about finally getting through this residency ordeal and all the hoops he had to jump through. I slight smile pursed his lips as he wondered who he would eat for lunch.
- D.P. Gumby - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 9:40 am:
Whoever might have won w/o Rahm on the ballot would never have been considered legitimate. Even less so than Bush’s ‘victory’ by U.S. Supreme Court vote.
- titan - Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 10:21 am:
I’m happy to say “I told you so” on this one