* John Kass’ column yesterday was the talk of the town. It’s been pretty much ignored by the rest of the media, but Kass was fed some info that casts serious doubt on whether Rahm Emanuel was legally restored to the voter registration rolls after being purged twice. Kass sums up the gist of yesterday’s piece in today’s column. What follows is from a late October exchange between city elections chairman Langdon Neal and Ald. Ed Burke…
Without once mentioning Emanuel by name, Neal admitted to Burke that it would be a violation of procedure to reactivate a hypothetical purged voter unless that hypothetical fellow came in and presented two pieces of identification to election officials.
“Unless there was some other reason that we restored that voter internally,” Neal said in the transcript, which did not record whether Burke smiled like the Cheshire cat.
Internally? So I called Neal to ask him about this “internally” business.
“John,” Neal sighed, “the one thing that’s real clear is that I’ve answered one too many hypothetical questions. And I think I should stop answering any hypothetical questions and wait for the case to be filed.”
Here’s the full exchange between Neal and Burke about what happens after a voter is purged…
Burke: What evidence do I have to produce to show I am indeed registered at that address?
Neal: Two pieces of ID.
[later]
Burke: I don’t have two pieces of evidence, I call you and I say, I want to be restored, Is that possible under your procedures?
Neal: No. No. You have to —
Burke: So whoever has been rendered inactive must come in with two pieces of identification. To whom do those identification pieces go?
Neal: The judges of election at the polling place.
Burke: What about the Board of Election Commissioners?
Neal: Certainly. They can come to us at any time.
[later]
Burke: If it was restored without producing two pieces of identification, is that a violation of your rules; is it a violation of the law; is it a violation of procedure?
Neal: It would be a violation of procedure, unless we — unless there is some other reason that we restored that voter internally —
Burke: Well, you just told me they have to have two pieces of identification.
Neal: That’s the procedure, correct. That’s the procedure.
Burke: So if it was done without the voter producing two pieces of identification, it would be a violation of procedure?
Neal: Yes, it would be a violation.
* The reason this is so important is any irregularities in Emanuel’s voter registration could very well undermine his qualifications to run for office. From the state’s municipal code…
(65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1‑10‑5)
Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office.
(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment
If he’s not properly registered to vote, he can’t run for office.
* More Emanuel problems from the Sun-Times…
“The issue is not that he left town — it’s that he rented out the house,” said Adam Lasker, who chairs the Chicago Bar Association’s Election Law Committee and has no clients running for mayor.
“I have yet to have anyone cite to me any kind of case or law that would have support for Rahm,” Lasker said. “He’s not supposed to be on the voter rolls if he doesn’t have residency. You can come back to your home in Chicago that you can live in, but if you can’t come back and live in the house, then you can’t vote.” […]
What makes Emanuel’s case unique and possibly a “case of first impression” in Illinois law is his squabble with his tenant who would not allow him to break the lease and move back in to run for mayor. Odelson, Jim Nally and some other attorneys argue that Emanuel must have access to the house for it to qualify as his residence.
Mike Kreloff, the election lawyer provided by Emanuel’s campaign, said the Illinois Election Code makes clear that people who leave for government service do not forfeit their voting rights.
“I think the challenge is bogus,” election lawyer Michael Dorf agreed.
But election lawyer Andrew Raucci argues, “I don’t think it’s a frivolous issue.”
The legal issue may come down to whether the stricter language of the state’s municipal code trumps the state’s election code.
As with everything else in Chicago, the outcome will probably depend on the judge he draws.
* The rest of the political commentariat was much impressed with the explanation from Emanuel’s attorney about why he is qualified to run for mayor. Here’s Greg Hinz…
State election law clearly allows someone to temporarily relocate for “business with the United States” without losing their local residency, Mr. Kreloff said. Beyond that, the candidate kept “personal possessions” in the Ravenswood house he rented out while in D.C., regularly has voted absentee from the Ravenswood address, and kept his driver’s license registered to that address, Mr. Kreloff said.
The whole flap, in his view: “Political games.”
All in all, a pretty strong argument, I thought. But we’ll see what the lawyers say.
* Mark Brown…
The Emanuel campaign argues that renting out the house did nothing to change his residency, citing a provision in Illinois law that specifically holds no voter “shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.”
While my own sense of fair play suggests Emanuel deserves to run and my experience with residency cases leads me to think he has a strong case, I certainly would enjoy seeing the arguments aired out in court — if a challenge is indeed filed by the Nov. 30 deadline.
Brown’s column focused mainly on Emanuel’s new “residence,” which is a plain Jane condo at Milwaukee and Ogden. Not addressed, however, is whether Emanuel’s family actually lives there. Check out the end…
Through his spokesman, Emanuel declined my generous offer to drop by with a six-pack — and a photographer — for a quick tour of the new residence.
“He doesn’t spend much time there,” LaBolt said.
Surprisingly, there were no questions about where Emanuel’s family is currently living.
* Related…
* Mayoral campaigns battle over Rahm Emanuel’s eligibility to run
* Rahm puts a brick on selling Midway Airport
* Emanuel, Meeks vow to stop Midway deal if elected next mayor
* Gery Chico makes his case for mayor: experience
- Upsate - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:08 am:
Election lawyer Burt Odelson was on Roe Conn’s show last night on WLS; his argument is that the “absence on business of the United States” statute refers to voting rights only, but the statute on the “privilege” of running for public office is entirely different.
Technically, he’s probably right. But what court is going to deny residency to someone who represented part of Chicago in the United States Congress just two years ago?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:11 am:
I wonder if Neal knew what Burke was yammering on about when he was answering all those questions.
My guts says residency won’t keep Rahm off the ballot. He was a Congressman from Chicago for pete’s sake who left to work as White House Chief of Staff.
Is there a judge out there who’s willing to keep him off? I guess Burke would know better than most, lol.
American history is full of real carpetbaggers who were able to beat strict interpretations of residency laws.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:12 am:
When Burt Odelson, one of the Big Three election law giants, says you have no standing, and THEN, Kass has something like this to prove that, statuatorally, you are then twisting in the wind. Heaven help Rahm.
A great point, you have the cash, why rent out the house? Really? You need the cash? Dopey!
I would stop running those ads Rahm, and focus on getting Raucci or Jaconetty to take on Odelson. Or, maybe get both of them!
- Bill - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:13 am:
Everybody knows Rahm and the Rahmettes live in D.C..In Chicago, they fire employees who rent a small condo somewhere in town and live out of town.
Our only hope for a Rahmless election lies in the hands of some judge that was practically appointed to his position by Ed Burke.
If Rahm is judged above the law before he gets elected, just imagine what he will be like afterward.
The city council elections are looming as the only thing standing between the mayoralty and total chaos. They should make each aldermanic candidate get an MRI to see if any have a backbone before they can run.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:13 am:
Just because Kass said it doesn’t make it true.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:14 am:
When Burt Odelson, one of the Big Three election law giants, says you have no standing, and THEN, Kass has something like this to prove that, statuatorally, you are then twisting in the wind. Heaven help Rahm.
A great point, you have the cash, why rent out the house? Really? You need the cash? Dopey!
I would stop running those ads Rahm, and focus on getting Raucci or Jaconetty to take on Odelson. Or, maybe get both of them!
My name didn’t post, sorry … full disclosure
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:16 am:
===Just because Kass said it doesn’t make it true.===
Which part isn’t true … the renting of the house, the statute, the direct dialog with Burke and Neal … trying which part of the truth …isn’t true …(still looking)
- Aldyth - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:17 am:
Get to court and get this settled. Otherwise, it is a distraction from the business at hand, much like the birther nonsense with Obama.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:17 am:
Knowing Ed Burke wants to stop Rahm makes me like Rahm even more.
You better hope you keep him from the ballot Mr. Chairman, or you might lose your police detail. Hey, shouldn’t those guys who chauffeur Burke around be out patrolling in one of our high crime areas instead of babysitting a politician? I thought we needed more cops on the street.
- siriusly - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:20 am:
I agree upsate. The man was a Chicago congressman, less than 23 months ago. I don’t get all this outsider talk.
I know why all the other mayoral candidates want him disqualified, he’s leading in all early polls and he’s a very strong candidate. What I can’t understand is all the anti-Rahm rhetoric from columnists, bloggers and regular voters.
The claim that he’s an outsider is so strange to me. He was a Chicago congressman for 6 years up until 23 months ago when he resigned after Obama asked him to.
The residency issue is what it is, but I am guessing the courts will rule him qualified to run in the end.
- Whatever - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:20 am:
My guess is there are two standards: 1). the law; and 2). whatever Rahm wants. It will be interesting to see which wins out.
- budget boy - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:22 am:
I wonder what Anne Burke and the three GOP members of the state supreme court will think of Rahm’s argument.
- Amalia - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:23 am:
oh, yeah, cause getting knocked off the voter registration roles twice is like the birther nonsense. please.
one law seems to clearly state that he is on business of the country, so clear why out of town. the must be a resident for a year clause seems to have some play because of getting knocked off.
Burt Odelson vs. Mike Kreloff and Mike Kasper…..hmmmm…..bet that Burt wants to make law, and the taking off TWICE is in the area of making law.
also, the hearing is a reminder of why the Budget hearings are the most important of the year at City Hall. they are less about the money and more about power, information, airing of grievances, and this is vintage Ed Burke. remember, Chico worked for Burke too!
oh, and Chico in Spanish is, what, literally translated to….the guy?!?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:25 am:
47, Burke does have a pretty sweet ride. Over the years, I’ve seen him pop in and out of his limo — always illegally idling — at places all over the Loop. One copper stays behind the wheel, another follows behind or clears the way.
Great way to get around town.
- just sayin' - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:26 am:
So if a soldier is away for a year or two overseas fighting for our country (and rents out his or her home while his or her life is on the line), we’re not going to let that soldier run for office right away when he or she returns? That’s crazy.
Emanuel wasn’t in harm’s way with his D.C. gig, but he was still serving his country. That’s not something we want to discourage.
All Emanuel has to do is wrap himself in the Flag and he wins this thing. Plus he’s a lot smarter than Kass and all the pretenders lined up against him.
I’m not impressed by John Kass’ bankrupt analysis in a bankrupt paper.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:28 am:
Renting the house seems reasonable…who wants an empty house setting around anywhere these days! Remember the days when property ownership was required for voting rights? Further, what if he didn’t “own” the house, but was renting and then went on “business of U.S.”, but kept his voting, DL, etc. at the old rental address? Still a “resident”?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:30 am:
just sayin’
Odelson addressed that many times now, I am not a lawyer, but Burt had stated that the arguement of “serving your country” in the instance of working at the White House is different, in legal standing, than being forced to move overseas or all over the country do to orders of the military.
I do not want to get into the “legaleze”, but Odelson has/had addressed it …
- Careful what you wish for - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:34 am:
If he is successfully kept off the ballot, imagine the seething anger and desire for retribution when the next bite at the apple comes. If the next Mayor is not Rahm, they will surely be only a one term Mayor.
- Well... - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:35 am:
Another issue maybe when did Rahm vote? If he has not voted since 2007 in Chicago at the old address does he have standing to say he was residing in Chicago. Also what address was on his petitions the new address or his house because if the new address was on his petitions then how can he say he has had residence for a year in chicago?
- Who Cares - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:36 am:
Has anyone yet formally challenged Rahm on this issue in court? If not, who do you think will pull the trigger?
- Him Say - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:38 am:
=47, Burke does have a pretty sweet ride. Over the years, I’ve seen him pop in and out of his limo ==
Word: I usually agree with you 98.6% of the time. But please, Ed Burke doesn’t ride in a “limo” but rides in a 4-door sedan that looks like it came from the police pool. Also, his detail is on order of the courts, a result from when Mayor Washington tried to remove it. And if you saw the file on the threats he has received, and I have, you would agree he needs the detail.
- just sayin' - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:40 am:
“….but Burt had stated that the arguement of ’serving your country’ in the instance of working at the White House is different, in legal standing…”
Well sure, he’s going to try and say that. Any 1st yr law student can come up with some argument for any side of anything. Odelson knows the military anolougy is a killer for him so of course he’s going to try a preemptive hit. But it’s a loser.
Just remember, talk is cheap…..until you hire a lawyer.
Also let’s not lose sight of the fact that every lawyer weighing in against Rahm is being paid by another camp. At least I think that’s the case. If I’m wrong I’ll stand corrected.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:40 am:
–Another issue maybe when did Rahm vote? –
In October. When he returned to Chicago, he made a big deal of being filmed early-voting for the TV news.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:42 am:
This is going to be very interesting …
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:45 am:
–But please, Ed Burke doesn’t ride in a “limo” but rides in a 4-door sedan–
Anything that doesn’t have a hatchback, a dozen cupholders and years of ground-into-the-upholstery sandwiches, gum and juice boxes in it is a limo to me.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:49 am:
Him Say,
That’s lame. Burke is the most imperial of alderman, his ego is so big it needs a police security detail and its own car. Ed Burke hasn’t gotten into a cold car in more than 30 years. His Finance Committee can’t find the dough to fully staff CPD yet he keeps 3-4 cops off the street so he can show everyone how important he is. Burke is part of the problem in Chicago, and has been for a long, long time.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:49 am:
===Odelson knows the military anolougy is a killer for him===
It’s not an analogy, it’s in the statutes. Big difference. Rahm can’t claim he’s military, can he?
- Legalese - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:57 am:
the statute says “No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.”
There’s no mention of military. Odelson is trying to restrict the statute. The language is clear. he’s going to get his lunch handed to him.
- Him Say - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:00 am:
==Anything that doesn’t have a hatchback, a dozen cupholders and years of ground-into-the-upholstery sandwiches, gum and juice boxes in it is a limo to me.==
Word: OK, you convinced me. My agreement rate went to 98.7% (You post a lot)…..
- Responsa - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:01 am:
Please look at the 4th paragraph in link below: Does this not describe Rahm and his wife’s situation? You are completely legal to vote absentee if you’ve been forced to move from the precinct for federal employment. But some still say you shouldn’t be able to run for office in the identical situation after being away temporarily for government service, and then returning home?
http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/ElectionInformation/PDF/absevote.pdf
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:02 am:
–“No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.”–
To the layman, White House Chief of Staff would seem to fall under “business of the United States.”
He wasn’t in the military, of course, but, in a broad interpretation, he was Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, had top security clearance, access to the Situation Room, etc.
- just sayin' - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:05 am:
Fair point Rich. But he can say he was directly serving the Commander in Chief.
And let’s say he had kept his house open and came home a couple of times and spent the night for show. I just don’t see a substantive difference - beyond a family having to find another abode.
Remember when Bill Daley had his home burglarized when he was away? At least Emanuel had less risk of that happening with someone living there. The Hinz article said Emanuel kept some of his own things in his home back in Chicago. I think that’s a major point and is cleary indicative of intent to return.
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:10 am:
(65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1‑10‑5)
Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office.
(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1‑20‑25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1‑25‑75, Section 5‑2‑2, or Section 5‑2‑11.
(d) If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person’s spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement under subsection (a).
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:15 am:
===But he can say he was directly serving the Commander in Chief.===
I think Honest Abe’s citation pretty much destroyed that argument. “Active duty military service” is pretty well defined.
- Amalia - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:17 am:
so…Election lawyers…. who is on the candidate’s payroll?
Odelson….with Meeks
Kasper and Kreloff…..with Rahm
Nally…..commenting from the sidelines
Lavelle…..beaming down from the heavens
anyone else? so much fun watching these lawyers at work.
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:28 am:
Rahm Emanuel’s lawyers are trying to cloud the issue by citing to a provision of the Election Code that relates to maintaining possible voting eligibility while absent serving the government of the USA or the State of Illinois.
The Municipal Code provision defining the terms for eligibility to run for local office are different from the requirements for voting. The bar is somewhat higher. To be a registered voter, you need only reside within a precinct or district for about a month. To run for a local municipal office, you need to have been a resident for a minimum of a year.
It is a distinction with a difference. It is possible to be eligible to vote while being ineligible to seek office as a candidate.
- Mares eat oats - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:31 am:
Where is The Speaker on Rahm’s candidacy? I will give you a clue: Mike Kasper doesn’t do anything that the Speaker doesn’t like. Kasper was acting as Rahm’s attorney on the day that petitions were filed. Now, he’s off the case, and Kerloff is representing Rahm. That should tell you something.
- centrist - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:32 am:
The issue isn’t whether Rahm qualifies under the Illinois statute. He does. But under the Chicago statute, he probably doesn’t. The issue is, which statute rules in this case. On the one hand, I would think that, all other things being equal, Illinois law would trump Chicago law. On the other hand, this is a Chicago election, so I would think that Chicago law might apply (i.e. Illinois has a general standard, and municipalities would have the right to impose stricter standards for their own elections, unless the Illinois law is in the state constitution -and I don’t think it is). Ultimately it will depend on the last judge who rules, and time will be a factor. I don’t think it will have time to work its way up to the Illinois Supreme Court. My guess is that it will be decided by the last judge who rules before the absolute final possible date for creating the ballots, which is probably pretty soon. I don’t think any court will change the date of the election if that is what is necessary to overrule a lower court’s ruling.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:35 am:
centrist, according to the Chicago elections board, the operative law is the one referenced above. It’s a state statute.
- CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:41 am:
So Kassamoron (R-Dufusville) has Ed Burke running his errand now that ERV is tied up…..very funny.
BTW the courts will side with Rahm, but it is good to see resources ….kinda like buying billboards. (t-heee)
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:41 am:
First off, I advise folks to stop listening to the PR quotes and to go and read the statutes involved. This is a complicated issue, and it doesn’t matter what is right or wrong, it matters what the law says and how it will be interpreted. Thanks, Abe, for posting the relevant section.
For the record, I’m not a lawyer, but here’s my 2 cents.
There are two criteria to run for Mayor. You have to be a qualified voter (ie registered voter), and you have to have resided in Chicago for one year.
First, let’s look at qualified voter. This is the easier test. This applies to all of the situations where one is a legal resident of Chicago but may be away for business or government service. Typically if you maintain your voter registration, drivers license, pay taxes from that address, then you are still a legal resident. In any case, the statute requires that the person “is” a qualified elector, not has been. Rahm clearly is a registered voter.
On to the second point. First of all, by including both provisions, there is clearly the intent to have a test beyond merely being a registered voter or resident, so this is something different. Also, the wording is different than in similar situations. Here, it states “has resided in.” By comparison, the state constitution when defining requirements for legislators, states “be a resident.” I think these mean different things. It makes no sense, but since when do Illinois laws have to make sense.
I would argue that Rahm is (and has been) a resident of Chicago, but has not resided here for the past year.
We get clues from the military exception. We know that people on military deployment are allowed to vote from here. This subsection was added because the residency requirement goes beyond that - it means you have to have been living here. Also, by providing an exception for military but not others, it shows a clear intent to make other situations subject to the law. Government service does not qualify here, even if it works in similar and related situations.
Bottom line, Rahm loses on the substance. However, I predict that the Illinois Supreme Court will ultimately rule that this provision is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable, and will allow him on the ballot.
- Liandro - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:43 am:
Not of fan of Rahm, or Daley, or how Chicago is run, or any of it. But if they somehow kick Rahm off the ballot over this nonsense, then the statutes and laws need to be changed. He was off serving his state and his country, and he rented out his house ’til he planned to come back. Big deal.
Ambassadors shouldn’t lose standing, nor military, nor a President’s chief of staff; heck, neither should astronauts. There are certain jobs that require a special commitment in terms of your living arrangements–that shouldn’t preclude you from voting, or returning with standing. If the people of Chicago want Rahm, they should be able to have him.
On the flip side, I’ll find it ironic if he gets dispatched with the kind of Machiavellian tactics he might have employed himself. Somebody send him a dead fish when its done.
- Bill - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:43 am:
Honest Abe has it right. He was eligible to vote, until he was purged twice, that is, but is not eligible to run for municipal office. All you have to do is read it. The fact that he represented part of Chicago doesn’t mean he is from Chicago. Let him run for mayor of Baltimore or Arlington or some north shore suburb. That is where he’s from.
- centrist - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:44 am:
Rich, In that case, Rahm may have a real problem here. Up until now, I thought this was just going to be a minor annoyance for him. Still, he could win the case with the right judge.
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:44 am:
Some of the lawyers quoted today are showing us their political stripes. They are arguing the talking points that favor their preferred candidates and not quoting from the law. Others know better, but they are still saying whatever their paying clients are telling them to say and they will keep doing so until the money stops coming in. This is called lawyers being lawyers.
The most interesting quote in the press came from veteran elections attorney Andrew Raucci. He said that the residency objection to Emanuel’s eligibility is not frivolous. I think that it is an accurate statement and, so far as I know, Raucci does not appear to have a client interested in running for mayor in the upcoming election as of today.
- Irishpirate - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:48 am:
Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 10:49 am:
===Odelson knows the military anolougy is a killer for him===
It’s not an analogy, it’s in the statutes. Big difference. Rahm can’t claim he’s military, can he?
Rich,
Mark Kirk just gave a press conference where he announced that he was secretly made Admiral years ago and that Rahm was commissioned as a Commander in the Naval Reserve on the day his tenant took possession of his house.
True story.
- Think Again - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:49 am:
Because eligibility to run for office is closely linked to the ability to vote within a particular jurisdiction, you should use the definition of “residence” as used within the Election Code for voter registration.
- Bill - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:51 am:
No you shouldn’t. That’s absurd.
- just sayin' - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:52 am:
“I think Honest Abe’s citation pretty much destroyed that argument. ‘Active duty military service’ is pretty well defined.”
I don’t think it destroys it at all. Using other statutes or cases to make analogies to the present case is always fair game. That’s how case law gets made.
- Confused - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:52 am:
I thought the State just had a court case similar to this regarding Deb Mell. Didn’t the court rule you don’t even have to be registered to vote to run for office?
https://capitolfax.com/2009/11/30/things-that-make-you-go-hmmm-2/
- Bill - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:56 am:
What about the phrase “has resided in” is not clear or open to interpretation. He hasn’t resided here for the past two years. I own rental property in another state. I keep a few boxes of my junk in the attic. Can I say I reside there and not pay Illinois state income tax?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:58 am:
== What court is going to deny residency to someone who represented part of Chicago in the United States Congress just two years ago? ==
Most likely the Illinois Supreme Court is where this one is headed.
Honest Abe is correct, and there’s alot of conflagration going on in Rahm’s campaign.
Just so everyone understands: The residency requirements for Voting and Running for Office are completely different.
We can debate all day whether Rahm should be able to Vote, whether it was his “intent” to return to Chicago.
But as Bill, Honest Abe, Odelson and others have pointed out, that’s irrelevant.
Eligibility to Run for Office has a separate legal definition of residency. It doesn’t include the words “intent”. Nor has it ever been interpreted that way.
And, as we all know, things like candidate eligibility, petition requirements, etc. are subject to strict interpretation by the Election Board and the Courts.
Ironically, that’s always benefited Machine candidates in the past.
How often do we get to say:
“Hoisted by their own petard.”
- Responsa - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 11:59 am:
Just curious. Is there any sort of statute of limitations for the Kirk braggadocio mockery on this blog? Especially when it’s posted on threads with totally unrelated content? The election is over and he won. In a few days he will be our junior senator. If Kirk continues to do it, and provides new examples of extreme puffery to show that he may not have learned his lesson then it will be fair game going forward. But for now it just seems really lame.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:02 pm:
Confused, we’re talking about a different part of election law. Mell’s case was about a state legislator. This Rahm thing is about the municipal code.
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:09 pm:
Ok - next question - no Rahm on the ballot, who is the leader?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:13 pm:
–Most likely the Illinois Supreme Court is where this one is headed.–
If that’s the case, then I expect we’ll hear something definitive around Labor Day.
Like the great Roy Cohn used to say: “Don’t tell what the law is, tell me who the judge is.”
- enn - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
===no Rahm on the ballot, who is the leader?===
I don’t know, but Tom Dart is really going to be kicking himself.
- Bill - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
Ryan Graves is the new leader.
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:18 pm:
While I think a strict reading of the statutes here would doom Rahm, I just don’t see a court doing that (despite my misgivings about him as a mayor). They will find a way to look to ‘intent’ - and he certainly didn’t demonstrate intent to leave the district permanently by taking a temporary position in the White House. Given that he was a congressman who left his district solely to serve the President for a time, they will look at the equities involved and rule in his favor.
- Vibes - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:21 pm:
I was kind of hoping that someone would ask him if his kids are applying to attend Coonley next fall when they return. If it was good enough for his campaign announcement …
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:25 pm:
===but Tom Dart is really going to be kicking himself. ===
He’s been getting lots of calls. He’s not interested and he’s not kicking himself.
Too many people bought into the Kasslike conspiracy theories about why he bowed out. He told the truth. He’s not interested.
- centrist - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:35 pm:
Tom Dart is a genuinely good man. That’s why I would have supported him, even though I suspect he may be more liberal than I am. It’s sad, but it often seems that the qualities that make you a good person are in conflict with ones that make you a successful politician.
- just sayin' - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:36 pm:
“…are subject to strict interpretation by the Election Board and the Courts.”
Yellow Dog, I’m guessing you haven’t been too involved in the area of Illinois election law. Very little is clearly spelled out in the Illinois election code. If it was, there wouldn’t be so much litigation every election. There are tons of cases, often conflicting, just on the topic of residency. If the law alone was so clear, there wouldn’t be the long debate here and no one would be talking about the courts.
I like Emanuel’s chances, and no it need not depend on some biased Chicago judge. I think Emanuel wins just on the grounds that our public policy should encourage public service, and further that the election code cannot be read so as to be used as a sword seeking to punish that sacrifice. Emanuel is a Chicagoan and that didn’t change simply because he went to D.C. for awhile to serve his President and his country. I’m no Rahm fan, although I would say Chicago could do a lot worse.
Just sayin’.
- centrist - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:36 pm:
If Rahm is out, then it’s a race between Davis and Chico.
- Amalia - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:36 pm:
oh, the Illinois Supreme Court…..hello Burke family!!!!
- Bill - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:41 pm:
==I think Emanuel wins just on the grounds that our public policy should encourage public service==
That might be a good talking point during a debate to change the code but as it stands right now, according to the law, he clearly did not reside in Chicago and therefore can’t be on the ballot.
His only honest chance is get the law declared unconstitutional which it is not.
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:56 pm:
The fact that this debate is even being entertained in the slightest, or getting any press traction whatsoever, when all the coverage to date has been basically akin to the coronation of a prince, is an indication of its strength to me.
Not saying it will be successful, but as counsel says above, it certainly isnt frivilous.
- real talk - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:58 pm:
Emanuel is not above the law — everyone has to follow the same rules. If we want to change the laws, then lets do that in the state legislature.
But, I believe it sets a very bad example for King Emanuel, to believe that he is above the laws of the land.
What about those school political visits? did he pay for the services of the officials when he made his announcement and on the day of filing?
Or can you now use public buildings and resources for political events?
- shore - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:59 pm:
Bigger question
if rahm gets whacked does that mean mayor chico?
- Irishpirate - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:59 pm:
My semi informed guess is that Tom Dart is very happy with his decision. I first met Tom over 30 years ago in high school and he was an earnest kinda guy then and I don’t think he’s changed much. He even looks about the same.
I don’t claim to be close to him and he might not even recognize me today, but what you see with Tom Dart is what you get.
The man didn’t get married until his late 30’s and was pushing 40 before he and his wife had any kids. My best guess is that he really likes being a father and is happy in the Sheriff’s office. It feeds his need to do good, garner some publicity, and yet compared to the job of being Mayor it’s easy.
The Tom Dart of 2010 is not the Tom Dart of 2000. That Tom Dart would likely have jumped in front of a moving Rock Island train for a chance to be mayor. Tom Dart 2010 is a dad and husband.
As for any of the conspiracy ideas floated as to why Dart’s not running I seriously doubt it. I believe no human is beyond scandal, but Dart comes pretty damn close to being that human.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:05 pm:
===Or can you now use public buildings and resources for political events? ===
What? That’s somehow new to you?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:07 pm:
== I think Emanuel wins just on the grounds that our public policy should encourage public service, and further that the election code cannot be read so as to be used as a sword seeking to punish that sacrifice ==
@just sayin
Sacrifice? LOL
Let’s see: Rahm’s “sacrifices” landed him $300K+ a year on the board of Freddie Mac and $16M as an investment banker with neither investment or banking experience.
But alas, I digress.
The political graveyard is full of candidates wanting to make the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ who tripped on the barbed wire of Illinois election law.
Yes, there have been many, many court cases involving election law.
MOST have been filed as a political tactic by party regulars in order to derail the campaigns of challengers by dragging them out in court. Or by challengers kicked off the ballot by Illinois’ hyper-technical election rules who are just plain angry that the rules are unfair.
Very, very few have successfully argued for an expansive interpretation of the law, especially when its written in such plain language.
Those few successes have been based on Constitutional grounds. But courts have routinely upheld that there is a legitimate public interest in residency requirements of candidates, unlike residency requirements of voters which are more liberally interpreted so as to not disenfranchise.
Nice try though.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:08 pm:
Responsa, you’re not actually trying to control someone’s ability to converse freely, are you? What a shocker, I suppose.
- nortsider - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:09 pm:
All of you who keep bringing up the fact that Rahm represented Chicago in Congress forget that Rahm could live in Park Ridge or anywhere in Illinois and still be Congressman for that district; so the rules for one don’t apply to others. The City code was written for the city and for a reason. Rham has known he wanted to run for Mayor and was planning to move back for that reason but Da Mayor fooled all by doing it earlier than anyone thought he would.
Makes you think, if Da Mayor did this now for that Reason??? (Just wanted to start another conspiracy theory of my own.)
- OneMan - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:11 pm:
Just remember logic and Illinois election law (and by extension municipal election law in Illinois) sometimes are not the same thing.
Remember we toss folks of the ballot for staples.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:14 pm:
===Does this not describe Rahm and his wife’s situation? ===
It does not.
The reasons are many, but here’s just one: Voting qualifications and running for office qualifications are two different, though interrelated, things. You have to be a qualified voter to run, but there are other requirements for candidates.
For instance, you can’t run for office in Chicago if you have unpaid city fines.
- the Other Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:47 pm:
@ Rich 1:14PM
Or, more to the point, you can vote in Chicago even if you have not resided there for a year.
- Mares eat oats - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:01 pm:
‘Residency’ is based on intent, as proven by facts. You don’t lose residency simply by sleeping and working somewhere else. When issues of residency arisen, they aren’t resolved solely on where a person sleeps. Courts look at a host of factors - ‘the totality of circumstances’ - to determine the person’s INTENT to stay permanently or indefinitely in the place in question. Homeless people sleep in a shelter, but that doesn’t make them residents. If I were representing Rahm, I would do the reverse proof. First, I would demonstrate that Rahm never intended to make DC his residence. He must have a residence, your honor, so it must be in Chicago. Thus, I would collect all of the evidence of his links to Chicago to show that he never intended to relinquish his residency here. What friendships did he and his family maintain? Where are his things? Where are his kids’ things? Where did he pay taxes? Where did he vote? Where did he pay real estate taxes? What schools were they considering for their kids? At the end of the day, the court will stand by Rahm’s stated intent, as long as there are enough facts to show that he never intended to give up his residency. Taking into account all the decisions regarding residency as it relates to taxes, school enrollment, and elections, I don’t see how the court can rule otherwise.
- the cover-up is worse than the crime - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:19 pm:
There is an aspect of this story no-one seems to be focused on: someone at the Chicago Board of Election magically changed Rahm’s voter registration status from “inactive” to “active” in time for Rahm to vote in the General Election — and Rahm didn’t follow the proper procedure to have his registration re-instated, as Ed Burke’s questioning of Langdon Neal revealed.
In the end, this aspect of the story might have nothing to do with the legal debate on Rahm’s residency case, but it would sure be interesting to know who changed Rahm’s status in the Board of Elections computer and who ordered him or her to do so.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:19 pm:
The Byzantine plotting aside, can we all agree that it’s all kind of silly?
It’s 2010. We’re a dynamic, mobile country. You live here, you live there, you move around and you live in many places as you pursue the American Dream. You can have interests all over.
I guess for those who really don’t want Emanuel, it’s worth a shot, but what’s the legislative intent? What problem was it seeking to solve? That a guy would move and be chief of staff to the president?
- Mares eat oats - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:20 pm:
One other note: If Rahm paid state income tax, or if he treated his house in Chicago as a home that is rented (and not income property) for tax purposes, and if he rented out his home with no provisions for certain renewal, those are factors that would tend to show that he intended to maintain his status as a resident.
- Patrick Boylan - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:20 pm:
Vibes:
Coonley is a regional gifted school. His children would need to apply there. His neighborhood school is Ravenswood.
His children may be eligible for Courtenay too. Courtenay and Ravenswood are both within one block of his Ravenswood home.
If the children are in high school Lake View High School is their neighborhood school. They could apply to other schools: for example Lane, North Side and Peyton.
http://schoollocator.cps.k12.il.us/viewer.htm
- "Old Timer Dem" - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:30 pm:
The Iola McGowan case is going to be a precedent. Back in the early 80’s she was thrown off the ballot for alderman because it was proved she did not live in the ward she claimed to have lived in for a year. Same thing as Rahm. He has not lived in the city for the past year. Cut and dry. Appeals could make this go all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court. Will Anne Burke exclude herself from voting on this issue in light of her husbands obvious opinions on this case?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:36 pm:
Folks just need to be honest that they don’t think the law should apply to Rahm Emanuel.
If Bob Smith were about to get thrown off the ballot because he took a job working for the National Park Service, rented out his house that he didn’t want to sell in a crappy market, and moved to Yellowstone…who hear would be defending his candidacy?
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:52 pm:
Following up on YDD above - there is a gulf of difference between what the law maybe “should” say, or that the law is out-of-date with present mobile realities (as an aside, the law is typically out-of-date in countless areas, and judges uphold all the time), but the law itself still has to be dealt with…
… that’s where Mares type of arguments will come into play.
That said… as for candidates or potential candidates being thrown off the ballot for much lesser “offenses” I would say there is quite a rich history of same in Cook County. This groundswell of the public policy allegedly being allowing candidate access to the ballot is not really supported in the case-law, or questionably so at best. Not talking voting here, but candidacy for office, there is a difference.
As several of the commenting attorneys have said in the blog-post above - the case-law and the case for Rahm being on the ballot is far from a slam dunk. In fact, as YDD pointed out, if this were not Rahm, it probably wouldnt even be particularly close…
- Mares eat oats - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 3:00 pm:
Old Timer Dem -
I checked the case of Iola McGowan that you cited - it might be helpful, but not dispositive. In that case, the candidate claimed residency based on a home that she neither owned nor lived in on the date in question. On analysis, I think the case and its antecedents help Rahm: ‘In determining residency… Intent is most important element….’ The best strategy for Rahm is not to argue that he was a Chicago resident for the past three years. Rather, he shpuld argue that his challengers have to burden of proof in shpwing that he intended to relinqish he residency.’
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 3:23 pm:
@Mares eats Oats:
A great practical demonstration of residential “intent” is that you do not vacate your former house and rent it out to a tenant.
The trouble for Emanuel is that for over a year and half, roughly, he did not have a home outside of D.C. If he visited Chicago, he needed a hotel room.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 3:37 pm:
Where does Rahm claim his address is on his 1040 and Illinois tax?
Rahm may not be the wizard people claim he is. He knows he wanted to run, yet he does no homework on residency. He has made mucho bucks off the taxpayer, and is richer than any of his. Yet he doesn’t keep his house, choosing instead to rent it out (certainly he didn’t need the money) and would instead prefer to stay in a hotel if he ever visited “home: (no doubt at the taxpayers expense). Now, the entire election is up in the air.
Rahm is sitting in a tepid pool of his own filth. We, the taxpayers, must now fund a costly legal battle involving the courts and the election commissions(s) to sort this out. If the court handles the case on a schedule similar to the Senate special election, they’ll get around to in sometime next summer.
All because of Rahm.
Perhaps we can have a “provisional” election where Rahm, if he were to win, would be dubbed a “provisional” mayor. If the residency issue doesn’t work out in his favor, he’s out…
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 3:39 pm:
- the Other Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:47 pm:
@ Rich 1:14PM
“Or, more to the point, you can vote in Chicago even if you have not resided there for a year.”
In Chicago, sometimes the voter hasn’t even been alive for a year and they vote anyway…