* I’m sure they’ll find a way to do it, but I don’t think anyone can say that Joe Morris was unfair to the people objecting to Rahm Emanuel’s candidacy during yesterday’s 11-hour hearing.
Morris only lost his cool a couple of times. Objector Jeffrey Joseph Black was going on and on about some weird thing or another and claiming that Morris was helping covering up for Emanuel, Morris finally said “I don’t know if I have contempt powers, but I’m getting close to wanting to find out.”
He probably should’ve done that before the hearing. Check out this exchange with Black…
“Did you travel to Waco, Texas three days prior to or three days after April 19, 1993?” Objector Jeffrey Joseph Black asked, referring to the government’s raid on a cult compound during the Clinton administration.
“No,” Emanuel said.
“Have you ever heard the term, ‘Smiling like a butcher’s dog?’” Black asked Emanuel.
Hearing officer Joe Morris cut off Black, saying, “You are allowed to treat the witness like a hostile witness — you are not allowed to be hostile to the witness.”
Emanuel enjoyed an extended laugh.
Another objector asked Emanuel if he was a citizen of Israel and if he was a “freedom fighter” for Israel.
And…
Another, a woman named Zakiyyah Muhammad, wanted to know what role Emanuel played in the U.S. Agriculture Department’s request that Shirley Sherrod leave her job as Georgia’s director of rural development after comments she made in March were misconstrued as racist.
Sheesh.
* If you have time, take a look at the video of some of the objectors’ oftentimes bizarre and almost uniformally ill-informed “questions”…
* Black Alleges Conspiracy Involving Emanuel, Election Officials: Perhaps the most combative of all the objectioners, Black goes after Joseph Morris, the election hearing commissioner, and alleges a wide cover-up to allow Emanuel on the ballot. Morris continually strikes Black’s questions and statements and takes him to task for his line of questioning.
* Queen Sister Georgetta Deloney Offers Statements, Few Questions: This activist makes arguments, rather than asks questions of the witness. She asks Emanuel how, if it’s been a life-long dream to be mayor of Chicago, he wouldn’t have had the forethought to make sure he had residency in the city. Morris jumps in and clarifies that it’s exactly what Emanuel thought he’d done.
* Paul McKinley Asks About Residency, Communism: After asking questions that had already been addressed earlier in the day, election commissioner Joseph Morris seems to nearly beg for an appropriate question from objector Paul McKinley. He ultimately asks: “Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”
* Kass makes a good point…
Just imagine Daley in Emanuel’s spot Tuesday with citizens brazenly asking questions. He’d have been a jabbering pile of goo after only an hour, pulling at his collar, sighing, perhaps threatening to take his pants off as he’s done at least twice in the past.
Or he could very well have done a full-blown Mayor Chucky, striking terror into everyone at the board of elections hearing.
That same thought crossed my mind about Daley as well. Can you imagine? Oy.
* But Kass is completely wrong to claim that state law is cut and dried on this issue…
The wacky behavior helped Rahm by diverting attention away from the facts and the law. And though some pundits and Rahministas develop a terrible case of hives when I mention it, Illinois law is quite clear on this residency issue.
It simply states that anyone wishing to run for mayor of Chicago must have lived in the city for at least a year prior to the election. And we know Rahm did not.
The law doesn’t say “lived” it says “resided,” and “resided” is a legal term. Legal terms are open to interpretation and that’s what this case is all about. The statute…
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.
* Mark Brown understands…
What’s left here is a legal question of whether Emanuel did enough to preserve his Chicago residency, an issue Emanuel admitted Tuesday he’d never even contemplated until lawyer Burt Odelson raised the matter after Emanuel signaled his intention to run.
Emanuel says he and his family always intended to return here and kept the Ravenswood house as their official legal residence. Odelson, an election law specialist who I would characterize as the one serious objector, maintains Emanuel abandoned his legal residency when he rented out the house and didn’t take another place.
As I’ve said, I think it’s a legitimate question to raise, although one that ought to be eventually resolved in favor of Emanuel. He shouldn’t have forfeited his right to run for public office here on the basis of serving the president of the United States. It’s certainly possible that the Supreme Court of Illinois will decide otherwise.
* The end of the hearing was interesting, however. Emanuel has so far succeeded in convincing Morris not to call his wife to the stand. But he was forced to admit that perhaps his wife would know more about certain aspects of the case under questioning. We’ll see.
* In other news, the Chicago Tribune has a new poll showing Rahm Emanuel leading the pack with 32 percent. Gery Chico and Danny Davis are tied for second, but are in single digits at 9 percent…
Davis, an African-American political veteran who also served on the City Council and the Cook County Board, was backed by 21 percent of black voters, but just 2 percent of Hispanics and 1 percent of whites.
Among blacks, 30 percent are undecided, 19 percent back Emanuel, 13 percent favor Meeks and 10 percent are for Braun. Burris, once a popular African-American politician, had just 3 percent support among blacks.
Chico — of Latino, Greek and Lithuanian heritage — had 15 percent support among whites, 12 percent among Hispanics and just 2 percent among blacks.
Chico and del Valle combined trail Emanuel in the Latino community. Among likely Hispanic voters, 36 percent are undecided, 27 percent favor Emanuel, 14 percent del Valle and 12 percent Chico.
The Chico campaign is claiming that Emanuel is losing support even as he spends cash. From an internal campaign memo…
After spending well over a million dollars on television ads, our internal polling shows that Rahm’s support has actually decreased by four percent – and despite not having run a single campaign ad – Gery’s numbers have risen by five percent. A nine- point swing before Christmas is a great start.
* Related…
* The ‘Waco’ wacko and other goofballs make high comedy of the Emanuel hearing
* Woman renting Rahm Emanuel’s home to testify at residency hearing in his Chicago mayoral bid: Lori Halpin is scheduled to testify Wednesday. Halpin and her husband made headlines when they refused Emanuel’s request to break the lease on the house so Emanuel could move back in.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 9:54 am:
I waiting for Rahm to have a melt down. There is only so much he can take and he appears to be someone who doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
- Bitterman - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 9:58 am:
Roland Burris at 2%…ahahahah. Gotta love his sticktoitiveness.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:02 am:
===There is only so much he can take===
There is only so much anybody can take. I would’ve not reacted as calmly.
===and he appears to be someone who doesn’t suffer fools gladly.===
Not if you watched yesterday’s hearing.
- amalia - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:04 am:
Joe Morris was great, just great. He’s a treasure and the Fran Spielman article details just how true a treasure Morris is. It was also fun watching Burt Odelson at work, which seems lost in the coverage of hats and crazies and, I’m certain, makes Rahm happy. There is some legitimacy to the claims against him, though I would say less so after yesterdays many details. We shall see…that is, others shall litigate….
the most interesting thing to me was the photo of his wife and children which Rahm placed on the table. While some may call this a bid to get that mere fact in print, and others will wax sentimentally on his family, I wonder if it was not a smart move by the attorneys….”you cannot swear in front of your children.” ah, the use of mantra…..
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:04 am:
“Mayor Chucky”. That’s a classic zinger. Can’t stop laughing at the voice in my head that keeps repeating it.
- Bill F. - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:05 am:
Yeah, I think the latter on Daley. These hearings have been entertaining at times, but it’s all one-sided, Ruby Ridge Conspiracy Theories and confusing Daniel and Noah Webster.
Daley would have made the entertainment a two-way street.
Morris is doing a fine job under sometimes-surreal circumstances.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:08 am:
Interesting number from that poll: Davis, Meeks, CMB, and Burris combine for less than 25%. I know it is very early, but that doesn’t say much for the chances of any of them.
- Loop Lady - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:17 am:
Yawn…is the dog and pony show over yet?
Someone please give Queen Sister a day job so she will have something productive to do with her life…
Rahm must really want this to suffer through this crap and then tackle the cities’ huge challenges…we would be fortunate to enjoy his leadership…now leave him alone you masses of asses…
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:19 am:
I wish I could say it was high comedy, but I found it all disturbing. The Waco, Israel, and Communism questions, to me, indicate some “objectors” were a few bricks short of a load.
It’s all for laughs, until someone goes over the edge, as we’ve seen many times before, just yesterday in Florida.
I’m not a fan of Emanuel at all, but he earned a lot of points yesterday. He must really want the job to take that abuse.
I think Brown sums it all up: “He shouldn’t have forfeited his right to run for public office here on the basis of serving the president of the United States.”
- Honest Abe - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:20 am:
It is an easy matter to laugh at some of the pro se objectors, but one did raise an interesting point: Why did Rahm’s agreement with the real estate agent who rented the house to the Halpins, include language providing for a bonus and a commission if the rental subsequently resulted in a sale of the property? Emanuel had struck out several paragraphs and terms in the agreement, but he left this one in place.
For someone arguing that he always meant to return to Chicago, some of Emanuel’s actions have been equivocal to say the least.
- J - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:29 am:
I’m not really sure why people seem to think that they’ll be able to provoke Rahm into a meltdown. The guy is one of the most disciplined people in politics, and he’s been playing at the highest levels for 15 of the last 20 years.
Also as a former Clinton Administration he’s probably been through this kind of thing a few times before, only this time the questions are easier.
- just sayin' - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:40 am:
John Kass should just go to food/cooking columns all the time. He’s completely lost it on politics.
Re the hearings yesterday. Rahm picked up a lot of votes. The objections are totally backfiring on the objectors and the candidates who are behind those objections. Emanuel looks and conducts himself like someone you would like to see as mayor.
Good going Burt Odelson. By the time you’re done, Emanuel will likely be able to avoid a run-off. I think he’ll win outright with all the great publicity he’s getting and given how nutty the objector side looks.
- Aldyth - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:45 am:
“Mayor Chucky.”
That was a true laugh out loud moment!
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:46 am:
===Why did Rahm’s agreement with the real estate agent who rented the house to the Halpins, include language providing for a bonus and a commission if the rental subsequently resulted in a sale of the property?===
That’s an easy one. Rahm didn’t know his own evidence. The evidence he submitted included an email exchange between the realtor and his wife. The wife was adamant that the language be stricken because they had zero intent to sell. The realtor said it was standard and wanted it left in, so they did.
Quite simple, really.
- Jim - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:47 am:
Now I would like Emanuel agree to debates where he could answer questions concerning what he knew about “volunteers” who worked for him during his first run for Congress, his time as a Director of FNMA and his time at Wasella Perelman (I believe that’s the name of the firm). “Talking directly to the people” shouldn’t fly. Hopefully the media will push him for answers, but we just endured 20 years of the mayor never getting the tough questions, so I don’t expect much different now.
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:50 am:
I love the claim that Emanuel seeks the mayors office for altruistic reasons and this explains why he suffers the indignity of the repeated questioning by the great unwashed.
NOT.
He’s doing it for the vast power involved in the office. Emanuel is, like may politicians, about the power. Nothing inherently wrong about that but let’s not go all Jimmie Stewart/”Mr Smith Goes to Washington” about the whole thing.
- Levois - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:50 am:
Carol Mosely Braun claimed that she was the only mayoral candidate who is in double digits when she was on a cable access talk show? I didn’t believe her anyway.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:54 am:
Jim,
Don’t leave out his time at the Trilateral Commission!
Notice to All Chicago Retailers: Make sure to have lots of tin-foil in stock now through February.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:57 am:
The point of law is obviously unclear and open to debate. The GA needs to pick up on this fiasco to clarify the law.
There is no doubt in my mind that Rahm intended to return to Chicago sometime in the future. However, he chose to take advantage of certain tax breaks and performed other actions which have muddied his standing. These actions taken by Rahm are the heart of the issue here. Intentions in this case should not be a determining factor in this case, unlike criminal cases, since the “intentions” he says he has now are in conflict with his intentions when he claimed part-time residency in DC on his tax forms which were just now corrected.
I wish this hearing was focussed on these issues and all of the other extraneous considerations be stopped. Let’s get this over, decide what regulations/laws are needed to preclude this from happening again, and get on with it already. Geesh.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:58 am:
Levois, CMB was referring to an Internet poll conducted by the Defender.
Yes, I know, ludicrous. But it’s CMB.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:02 am:
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 10:46 am
“Quite simple, really.”
Well, this is the crux of the matter. No matter what the emails show, the bottom line is that the Emmanuel’s signed a contract that conflicts with their stated “intentions.” Perhaps when I buy my next car, I should return it a year later because I didn’t intend to buy it.
A contract is a contract, as many people point out when talking about pensions, or Illinois contractors. True dat.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:03 am:
===A contract is a contract===
Right, and that’s just an option. And the email shows intent, which is the crux here, not just the contract.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:07 am:
An Option is part of the Contract. No matter what the date of the email, it is not included as part of the contract (I assume) so really may not hold legal water. Hope one of our regular commenters who are lawyers can clarify this.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:08 am:
===it is not included as part of the contract===
But it is included as part of the evidence in the case. So, therefore, your point doesn’t make sense.
- ZC - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:09 am:
Rahm is very disciplined, and some of the media expectations were good for him. “He got through a day of hearings without swearing! Wow!” A soft serve up to the net, easy for Rahm to spike.
That said, he also has a long memory and a vicious streak, against those he thinks have screwed him. I’m not sure where Odelson will fit in Rahm’s deep memory bank, but Emanuel wasn’t the only one showing some courage yesterday. It took guts for Odelson to cross-examine the man who is still most likely to be the next Mayor, and who has a long history of grudge-holding.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:10 am:
Cincy, if this was an action to enforce a contract for sale (or for a broker’s fee) than the plain language of the contract (assuming that is is found to be unambiguous) would determine the matter.
But this is not an action on a contract. This is one piece of evidence in order to determine whether Rahm intended to reside someplace else.
- 42nd Ward - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:44 am:
This is Rahm Emanuel we are talking about. If he was calm and patient, it is because political circumstances dictated such a portrayal. He can be quite different. Bloggers and media can sometimes be such “romance of the moment” types, dealing with only the past 15 minutes. I urge all to take a longer view.
- hammer - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:45 am:
All the free publicity he could handle (he was on in the first 10 minutes of every local news show) and he comes off as the victim (why is everyone picking on lil’ ol’ me?)
Good job field, you just made Rahm immensely likable.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:51 am:
==An Option is part of the Contract.==
True, and contracts are written to cover ever eventually the lawyers can dream up. It does not mean that both parties expect something to happen. It seems clear here that the Realtor wanted this in to collect a fee if something changed and the house was sold. The clause does not speak as to the intentions of Rahm but to the hopes of the Realtor.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:52 am:
===If he was calm and patient, it is because political circumstances dictated such a portrayal. ===
So?
Plus, how many of us could take that beating for 12 hours and not even flinch?
- 42nd Ward - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:58 am:
“Beating?” Please, let’s not get melodramatic. The man is an extemely tough political cookie. I wouldn’t doubt has was internally laughing at some of the questioners.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 11:59 am:
Rich and Skeeter,
Agreed that the email is part of the evidence, and not part of the contract. The point I’m making, and what I consider the heart of the matter is that there is a suspicious amount of after the fact evidence concerning Rahm’s residency. Emails that run counter to signed contracts. Tax forms that get corrected. I’m not too sure what the evidence is, but there seems to be some car registration issues. Voter roll corrections.
All of these elements run counter to Rahm’s “intentions.” One is left to wonder whether or not any of these “corrections” were in the works prior to Daley’s announcement to step down. It would seem Rahm was quite happy with the status quo until he choose to run for Mayor where residency became an issue. Those inactions also seem to speak to his intentions, no?
Full Disclosure: I really don’t much care about whether or not Rahm is the mayor of Chicago. This case is enlightening about the fuzziness of the law, which should be corrected by the GA once the dust settles. We should not be determining someone’s “intentions” if we don’t have to, especially in cases involving voting (see dimpled chads).
- Thoughts... - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:08 pm:
Word makes a salient point - true to his award - saying Rahm earned a lot of points yesterday.
Case in point: my wife is kind-of political. She pays more attention than most, but less than any of us crazies. Until yesterday, she was very firmly in someone else’s camp for mayor. This morning, she tells me that she’s actually thinking about voting for Rahm, and specifically referenced the fact that he calmly sat through 11 hours of badgering as a reason why.
Maybe that’s why Odelson wanted his case separated. Maybe he realized that if Rahm could make it through all of the objectors with his sanity, his position would be slightly elevated.
- Honest Abe - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
While I am not necessarily a fan of Burton Odelson (who is really much more of an influential and powerful figure in the politics of several Cook County suburbs), I cannot fault him for the outrageous behavior of some of the other “tin foil hat” objectors. Odelson tried to have his case heard separately, but the Chicago Board of Elections opted to consolidate all of the cases. There is a rationale for doing so, but this decision most definitely benefited Emanuel.
In terms of contracts, an email from Amy Rule does not trump the contract.
What is odd about the bonus and commission paragraph, applicable if the realtor acting as the rental agent for Emanuel and Rule sold the property, is that Emanuel made several handwritten revisions to the contract (striking out different terms), but he left the terms about the possible sale of the property intact.
That is significant and it contradicts Emanuel’s story concerning his intentions to remain a resident of the Hermitage Avenue address to a degree.
The contract speaks for itself.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
HA, you should read the e-mail exchange before saying that.
- Honest Abe - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:21 pm:
Rahm Emanuel was calm and collected on the witness stand yesterday. That is undeniable.
I think that three months of “coaching” from his highly capable defense attorneys may have played a not insignificant role in his performance. An objection to his residency status has been widely anticipated since September.
It would have been much more interesting to see Amy Rule testify. She has been largely absent from Chicago during the run up to the petitions being filed and challenged. Her testimony might have been more spontaneous and less rehearsed.
- Honest Abe - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:26 pm:
Very little weight is attached to extrinsic documents or verbal communications seeking to modify a contract. If Emanuel and Rule disliked the contract or objected to some of its “boilerplate” language, the agreement should have been canceled and rewritten. Contracts are judged based upon what is to be found inside the four corners of the document.
All agreements relating to real estate interest really need to be reduced to writing. The separate emails do not matter that much.
- irv & ashland - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:29 pm:
It’s normal for polls to ask “if the election were held today.”
But under the circumstances, shouldn’t the poll have asked “if you were to learn nothing else about any of the candidates except getting an incredibly minute understanding of Rahm Emanuel’s mailing addresses, for whom will you vote?”
Thus far, most people have heard zero about other candidates. The poll is basically a referendum on whether you’re sympathetic to Emanuel for getting bullied about whether he’s a Chicagoan.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:38 pm:
This is really an “angels on the head of a pin” argument. The law was to prevent carpetbaggers as that term was originally used post-Civil War. Clearly Rahm is a Chicagoan. This is no different that the many people who travel/live in Springfield or Chi working in various depts or leg. staffs maintaining their “home” voting residence. To say that his service in DC negates his residence in Chi based upon whether he rented his house or an options clause in the lease is ridiculous (who would want an empty house sitting around these days!?). Even if he sold the house, he could still vote as a homeless person! So there’s no reason why he couldn’t run.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:44 pm:
===All agreements relating to real estate interest really need to be reduced to writing. The separate emails do not matter that much. ===
For the real estate deal, you’re right. For this case, I don’t believe you are so much.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:48 pm:
Chico’s campaign makes a good point about Rahm slipping in the polls.
But challengers should find even more comfort in the fact that, despite Rahm’s name recognition and the media fawning, Anybody but Rahm gets 38% to Rahm’s 32%, and 59% are glad Daley isn’t running.
There’s no doubt Rahm will make it to the run-off, but these results show he’s in serious trouble if the anti-Rahm voters find a concensus candidate.
Moreover, as the heir-apparent to Daley and his former chief-of-staff, Rahm will likely loose if his run-off opponent provides a stark contrast, given that 59% of voters say their glad Daley’s not running.
Chico is running a strong campaign, but given his ties to Daley and his alleged insider dealings, DelValle might actually be the best hope for Rahm opponents.
It’d be really interesting to see the crosstabs of these two questions, and additional polling asking folks who their second choice is.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:54 pm:
As Rich was saying (and I posted above): The issue is whether he was a resident. The issue is not whether a broker may be entitled to a commission (or whether a sale can be enforced).
With regard to “agreements reduced to writing”: Yes, and so what? Is somebody trying to enforce a sale? If so, then you look to the contract. Is it ambiguous? If not, then the words govern. If so, then the court can look to extrinsic evidence (e-mails, etc.) to determine intent. If the broker tries to sell, that may matter. But that’s for a different court.
The rental transaction is relevant as one small piece of evidence to show what the family intended — Would D.C. (or Virginia or Maryland) be their permanent home, or would it be in Chicago? E-mails are also relevant to the extent that they cast light on that intent. If there was an e-mail to the broker that said “Let’s rent this thing out and if you come across a buyer, let us know since we never want to return to Chicago” that also would relevant even if the contract said nothing other than a fee for providing a renter.
We need to keep our eye on the ball here. They are not litigating a contract dispute. They are litigating residency.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 1:02 pm:
==Very little weight is attached to extrinsic documents or verbal communications seeking to modify a contract. ==
That is true if one is seeking to enforce a contract. If the house was sold the Realtor would get a commission. No question. But you can not infer intent from contract terms to all parties. Any party to a contract an ask for terms. If you have been able to enter into contracts that only include terms you approve of your negotiating position must be very powerful.
If you have a credit card I suggest you check the terms of your contract with the issuer. It has provisions, willing to bet, for what happens when the debtor, you, is in default. Can I infer from the that clause that you intend to default on your credit cards?
- jeff - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 1:06 pm:
As someone who worked on a campaign for city office that was thrown off the ballot, I am surprised how Mark Brown, the Tribune and Rich seem to think that Rahm should get a pass. I have written Mark about ballot access in the past. He wrote a column 4 years ago about MaryAnn Smith knocking off her challengers. There is no leeway given to other candidates on other “technical” issues.
Rahm clearly was not a resident of the city for the last 12 months. His work for the White House does no exempt him from the requirement. He was not compelled to take the job. Servicemen do not get to choose where they live. One of my neighbors is serving the President now. Her house is not rented and she and her daughter return here when they can. That is a resident.
Limiting ballot access has given Daley vast power over the city. Reducing debate about issues that the city should be addressing. That these rules would bite someone important is gratifying to me. Maybe it will make for some changes in law and we can be heard better at the ballot box.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 1:10 pm:
Jeff, nobody is giving anybody a pass.
State law says one thing. City seems to say another. Are they in conflict? If so, which governs? All are real issues.
Suggesting that this is a simple issue is suggesting that the person making the comment just does not understand the issues.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 1:40 pm:
==One of my neighbors is serving the President now. Her house is not rented and she and her daughter return here when they can. That is a resident.==
One of my sons is serving the President now. He has been stationed on several continents and in several states. He does not have a house here. He still votes here and has a drivers license from here. The license expired years ago but Illinois law allows it to remain valid. Do you propose to require people in the service to maintain a home here as well as a home where they are stationed to continue to be a resident of Illinois or do you suggest that people who do not have the finances to do that forfeit their Illinois citizenship?
- ZC - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 2:17 pm:
I agree an anti-Rahm consensus candidate would be a major problem for Rahm. But: who? Del Valle is an appealing candidate but the media oxygen his campaign needs seems to be going to Chico, who is running the more effective campaign thus far. And once the fundraising numbers go out, I expect Chico’s media advantage vis-a-vis Del Valle’s only to mushroom.
Chico, in turn, needs to be uneasy that, while the African-American candidates may be splintering their base of support, if a unity candidate ultimately emerges there, the possibility of a Rahm-African American candidate runoff remains very real. In particular because there are an extraordinary number of contested aldermanic races in the African-American wards, come primary day. The North Side has some too, but it’s not on the same scale, the number of candidates all trying to get their supporters to the polls.
Rahm’s dream scenario is if Davis drops out or his candidacy fizzles, and Carol Moseley-Braun consolidates enough African-American support to make the run-off. It could happen.
- Jim - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 2:17 pm:
Skeeter, you think the citizens of Chicago don’t deserve to know how he has benefitted from his connections or payrollers sent to Evanston to help get him elected? So Chicagoans will only know the packaged Rahm from $7M in commercials, super.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 2:20 pm:
I’d respond to that Jim, but for Miller’s standard “Don’t feed the trolls” rule.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 2:32 pm:
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:38 pm:
“The law was to prevent carpetbaggers as that term was originally used post-Civil War.”
This law was recently revised by the GA, I’m sure at the request of the Chicago political establishment. There is obviously room for some interpretations of what various aspects of it means, but “intention” doesn’t appear to be one of them on the face of the statute. This perfectly highlights my call for the GA to get involved and take action to clarify the statute.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 12:54 pm:
“As Rich was saying (and I posted above): The issue is whether he was a resident.”
The argument has been reduced, it would seem, to Rahm’s intent since it is also apparent that there is some indication that certain contradictory evidence exists that his residency lapsed, whether or not that lapse was inadvertent.
When measuring Rahm’s “intent” it must surely be fair to look at all the mistakes that have been corrected in the very near past, only after his run for mayor. Personally, I find most of the “facts” nonsense with the exception of his tax form corrections.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 3:07 pm:
@ZC -
Great analysis, but keep in mind that according to the Tribune poll, only 7% separates the front runners and the back of the pack among the challengers to Rahm, and organized labor has not weighed in yet. If Republicans splinter and a significant portion of social conservatives or other hardliners do support Meeks, that would also shake things up.
I’ve also always been slightly skeptical of municipal polls in the City of Chicago, as I’ve mentioned before. City employees, their families, and anyone whose income or well-being depends on City Hall are always reluctant to criticize Daley, other incumbents, or perceived frontrunners. My bet based on past polling is that there’s a statistically significant portion of the undecides who are anti-Rahm and just won’t say it. That’s akin to the phenomenon of undecides breaking against incumbents.
Still, of all of the challengers right now, I’d give Chico the advantage for a different reason now: Ed Burke. Burke’s a political animal though, and if Chico stumbles or another candidate picks up steam, Burke could easily bolt.
May we live in interesting times!
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 3:17 pm:
Jeff and I have disagreed over ballot access issues before, but I agree on his point wholeheartedly.
There shouldn’t be one standard for Rahm Emanuel and a different standard for everybody else.
Lots of candidates are tossed off the ballot every two years for technical violations based on a strict interpretation of the law. Rahm shouldn’t be held to a different standard just because he was White House Chief of Staff.
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 3:29 pm:
YDD makes a good point re Emanuel’s chances regarding the fact that 38% are “not Rahm” voters and if a consensus candidate can emerge then Emanuel is vulnerable. I remember the chaos that ensued after Harold Washington died and the same comments were made about a consensus candidate taking over the HW dream. Subsequent events showed how well that worked out. I suppose that the person who emerges from the primary heading into the general election could be considered a consensus candidate of sorts but only if s/he can appeal to the various voting blocs in the city. Good luck on that one.
- Bubs - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 4:11 pm:
YDD, I don’t think the GOP will splinter all that much. The options for them are very narrow.
They are likely in that “undecided,” and I predict they will go strong Chico. It is a hidden net gain for Chico of about 9-10 points, I figure, perhaps a bit more.
I believe that Chico will emerge as the chief challenger, and likely runoff opponent, if ther is a runoff. If Chico can get to that runoff, it’s going to be a tougher race than many assume. Emanuel has had an unbelievable media and advertising run, and his name recognition is very high. But it may be a case of the Hare and the Tortise.
- amalia - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 4:49 pm:
it’s Christmas time and the discussion in the news is about a basement and the news media wonders what they will find in the basement. no, it’s not 1979 and the Gacy case, it’s about Rahm, where he lives and those boxes. Today’s testimony just screams cameras on the hunt, and crawl space. at least it’s not about dead bodies, well, unless you count whatever political life Ms. Halpin had.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 4:54 pm:
Quinn was at 38% and he didn’t have a prayer. Rahm’s at 38% and he’s a lock. Too weird.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 4:56 pm:
PJW, you make a good point, except that one of Quinn’s rivals was outpolling him.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 4:56 pm:
Also, Quinn was at 38 and won. Rahm is at 38 and you don’t think so?
lol
Just sayin…
- Honest Abe - Wednesday, Dec 15, 10 @ 5:46 pm:
Let’s try to clear up a few things.
1) The original point that I was trying to make concerning the real estate agreement as to a possible bonus and commission if the house was sold related to the significance of Rahm Emanuel revising numerous items in the text (mostly by striking through terms that he did not like), but leaving the language about a future sale of the house intact. He could have lined that out too, but he did not do so. Some could read that as Emanuel leaving the option open to sell to the renters at a later date in time. Others have said that Amy Rule’s subsequent email makes that point moot. This is a fact that will be weighed and assessed carefully and it could be determinative depending upon who is making the final call. Judges are funny that way.
2) Chicago law does not conflict with state law on the subject of residency for mayoral candidates. The provision is in the Illinois Municipal Code (this is the popular name for these volumes in the Illinois Compiled Statutes) and it applies to all municipal candidates throughout the state, not merely Chicago. It has been validated by numerous courts in prior decisions.
3. Lastly, residency requirements vary depending upon the office being sought. For example, the constitutional requirements for service in the US Congress are much more lax than those govern state and local candidates. If you wanted to run for the State Senate or Representative in the General Assembly, you need to live in your district (or in a former portion of it during a redistricting year) for a minimum of two years. That is a year longer than what is required to run for local municipal offices.
4. The greatest triumph of the Emanuel campaign thus far is to suggest that the challenge to his residence is “a political dirty trick” or based upon an obscure law. It is nothing of the sort. Similar challenges occur in almost every other election cycle. Candidates named Emanuel and Obama have challenged other candidates when it suited there purposes to deny others ballot access.
Sorry for being so pedantic.
- 42nd Ward - Thursday, Dec 16, 10 @ 1:47 am:
Why is an email from Amy Rule even admissable as relevant if she cannot be called for cross-examination? If she is not a witness, neither are her emails. Also, it is Emanuel’s intent, not his wife’s, that is in issue. Husbands and wives disagree all the time. The wife’s emails do not define the husband’s intent.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Dec 16, 10 @ 6:47 am:
Business records exception to the hearsay rule.
With regard to part 2: people act like every single bit of evidence is determinative. It isn’t. It is part of the big picture.