Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » *** UPDATED x5 - BOARD VOTES TO KEEP EMANUEL ON BALLOT *** Hearing officer: Rahm Emanuel should stay on the ballot
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
*** UPDATED x5 - BOARD VOTES TO KEEP EMANUEL ON BALLOT *** Hearing officer: Rahm Emanuel should stay on the ballot

Thursday, Dec 23, 2010

* 1:52 am - Chicago elections board hearing officer Joe Morris has recommended that Rahm Emanuel should stay on the mayoral ballot. Morris’ full report can be read by clicking here.

This is a non-binding recommendation. The full board will take up the matter at 9 o’clock this morning. Check ABC7’s website for live Internet video.

* From Morris’ recommendation

The preponderance of this evidence is that [Emanuel] never formed an intention to terminate his residence in Chicago; never formed an intention to establish his residence in Washington, DC, or any place other than Chicago; and never formed an intention to change his residence. […]

The weight of this evidence shows that the Objectors failed to bear their burden of proof and persuasion that the Candidate intended, in 2009 or 2010, to effect any change in his residence or to be anything other than a resident of Chicago for electoral purposes.

Once residence has been established in Illinois, the touchstone of continued residence is the intention of the resident and not the physical fact of “having a place to sleep”. […]

It should not be lost that every citizen and resident of Illinois is also a citizen of the United States… This “dual citizenship” inheres in the very idea of a federal republic, and the business of the United States is as much the legitimate concern of a citizen of Illinois as is the business of the State or of one of its municipalities. To this end, Illinois law expressly protects the residential status and electoral rights of Illinois citizens who are called to serve the national government. Section 3-2 of the Illinois Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/3-2 thus provides, in pertinent part:

[N]o elector… shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or electoral district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.

There is no principled reason to exclude service in the Executive Office of the President or elsewhere in the executive branch from the ambit of “business of the United States” any more than to exclude service in the armed forces, the diplomatic corps, Congress, or the Federal judiciary.

The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the sole reason for the Candidate’s absence from Chicago during 2009 and 2010 was by reason of his attendance ot business of the United States.

Morris also ruled that Emanuel owed no fines to the city, as the opposition had alleged. Past-due fines are an automatic candidacy killer in Chicago. Read the whole thing and then give us your thoughts.

* Sun-Times

State law requires mayoral candidates to “have resided” in the city for the year prior to Election Day. The only exception is for active-duty members of the military.

But Morris ruled that Emanuel did not forfeit his status as a Chicago resident when he agreed to give up a seat in Congress to serve at President Obama’s side.

Even after renting out his Chicago home, Emanuel continued to pay the property tax bill, vote from that address and list it on his Illinois driver’s license and checking account. […]

Odelson is expected to appeal if, as expected, the three-member election board affirms Morris’ ruling.

Actually, the “only exception” is not just for active-duty military, as Morris’ opinion clearly states.

* Tribune

Also Wednesday, Emanuel’s campaign moved quickly to correct an e-mail that went out to supporters lamenting the Chicago firefighter tragedy while also asking for campaign donations.

“As we celebrate this holiday season, we must remember how fortunate we are that we have brave men and women working out there every day to protect our homes, our communities and our families,” the e-mail from Emanuel read.

Included after those words was an electronic button marked “Donate.”

Emanuel spokesman Ben LaBolt said the gaffe resulted from the wrong template being used in sending out the e-mail. The campaign corrected the mistake, and when e-mail recipients clicked the link they got a message of apology and a link to a list of organizations taking donations for the firefighters’ families.


* Related…

* NY Times: Hearing Officer Says Emanuel Eligible to Run for Chicago Mayor

* AP: Report: Emanuel should be in Chicago mayor’s race: “The hearing officer is sort of like an Italian traffic signal—it’s a mere suggestion. He is basically giving his opinion,” said Paul Green, a political scientist at Roosevelt University in Chicago.

* Bloomberg: Emanuel Meets Chicago Residency Rule for Mayoral Race

* FT: Political rottweiler changes tack in mayor polls: He has now undergone a transformation. Pugnacity has been replaced by affability, aggression by geniality, and the famously quick temper has given way to seemingly endless patience.

* Meeks is wrong on contracting issue: Contrary to his personal view that only African Americans have suffered discrimination, courts throughout this nation have found otherwise; that, in fact, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Arab Americans, American Indians, women and persons with disabilities, have all suffered from discriminatory practices. Those rulings have provided the constitutional basis for the minority/women/disadvantaged business enterprise programs in Chicago as well as the state of Illinois. These programs dictate that eligible minority and women-owned businesses shall be entitled to a percentage of government contracts. We would certainly hope that whoever is elected the mayor of this great city would respect the rule of law and maintain the program that serves to provide job and business opportunities to all Chicagoans and not just a select few.

*** UPDATE 1 - 9:49 am *** Objector Burt Odelson has just finished his statement. He said that Joe Morris’ opinion is “shallow” when it talks about the residency laws. He claimed that Morris looked at statutory construction on the municipal fines issue, but ignored it on the residency issue. Odelson said the recommendation gives new “hope” to city employees who want to live outside Chicago because they could just demonstrate “intent” to reside in the city.


“This (69-page) recommendation, I’m trying to guard my words, is shallow. It’s shallow in reciting the facts,” Odelson said.

“I was extremely disappointed we had to wait that long for such a poor product. This wasn’t a difficult case. It only became difficult because of all of the objectors.”

All of Emanuel’s actions — including applying for a homeowner’s exemption, and amending his 2009 tax returns to declare he was an Illinois resident — each came after Mayor Richard Daley announced he would not seek re-election, Odelson said.

Odelson declared Emanuel’s moves as “self-serving action(s) taken to bolster his residency.”

* Also, if you’re having trouble with ABC7’s live feed, WGN also has one.

* The Tribune editorialized in Emanuel’s favor

It would be different if he’d pulled up roots and settled elsewhere, but in fact Emanuel took steps to preserve his residency: He leased his house rather than selling it; he voted absentee from his Chicago address and listed it on his vehicle registration and driver’s license. In such cases, the law focuses on intent, and Emanuel clearly meant to come home to Chicago.

The election code is silent on marmalade. Everything else is pretty straightforward. Heck, the appeals are probably already written.

Thursday’s board decision won’t put this to rest. But it should be a pretty easy vote.

*** UPDATE 2 - 11:42 am *** We now have a motion and a second to adopt Morris’ report. That’s two out of three.

*** UPDATE 3 - 11:43 am *** Looks like it’ll be a unanimous vote because the chairman is now saying he’ll side with the other two.

*** UPDATE 4 - 11:44 am *** Unanimous.

* Sun-Times

But Burt Odelson, the main attorney for the objectors, said he always expected he would have to win the case in court.

“It was not unexpected. We will have to get into court system to prevail where there is no fear of repercussions.”

* Tribune

“It was a difficult case to manage. For me, it was not a difficult case to decide,” said Richard Cowen, an elections commissioner.

The election board, however, is not expected to have final say on the issue. The losing objectors have a week to appeal the board’s decision to the Cook County Circuit Court. The case could wind its way through the court system, including the Illinois Court of Appeals and the Illinois Supreme Court, for weeks.

“My goal is to get this through the courts as soon as possible,” said Burt Odelson, lead attorney for the objectors, to Emanuel’ attorneys after the commissioners rendered their decision.

*** UPDATE 5 *** Gery Chico’s response…

“For too long, the mayor’s race has been focused on residency, not real issues.

“From day one, my campaign has proposed and released more comprehensive policy plans to improve the City of Chicago than any other candidate.

“No matter who gets in or out of this race, I believe I am the best prepared to lead this city in a whole new direction.”

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Matt - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 1:54 am:

    Expected. Although I support Rahm, the ensuing legal battle had he been thrown off would have been entertaining. There should still be an interesting legal battle though as his opponents go to the court system.

  2. - BSP II - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 2:22 am:

    Right - the other exception is for high-profile front-runners :)

  3. - Chad - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 2:31 am:

    Very well written recommendation. As long as the Board adopts his conclusions on the facts, it will be difficult to reverse on appeal. Joe did a good job handling a crazy docket.

  4. - Lefty - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 6:47 am:

    If he is deluded enough to want to be Mayor of Chicago, let him!

  5. - Moving To Missouri (f/k/a Vote Quiby!) - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 6:47 am:

    Only 69 pages? Hah!
    Good for Rahm and good for the city. Is it just coincidence that Obama seems to be getting things accomplished now that Rahm is back in Chicago?

  6. - Don't Worry, Be Happy - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 7:18 am:

    A masterful summary of the case, but Morris answers the wrong questions. He determines that Rahm is a resident of the City of Chicago in the eyes of the election code, and is an inhabitant of Chicago in the eyes of the US Constitution.

    However the challenge is to the relevant section of the municipal code. The municipal code requires Rahm to have “resided in” Chicago, which is worded differently than the other statutes, thus implying a differing intention on the part of the legislators who enacted that provision.

    The whole “business of the US” point is relevant to the election code but not the municipal code, which does have only one exception - for active duty military service. Again, as a matter of legislative intent, the fact that exception was added shows that being away from Chicago does disqualify you from running for office, because is well established that military service does not cause you to lose your residency.

    I haven’t followed this closely enough to know whether Odelson made the wrong argument, or whether Kasper snowed Morris through misdirection, but the bottom line is Morris never address in his decision whether Rahm meets the requirements of the municipal code.

    Ultimately, I think this item in the municipal code is poorly drafted and overly restrictive, but that is a matter for another day. Morris’ job is to interpret the law as written.

  7. - The Dark Horse - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 7:37 am:

    Rahm has received millions of dollars worth of free press as a result of all this. Reminds me of the Cedra Crenshaw ballot challenge.

  8. - jeff - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:07 am:

    So the logic on the city stickers is because neither the City nor Rahm knew he owed money for 3 cars he is exempt. That is what is new in the finding on election law and I think that will make for interesting arguments.

  9. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:15 am:

    Morris was formerly a Federal employee (in the Reagan administration), so he may have had some sympathy for Emanuel’s position.

    Interestingly, the only legal precedent cited as to Emanuel lacking a place to sleep (continuing to claim the Hermitage Avenue address as his residence while leasing out the same house for two years) was from a case reported in 1867. That is somewhat shaky. It would be more persuasive if a recent decision lent support to Emanuel’s position.

    This case is not over. Watch for an objector to file for judicial review within the week.

  10. - Cassiopeia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:17 am:

    If/when Rahm wins he will have the challenge of his lifetime in dealing with the city’s troubled finances. I think he i up to the challenge especially when compared to all of the other opponents.

    Rahm should be able to make a clean break from all the special deals and the vendors who have captured much of the bureaucracies spending.

  11. - Beowulf - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:27 am:

    I am not a big fan of Rahm Emanuel but I do agree that he has the right to run for mayor. His sometimes abrasive qualities may be just what is needed in Chicago’s leadership in order to get Chicago’s financial house in order.

  12. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:28 am:

    Out of millions Chicago has come to a point where it has a pathetic group of people begging one man to be their mayor.

    Over the past decade it was Rich Daley. Now they have chosen Emanuel. This is not how a vibrant dynamic city chooses a leader. This is how a disfunctional city gets lead.

    Chicago has been a single party political backwater for so long there is not any competition within it. No depth to this bench of political players. We have to bend our own laws to annoint our new Messiah.

    I am shocked at how pathetic this entire issue is.

  13. - Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:31 am:

    VM: it’s seasonal. “O come, o come, Emanuel….”

  14. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:37 am:

    - Out of millions Chicago has come to a point where it has a pathetic group of people begging one man to be their mayor. -

    Yes Vman, if only the entire city was as wise as you. Maybe when Halpin’s lease is up you two can be roommates and figure out how to wake the rest of the city up.

  15. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:44 am:

    The actual report compiled by the hearing officer (Joseph A. Morris) is thirty-five pages in length; it was padded to sixty-nine pages by attaching numerous case management orders to the report.

    If you are busy, you may want to save yourself time by not reading the report. It was not especially impressive in terms of its reasoning or legal citations. Morris more or less regurgitated the arguments and talking points that Emanuel has been using for the past two months. The report also acknowledged that the Hermitage Avenue address had been leased for a total of two years (the rental is to conclude in the Summer of 2011). Morris really does not delve into the messy fact that beyond Rahm Emanuel’s intent to return to Chicago from Washington that for a period of fourteen months he had nowhere to live inside the city limits. Rahm did not rent the place on Milwaukee Avenue until October 1, 2010.

    This case will be taken up on judicial review. I cannot predict the final results, but this case is not going to be decided solely upon the hearing officer’s report.

  16. - amalia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:44 am:

    An 1867 case is the hook to explain that it’s ok that Emanuel rented out his home? so, this case furthers with new law ……”virtual place to sleep?” or as one blogger pointed out, metaphysical presence in Chicago?

    more cases to come to stop the Emanuel train. the real question is, can the engines of other candidates get stalled or started in the meantime. everyone else is going for second.

  17. - wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:51 am:

    Gee, Vman, were you watching “It’s a Wonderful Life” last night? Who’s this “pathetic group” in your mind?

    –There is no principled reason to exclude service in the Executive Office of the President or elsewhere in the executive branch from the ambit of “business of the United States” any more than to exclude service in the armed forces, the diplomatic corps, Congress, or the Federal judiciary.–

    That about says it for me. The rest was a sideshow that generated much free publicity and sympathy for a guy who probably didn’t need the first, but could sure use the latter.

  18. - Wensicia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:52 am:

    Emanuel can thank the Tribune and other media outlets for all the free publicity he’s had since he came back to town. With all press attention centered on him, he barely needs to run a campaign. Even the national news outlets are following this. I think it’s inevitable he’ll be on the ballot and he should thank his detractors for keeping the cameras focused on him.

  19. - Niles Township - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 8:57 am:

    As expected from Morris, a well-reasoned decision.

    Amalia: “An 1867 case is the hook to explain that it’s ok that Emanuel rented out his home?”

    That is what judges, hearing officers lawyers etc. do, they look to precedent. Frankly, the odler, more established precedent the better in many cases. It is not a negative to cite a case from the 1800’s despite today’s what have you done for me latelty techonology driven impatience.

  20. - Wensicia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:05 am:

    I’m also grateful that Morris waited until the wee hours to deliver his recommendation. If he had announced this yesterday afternoon, the major news outlets would have probably interrupted the President’s eloquent news conference to run the story…

  21. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:06 am:

    The reliance upon the 1867 case would be stronger if subsequent decisions made use of the same precedent. If you read the Morris report, it comes off as an isolated example. The Chicago Board of Elections has tossed other lesser known candidates off the ballot for failing to comply with the one year residency provision in the recent past. Nothing in the report ever ties Emanuel to the Hermitage Avenue address or Chicago in February of 2010 and it as much as concedes the point that Emanuel was living elsewhere until October 1, 2010.

    Morris seems to rely solely upon Emanuel’s statements that he intended to return to Chicago within two years of accepting the White House post and that his government service exempted him from complying with the residency statute. The report basically concedes the fact that Emanuel had no place to live and sleep in Chicago before October 1, 2010 when he rented the place on Milwaukee Avenue.

    A subsequent court opinion is going to have to address and expand upon many of the points that the hearing officer’s report ignored or minimized.

  22. - Leroy - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:12 am:

    Emmanuel was with us Chicagoans all along. Even when he seemed like he wasn’t, he really was. He was just carrying us.

  23. - Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:18 am:

    So Emmanuel leased out his “residence” and moved out, effectively abandoning it, save for a few boxes and a few pieces of furniture. His automobiles are in Washington, D.C. with no Chicago current stickers on them. He paid Washington, D.C. income tax in 2009 and 2010 along with Illinois Income Tax (after stating on his income taxes he was a part time resident in Illinois) and unlike the President of the United States, prior to his leasing of the Milwaukee Avenue apartment, would have been forced to sleep in a hotel or with friends when returning to Chicago during the terms of the lease prior to his decision to run for mayor.

    Unlike military situations where can be forced to reside outside of Chicago, Emmanuel did not have an obligation to leave Chicago to become Chief of Staff. He, unlike a military person, had the option of saying “no.”

    I think based on reading the decision and going through the attachments, that Odelson had a pretty strong argument.

    Morris’ use of “intent” could also be used against Emmanuel during the time frame he was required to maintain residency in Chicago.

    Close call, but now I understand why Odelson filed his objections.

  24. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:19 am:

    Anon 9:18 is me.

    For some reason the past few weeks this has been happening to me on this site. Sorry about that.

  25. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:23 am:

    Rahm’s service on behalf of the US is not really the question I have had all along. It appears Chicago is his “home.” What has always disturbed me is the amount of paperwork Rahm had to clear up after the fact (tax forms, etc.). Ask why he had documents wrongly stating his residence. It would appear to be because he benefited in some way, probably financially.

    Whether or not these forms are filled out incorrectly as a result of a deliberate effort or plain old human error, I believe that they are the reason he is in technical violation of the Illinois-Chicago mayoral residency statute. Intention has little to do with it. (I did not intend to run that red light, officer.) A technical violation of the statute is a violation of the statute, for whatever reason.

    Measuring intent is almost impossible, especially when there is contradictory evidence. The GA should take up the statute and revise it in whatever way necessary to preclude future instances of this fiasco occurring.

  26. - Objective Dem - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:23 am:

    Seems like it is pretty cut and dry to me. The state law says: “[N]o elector… shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or electoral district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.” As Chief of Staff he was working on behalf of the US. End of story.

  27. - Bill - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:25 am:

    So if Meeks drops out does Burt drop the court challenge? If not, who pays him? Burt loves the camera but he’ll only go so far once the money dries up. Maybe Queen Sister will take over the appeal in the courts.

  28. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:25 am:

    The Courts tend to be stricter than the Elections Board in residency cases (consider the case of Delk v. McGowan in which the courts removed a candidate who told an incredible story concerning her residency that the election board accepted).

    There is going to be quite a few attorneys running around the 17th floor of the Daley Center in the days immediately following Christmas.

    Whatever taschengelt (pocket money) that thrifty Rahm wanted to make by renting out his house during his absence has all been consumed in legal fees by now.

  29. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:28 am:

    @Objective Dem,

    The law that you are referring to relates to voting privileges; there is a different law setting forth qualifications to run for office. It is far simpler to qualify for voting than it is to be eligible to be a candidate.

  30. - Bill - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:28 am:

    Somehow, I don’t think Rahm is popping for Kasper and co. out of his own pocket.

  31. - amalia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:30 am:

    @Niles Township, yes, I do understand about legal precedent and search for it and all that and even the older the case the better.
    Believe me, I spend lots of time with lawyers. perhaps Joe Morris is Chicago for Antonin Scalia. It’s so much more clear for voters when decisions don’t hinge on obscurity.

  32. - Niles Township - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:33 am:

    @amalia: It’s so much more clear for voters when decisions don’t hinge on obscurity.

    I agree, but the law frankly doesn’t care about perception of voter, and it shouldn’t (see Bush v. Gore for example).

  33. - Wow - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:34 am:

    Rahm has shown no respect for the voters by not showing up at forums to share his views and now he tries to raise money off the death of two firemen? Rich is great reporters like you had not caught that his email asked for donations he would have left it up.

  34. - wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:35 am:

    –So if Meeks drops out does Burt drop the court challenge? If not, who pays him?–

    Was Meeks really behind it? I assumed it was some bigger money guys with an interest.

  35. - DuPage Dave - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:35 am:

    Emanuel is reportedly one smart cookie and is seemingly quite determined to be mayor of Chicago. But why? The city’s finances are in the dumper, the tax base is eroding, population is draining and there is no tap of federal largesse that Richard J could call on back in the day.

    Perhaps he has some vision of the future that he intends to move the city toward, gathering its remaining economic forces and summoning a common will to build a sense of community.

    If so, he is keeping it to himself. He won’t come out an play with the other candidates and explain what he hopes to accomplish. So far he is perfecting the top secret campaign.

    It seems as if being mayor is an end in itself for him. What good is likely to come from that?

  36. - Bill - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:45 am:

    ==Was Meeks really behind it?==
    Who knows? It could have been Burke or some of the Bridgeport money guys. There are a lot of people with a lot to lose if Rahm starts practicing his own patented version of wealth distribution.

  37. - Democratic Voter - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:48 am:

    Doesn’t look like the voters care much about whether he is attending the forums or not. Most recent poll shows his support has increased to 43% and Chico 11%. I’m sure he had his lawyers look at this residency issue before he moved to Chicago. He is going to try to avoid a legal embarrassment. He isn’t going to go through all this if he had a feeling he would be thrown off the ballot.

  38. - Question - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 9:57 am:

    If denied a place on the official ballot, is there any prohibition against him mounting a write in effort, or being seated if he wins in that event?

  39. - amalia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:09 am:

    @ Niles Township, i’m not sure about voter perception, or about decisions on to count all or not count all, but I sure do disagree with how the SC decided on Gore v empty helmet.

  40. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:09 am:

    As noted here before, write-in candidates also have to qualify for the ballot.

  41. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:20 am:

    The WGN Video feed of the hearing went down too.

  42. - Ghost - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:20 am:

    === gives new “hope” to city employees who want to live outside Chicago ====

    Only if the city employee is living outside the city in order to perform city business!!! The intent was not the sole factor relied upon, it was also the nexus between the facts showing activities outside of the State with public service.

    Odelsoon is either intentionaly blind or not very well versed with the subject.

  43. - Joe from Joliet - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:24 am:

    Cassiopeia 8:17
    === clean break ===

    That’s enough of that crap.

  44. - amalia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:28 am:

    while he might be paid by Meeks for some things, Odelson is there for a whole host of folks, including himself. I truly believe he is looking to make law, clarify law, and, besides, how often do election lawyers get to play such a huge role in huge decisions? what since Gore v. Bush has grabbed the legal community by the election statutes like this circus?

  45. - Lee - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:33 am:

    ==Whatever taschengelt (pocket money) that thrifty Rahm wanted to make by renting out his house==

    @Honest Abe: Sloppy use of yiddish in an attempt to stereotype a mayoral candidate won’t advance any arguments. It only makes it look like you’re spouting anti-semitic grumblings.

  46. - just sayin' - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:42 am:

    Funny how the Trib editorial board says it’s all so clear, but still allows John Kass to go rogue with half-baked legal theories any time he wants, undermining the editorial board’s position and confusing readers.

  47. - Responsa - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:46 am:

    I dunno. This is starting to feel like it’s more about Odelson needing to “win” than anything else. I was at a holiday function last evening. Most people I talked with are aware, interested, and are truly mystified by the velocity of this residency challenge. Among those with whom I spoke it was about evenly divided between people thinking that Odelson’s more or less on his own and he just wants the spotlight and publicity–and those for whom (this being Chicago)the intrigue of wondering who is REALLY behind the challenge, who is financing it, and why, is paramount.

    I doubt I’m alone in wishing some of the city’s premier investigative reporters were showing more curiosity about the background story here.

  48. - Wensicia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:47 am:

    ==but still allows John Kass to go rogue with half-baked legal theories any time he wants, undermining the editorial board’s position and confusing readers.==

    Does anybody really take John Kass seriously?

  49. - bored now - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:52 am:

    The Dark Horse: i don’t recall cedra crenshaw winning, or really doing any better than any candidate with an r besides their name in that district. meanwhile, adam kinzinger…

    Anonymous 9:18 am: throwing up the fact that anyone paid washington, d.c. income tax is, well, profoundly stupid. hundreds of thousands of residents of the states of virginia and maryland also pay washington, d.c. income taxes and no one (outside of illinois) argues that they live in washington, d.c. dc uses this method of collecting revenue because it’s all it has. but it is exactly these kinds of idiotic examples that have undermined the case for throwing rahm off the ballot. but, then, perhaps that’s all his opponents have…

  50. - Wensicia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 10:56 am:

    From th Trib-

    “Chairman Langdon Neal gave objectors 15 minutes to read Morris’ recommendation “since we did get it very late last night.”

    Can anyone read 69 pages in 15 minutes?

  51. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:18 am:

    Sorry, Lee, but pocket money is still pocket money in German or Yiddish (a polyglot language to be sure).

    Rahm’s decision to extend the lease in August of 2010, does not really speak favorably of an intention to file for mayor in the 2011 election.

    Burt Odelson does want to set a legal precedent and have the case published. Every good lawyer wants to establish case precedents that will be reported in the law books.

  52. - titan - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:19 am:

    The HO Report looked quite well done. As to the residency, the Election Code provision is not necessarily conclusive on residency for Municipal Code purposes, but there is a long line of cases where the residency for purposes of voting and for purposes of running for office are stated to rest upon the same factors analized under the same principles - so using the Election Code provisions to color the interpretation of the Municipal Code provision has a fairly solid legal foundation.

    I would predict that the candidate will ultimately prevail for essentially the reasons laid out by the HO.

  53. - SR - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:26 am:

    Checking the “part time” box was done by the accounting firm preparing the taxes, and doesn’t seem to have had any bearing on the taxes paid because he paid all state taxes for 2008, 2009, and 2010 to IL.

    ===and unlike the President of the United States, prior to his leasing of the Milwaukee Avenue apartment, would have been forced to sleep in a hotel or with friends when returning to Chicago during the terms of the lease prior to his decision to run for mayor.===

    The President has 24/7 Secret Service protection of his residence. Emanuel was under SS protection while he served as Chief of Staff, but I don’t know if his Chicago residence qualified for similar protection.

    ===Unlike military situations where can be forced to reside outside of Chicago, Emmanuel did not have an obligation to leave Chicago to become Chief of Staff. He, unlike a military person, had the option of saying “no.”===

    When you sign up for the military, you know you won’t be serving in your home city or state unless it happens to have a military base and you happen to get assigned to that base. There is always the option of saying “no” to signing up for service to the military or to a President, but is it something you want to encourage?

  54. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:27 am:

    Emanuel may ultimately prevail in the courts, but the analysis of the legal issues is going to have to be far more comprehensive than what Joe Morris produced in his report. A first year law student in a legal writing class would be luck to earn a “C+” for the semester for submitting such drivel.

  55. - just sayin' - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:29 am:

    The longer this goes on, the higher Emanuel goes in the polls.

    Odelson and his hidden backers better wake up and realize their objections have backfired. Good going Burt, you’ve done the impossible. You’ve turned Rahm Emanuel into a sympathetic victim. It’s hard to find anyone now who doesn’t think the guy should be allowed to run.

    I think I said previously 95% chance Emanuel is the next mayor. I’m upping that now to 98% probability.

  56. - SR - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:30 am:

    Lee is sharp. Keep an eye for “ballerina” type references, too.

    Honest Abe, Mayor Daley did not announce his decision not to run for another term after lease agreement was signed. You think Emanuel would run against Daley? Me neither.

  57. - amalia - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:45 am:

    I’d ban Rahm from the ballot for that New Trier high school picture alone! forget the ballet photos, check out the HUGE hair!

  58. - SR - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 11:50 am:

    I bet he wishes he had some of that hair now. If they could ban service for big hair, us 80’s kids would be doomed.

  59. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 12:21 pm:

    ==Rahm’s decision to extend the lease in August of 2010, does not really speak favorably of an intention to file for mayor in the 2011 election.==

    He didn’t know Daley wasn’t running when he extended the lease on his house.

  60. - regular deomcrat - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 12:45 pm:

    just sayin is dead on. i guess they have to take the shot but I think the courts have a hard time overturning a 3 0 decision and more importantly the will of the electorate. The longer this goes the betetr for Rahm. I have to assume they realize this and it probbaly would be wise to end this and get on with the campaign.

  61. - Jake From Elwood - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 1:36 pm:

    Your comment at 9:25 made me laugh for minutes.

  62. - titan - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 1:47 pm:

    Is Queen Sister two old rock bands join together as a new ’supergroup’?

  63. - Park - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 2:24 pm:

    The matter has been handled pretty well so far… kudos to Morris and the Board for getting this step completed quickly. Now let’s get it to the Daley center, stat. The legal aspects of this are going to be pretty interesting.

    I personally think the Board’s decision gets overturned.

  64. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 2:43 pm:

    Several posts have commented that Rahm Emanuel did not know that Richard M. Daley was going to retire, so that somehow justifies his decision to lease the house to the Halpins for another year. This flawed reasoning omits the fact that February 22, 2010 was the date for determining residency for the 2011 mayoral election. There is no “I was totally surprised to learn that Daley is not running” exception to the statute. It seems that a number of Rahm Emanuel followers believe that this created a unique situation that requires a suspension of the rules.

    I cannot agree to that. Some judges may feel the same way, but that is an issue for another day.

    Have a Merry Christmas everyone. I will see what else is posted after the holidays.

  65. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 2:44 pm:

    ===It seems that a number of Rahm Emanuel followers believe that this created a unique situation that requires a suspension of the rules.===

    I haven’t seen that claim made anywhere.

  66. - T.J. - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 2:55 pm:

    And Chicago continues to be the laughingstock of the free world.

  67. - wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 23, 10 @ 3:00 pm:

    T.J., what an intelligent, insightful drive-by. Perhaps you can expand?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* How Jason Van Dyke's projected 96-year sentence wound up being 81 months
* Pritzker campaign official pushes back hard against latest lawsuit
* Reader comments closed for the holiday weekend
* Question of the day
* Pritzker orders "comprehensive review" of problems, opportunities at state veterans' homes
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - This just in...
* It's just a bill
* "Trooper's trooper" laid to rest
* RNUG: Vallas' plan "appears to make Chicago's pension problem manageable"
* Because... Chicago!
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to this morning's edition
* What's up with this lawsuit threat?
* It's Time To Put Our Progressive Values Into Action
* Money isn't yet flowing toward Burke's challengers
* Lock up your guns and vaccinate your kids!
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...








Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller