Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The dude doesn’t reside

Posted in:

Illinois

* Greg Hinz has some useful react…

[Election law attorney Andy Raucci] said it is quite possible, maybe even likely, that the high court will agree with the Appellate Court.

“There are all sorts of court precedents that say you can impose higher standards,” Mr. Raucci said. “I have felt from the beginning that the odds of him losing increased as the case went higher up in the courts, farther away from the newspaper editorial boards.”

Burt Odelson, the attorney who brought the successful challenge to Mr. Emanuel’s residency, thinks there’s a real possibility the high court won’t even take the case.

The Supreme Court generally steps in when lower courts have conflicting rulings, he said. That’s not true here, he continued. “The law is the law.”

* Could Emanuel run as a write-in? Yes. Could he serve? Maybe not…

On the one hand, there is no legal process to stop Emanuel from running a write-in campaign, according Ken Menzel, a legal counsel with the Illinois State Board of Elections.

“We don’t have a challenge process for write-in candidates in Illinois,” he explained. “You can’t prevent a person from being a write-in candidate.” […]

On the other hand — and more importantly — the state residency statute in question in the case decided today governs eligibility to hold public office, not eligibility to be on a ballot.

“The basis of the challenge is the allegation he’s not eligible for office,” Menzel said.

The finding that Emanuel failed to meet the state’s strict residency requirement, if not reversed, means a write-in campaign would begin in environment of uncertainty as to whether Emanuel could assume office, were he to win.

* The Hotline looks at the future…

But Chico has even more to gain from today’s ruling in the immediate future, said Chicago political consultant Eric Adelstein. Chico finished third overall in the Tribune poll and is the leading Hispanic candidate in the race. But Emanuel was carrying a plurality of the Hispanic vote in the survey with 30 percent, with the rest of that bloc divided between Chico and City Clerk Miguel del Valle, who most experts give little chance in the race.

“It’s likely to be Braun and Chico,” said Dick Simpson, a former alderman and the head of the political science department at the University of Illinois Chicago.

Under that scenario, the key question would be who wins the support of white voters, among whom Emanuel had enjoyed a commanding lead. If the Tribune poll is any guide, Chico has a huge advantage over Braun in this demographic. He finished second to Emanuel among whites with 25 percent, while Braun received just 7 percent of support among that group. Perhaps even more troubling for Braun, half of white voters view her unfavorably, according to the poll.

And Chico has other factors working in his favor. “He has more money and a heavier ad campaign,” Simpson said.

* And the Sun-Times has already published an editorial…

The truest words issued by an Illinois Appellate Court Justice on Monday were these:

Striking Rahm Emanuel’s name from the ballot for mayor of Chicago unfairly “disenfranchises … every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him.”

Unfortunately, Justice Bertina E. Lampkin wrote those words in a dissent of the court’s majority opinion, which did indeed rule Emanuel off the ballot. […]

Inexplicably, however, the Appellate Court majority also declined Monday to certify this case for immediate review by the Supreme Court, apparently not deeming it a matter of great enough importance.

Now Emanuel’s lawyers must petition the high court themselves, a time-consuming process, while the clock ticks.

* Roundup…

* Mayoral ballot to print without Emanuel

* Candidates React to Rahm News

* With Rahm Tossed, Del Valle Gets Top Spot on Ballot

* ‘We will prevail,’ Emanuel says after court boots him off ballot

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:37 pm

Comments

===The Supreme Court generally steps in when lower courts have conflicting rulings, he said. That’s not true here,===

The Circuit Court and BoE ruled in Rahm’s favor. The Appellate Court reversed those rulings. I’d say there is most certainly confict in the courts’ rulings. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court not ruling on this, especially because of the conflicting rulings.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:44 pm
Is it too late for Roland Burris to get on the ballot?

Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:54 pm
You’ve been dying to write that headline, haven’t you?

Quote from Rahm: “You know, like this, you can’t, you know, this ruling, right, it can’t stand, okay, like this aggression, you know, will not stand, this aggression, drawing a line in the sand, man, this aggression, this ruling will not stand, man, you know?”

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:55 pm
@47th Ward,

That is not necessarily so. There are many instances where the elections board and the circuit courts were overruled at the appellate level and that was the end of the matter.

The Supreme Court does not usually take too many election cases concerning ballot access matters. While this may be the exception to the general rule, that does not make Emanuel’s case any easier. The appellate court majority repeatedly cited the Cinkus case in its opinion removing Rahm from the ballot, that was a suburban election case (from the Village of Stickney) that Burt Odelson successfully litigated before the State Supreme Court.

Andrew Raucci may well be right.

Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 4:56 pm
The SC won’t even hear this one. There was no error. Rahm’s outta here. Print them ballots!

Comment by Bill Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:01 pm
HA,

My comment was pointing out that Odelson’s quote didn’t make sense. There is conflict between the lower courts.

I agree that it is possible that the IL Supreme Court won’t hear the case but I believe that scenario is very unlikely given the media attention on this and the lack of certainty over the question. That the Appellate Court split 2-1 is also a good reason for the Supremes to hear the case and provide some finality to the whole ordeal.

The Appellate decision raised as many questions as it answered. The Supreme Court will step in because Forde and Kasper will present a well-reasoned brief.

And this isn’t any old ballot access case. This is a heater case that won’t go away until the Supremes rule on it.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:05 pm
@47th Ward -

There’s no conflict in lower court rulings. There would be a conflict if another Appellate Court had issued a different interpretation of the law since it was last amended, which it has not.

The most damning point in the appeals ruling is the reference to the recent changes by the legislature to create a loophole for active military personnel who do not meet the residency requirements for candidacy to run.

Rahm’s legal team and the dissenting appeals judge would have you believe that the question of candidate residency is one of constructive residency — as opposed to actually, physically residing in the district — and ultimately one of intent.

But the legislature’s impetus for creating the loophole was to redress an soldier who was stationed in Iraq — and therefore did not Actually live in the municipality.

Obviously, if the issue was one of constructive residency and intent, no one could argue that he had abandoned his residency by establishing residency in a War Zone of a foreign country.

Unlike 47th Ward, I’m not going to predict what the Supreme Court will or won’t do. Predicting the Supreme Court is a hobby of fools.

I do believe based on their past rulings that the Supreme Court will act dispassionately and objectively, whether they decide to take up the case or not.

Having said that, organizing a populist rally in an attempt to influence the Supreme Court and politicize their decision was probably not the wisest thing Rahm’s campaign is doing today.

To me, it brings back memories of Tony Peraica’s Pitchfork rebellion on the Election Board.

Worst case scenerio: some idiots are interviewed making disparaging remarks about our judicial system.

As for Judge Lampkin’s decision: very unseemly to lob personal barbs at your fellow judges. Act like you’ve been there before, win or lose.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:05 pm
“Conflict” means conflict between one or more appellate courts, not conflict between the Circuit Court ruling and the appellate court.

The Supremes would have a great motivation to dodge this one. It’s a hot potato that is only going to burn someone. They have a perfect out here, why not take it?

As the Chinese sage Lao Tse, founder of Taoism, said: “Do nothing and everything is accomplished.”

Comment by McHenry Mike Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:06 pm
Did the Appellate Court overturn the Circuit Court? Isn’t that “conflict?”

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:07 pm
With regard to the “conflicting rulings,” I believe Mr. Raucci is referring to the fact that there is not a split among two different appellate courts — i.e, the First District appellate court going one way on this issue and another of the five appellate districts going the opposite way. Within the First District, the ruling today supersedes all others and is the governing precedent for that district until it or the Illinois Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:08 pm
–Having said that, organizing a populist rally in an attempt to influence the Supreme Court and politicize their decision was probably not the wisest thing Rahm’s campaign is doing today.–

Didn’t hurt Bush with the GOP operatives shipped in to Broward County to scream outside the clerk’s office.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:15 pm
Rich,

That’s easily your best headline in memory. Kudos.

Comment by Boone Logan Square Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:19 pm
For all those who despise Emanuel and are cheering about this ruling, this only delays the inevitable. It will be Mayor Emanuel in 2015. He will spend every single day in Chicago if he has to. It’s going to happen.

Comment by Matt Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:25 pm
awesome headline, rich. and wordslinger @ 4:55 nails the bizarre speech patterns of Rahm. these even infect his commercials which are sometimes very hard to follow.

the Bd. of Elections chair looked unafraid as he announced that he was printing the ballots without Rahm’s name.

Comment by amalia Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:37 pm
Coming at this stage of the campaign, whoa, this IS a doozy, but given all the players, impact, potential outrage by a near majority of Chicagoans already ready to vote for RE, my hunch is that the Supremes WILL take it on–even just as a practical matter crying out for attention…but they very well could ignore the whole thing if they choose to–and RE’s supporters can scream, holler, rant, and protest all they want but–there’d really not be a darn thing he, they, or anyone else could do about it (yikes, sorry, Rahmbo, not even the Leader of the Free World)! Now will at least SOME additional voters start taking note of just WHO these people are who we elect and retain to the higher Courts already?? My goodness, people, so many voters overlook that the Judicial Branch of government has–AT LEAST–1/3 of equal power along with the other two Branches–and after 9 Americans on the U.S. Supreme Court basically made the decision as to who the Leader of the Free World would be in 2000, you’d think that fact would have FINALLY sunken in for a whole SLOUGH of more Americans and Illinoisans! Vote responsibly–and intelligently!!!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:41 pm
The dude also doesn’t rule. About time Chicago had a race for mayor where the ascendancy wasn’t a given.

Comment by Wensicia Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:45 pm
That Rahm really tied the whole race together…

Comment by 10th Indy Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:55 pm
There are going to be a lot of Emanuel donors upset that they have no hope of getting what they paid for, other than a Jennifer Hudson concert.

Comment by lakeview Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 5:56 pm
As for Judge Lampkin’s decision: very unseemly to lob personal barbs at your fellow judges. Act like you’ve been there before, win or lose.

And that’s how you make an ad hominem argument rather than address the dissent on its merits.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:02 pm
====The dude also doesn’t rule. About time Chicago had a race for mayor where the ascendancy wasn’t a given.====

I don’t see how another power player trying to anoint his own candidate can be viewed any differently.

====For all those who despise Emanuel and are cheering about this ruling, this only delays the inevitable. It will be Mayor Emanuel in 2015. He will spend every single day in Chicago if he has to. It’s going to happen.====

It might be in his best long term interest to do just that. It has already been said long before this ruling came down that whomever wins will be facing bad choices that will probably make them very unpopular.

Comment by SR Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:05 pm
I waited until after work hours to plow through all 42 pages and try to make sense of it.

I don’t quite understand the “new law” arguments of the dissent. The majority went all the back to the original constitution of Illinois on the issue at hand. Hard to argue “new law” when the majority goes all the way back to the start and carefully described how it remained the law until the present day. The military exception is a recent exception carved into this law.

The court carefully defined and distinguished between “domicile” and “residency.” They also carefully defined and distinguished between “constructive residency” and “actual residency.”

Intent is but one of many facts to be used in determining the issues. So is the right to vote and determining residency for voting purposes, which differs from residency for candidacy purposes.

Both the majority and minority cited the same law and cases. The minority ignored the constitutional provisions cited as well as the intent of the legislature (military exception) as stated by the bill sponsor. Interesting is the argument on the Senate Floor that a MILITARY man overseas is being unfairly prevented from running for office due to the one year residency rule.

In the absence of a Rule 316 (certification by the majority of a conflict of law which requires ultimate Supreme Court resolution), the Emmanuel campaign is in big trouble. The standard as I understand it is that the conflict must affect everyone or all candidates, not just him and his unique particular fact pattern. It would appear that the 316 Certification was not issued due to the unique fact pattern.

If the Supreme Court refuses to take this matter up, and that is a strong possibility here based on my reading of Rule 316, the Emmanuel campaign is over.

They will be teaching this one in law school soon enough.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:10 pm
Read the majority and dissent this afternoon (thanks, Rich). Not exactly overwhelmed by Justice Lampkin’s dissenting opinion. More of a screed than anything else. If I’m the S. Ct. and read both, I don’t side with that logic. If they reverse it will be for reasons of their own. But, like a previous blogger predicted, I think they’ll read the majority and dissent, then just not take the case. Remember how they handled LM’s motion to declare Blago ‘disabled’? The Court didn’t deny it, just declined to hear it.

Saw the 5:00 rally set up by his campaign (”let Rahm run!”). I don’t think RM’s a lawyer, but if is, protesting a court decision with a political rally ain’t exactly ethical.

Comment by park Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:22 pm
===
It might be in his best long term interest to do just that. It has already been said long before this ruling came down that whomever wins will be facing bad choices that will probably make them very unpopular.
===

Exactly. As I said earlier, if Rham gets booted, this doesn’t have to turn out badly for him. Spend the next 3 years in Chicago making millions in the private sector & spreading around some of that $11 million campaign war-chest to key local democratic brokers. Let the bad headlines catch up to the relatively weak incumbent mayor. Then in September 2014 start to ratchett up the rhetoric about how terrible things are, how he can restore order, etc. Then file petitions to run in December 2014 with a $9+ million head start going into the holidays.

Comment by John Galt Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:25 pm
“Did the Appellate Court overturn the Circuit Court? Isn’t that “conflict?”

No. I think people are confusing why the US Supreme Court weighs in - because of conflicting appellate court rulings, and why IL takes a case. It’s not the same standard. And no - an appellate court overturning a lower court is not conflict - it’s just what they do.

That said, I’d be stunned if the IL Supreme Court fails to weigh in. But the clock is ticking and it doesn’t just wait for Rahm.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:27 pm
@wordslinger - The fix was already in in 2000.

@John Galt - Alot can happen in four years.

The incumbent mayor could stumble, but its also EXTREMELY hard to raise money or build a political base against a sitting mayor.

EVERYONE who wrote a check from Rahm is getting a call from Chico & Braun if he stays off the ballot, and they’ll be called every six months by the eventual winner…except DelValle, who refuses to take money from most of them.

And while Daley’s announcement caught alot of folks by surprise, lots of folks will have political aspirations in 2015. Think Tom Dart isn’t kicking himself right now?

And Rahm has to choose: make money for the next four years OR run for Mayor. He can’t go back to Wall Street now…or lobby…Why do you think he’s fighting for his political life tonight.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:00 pm
Actually, I know Tom Dart is not kicking himself right now. He wasn’t afraid of Rahm and he thought he could win. He just didn’t want it. I don’t blame him. Only an egomaniac like Rahm or a professional hack like Chico or an unemployed goof like Carol would want that job now.
When you look up and down the ballot Miguel, Dock Walls and Patricia Whatever-Watkins would probably be the best mayors. Of course, that means none of them could ever win.

Comment by Bill Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:32 pm
Louis,

I salute you for reading the appellate opinion (I read it also) before commenting. The conventional wisdom got stood on its head today because everybody listened to the clever spin doctoring that Emanuel was putting out to confuse the issue. He was in real trouble and he was arrogant enough to think that he could clout it all the way. Emanuel looks like an absolute fool for not renting an apartment like, oh, I don’t know, every other politician in public office who needs to maintain a legal voting residence for political purposes. Emanuel did not have to forfeit his Chicago residency to serve Obama as COS, but he abandoned it by leasing his house and not renting another place in Chicago to cover himself. He is to blame for all of his troubles because he neglected to read the laws. A first time candidate makes this type of rookie error, not a savant.

@10th Indy, I really liked your joke about the Rahm really tying the whole race together.

Comment by Abandon Ship Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:39 pm
–Emanuel looks like an absolute fool for not renting an apartment like, oh, I don’t know, every other politician in public office who needs to maintain a legal voting residence for political purposes.–

Voting is not the issue. He can vote, and did in the last election. The issue is whether he meets the residency requirement to be on the ballot for office. Right now, he can’t.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:49 pm
Wordslinger,

You are right, the requirements for voting are simpler to comply with, but to establish residency to qualify as a candidate, which Rahm could have done while continuing to work and spend most of his time in D.C., would have required establishing a new address (once his tenants moved in to the house) and changing his voter’s registration to reflect that new address in Chicago.

Emanuel needed to have a new residence address in Chicago as of February 22, 2010, but he did not do his homework. It is not difficult, other candidates do it successfully.

Why was Rahm so careless? He reminds of the aldermanic candidate tossed off the ballot for neglecting to sign his candidacy papers before filing the petition with the board of elections.

Comment by Abandon Ship Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:59 pm
Thanks to everyone for enlightening me on what, exactly, constitutes a “conflict” between the lower courts. Obviously I didn’t go to law school, so I appreciate your help.

That’s another thing that makes this the best political blog on the planet. The commenters here know their stuff, and I usually learn something from all of you.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:02 pm
@Bill - You know Tom better than I do.

How about this: I bet a lot of people are wishing Dart would run as a write-in candidate right now.

Atleast he meets the residency requirement.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:26 pm
When Rahm moved to D.C. and rented out his house he became a landlord, not a resident. Is that difficult to understand?

Comment by Willy Wonka Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:56 pm
Blessing in disguise for Rahm. The next mayor is going to have such a hole to dig out of courtesy of Daley that there’s little hope for re-election.

Comment by Shemp Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:32 pm
==Emanuel needed to have a new residence address in Chicago as of February 22, 2010, but he did not do his homework. It is not difficult, other candidates do it successfully==

Maybe he thought RMD would run again…

Comment by Moved To Missouri Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 11:50 pm
Rahmbo is using the classic Clinton-Obama tactics: LIE, DENY, BLAME, MAKE COUNTER ACCUSATIONS, and PLAY THE VICTIM.

What goes around comes around. Love it.

Comment by You Can't Stop What's Coming Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 8:08 am
Makes Joe Morris look like a dope.

Comment by X None of The Above Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 8:12 am
The app. ct. said that Rahm is a resident of Illinois, but apparently not a resident of Chicago. So, in what other town would he be a resident? Was he domiciled in Illinois but not resident in it? He obviously had not “abandoned” his Chicago residence. He was still paying property taxes on an “abode” in Chicago (probably still claiming a homestead exemption - problem there), and the tenant did not have a permanent lease. Yes, he should have rented a place in Chicago, but if he never occupied it, would it make any difference? The app. ct. ruling disqualifies anyone in public office who is not willing to abandon his family or engage in artifice to trump up a residence claim.

Comment by Alexander cut the knot. Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:23 am
So where did he lay his head in Chicago?

Comment by You Can't Stop What's Coming Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:31 am
Doesn’t matter - locus of head layment is not the test, it is where do you intend to return to to lay your head - its not like he returned to run for mayor of Springfield.

Comment by Alexander cut the knot. Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:42 am
I also agree that this might be a blessing in disguise for RE. Daley is leaving a mess and whoever actually tries to clean it up will have an unpopular job and possibly make themselves vulnerable in the next election.

Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:44 am
Nobody is “disenfranchised” when an illegal candidate is removed from the ballot. To say so makes about as much sense as to say that not putting Bugs Bunny on the ballot disenfranchises everyone who would have voted for Bugs Bunny. It does no such thing. The people who would have voted for Rahm, like the people who would have voted for Bugs, are still able to go to the polls and cast their ballot for any legitimate candidate on the ballot. I get really tired of hearing that word abused like that. Now, on the other hand, if members of a certain race-related group were to stand outside the polling places and menace potential voters in an effort to keep them out of the polling place- THAT would be disenfranchising them. A court decision upholding the law– meh, not so much.

Comment by HoosierDaddy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:10 am
HoosierDaddy,

I was really hoping to vote for Giuliani for Mayor. I am being disenfranchised by gum!

RE is being hoisted by his own petard. Getting candidates tossed of the ballot is a time honored hobby of many - Rahm himself has done it, I believe.

Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:39 am