Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

This just in… Emanuel files emergency motion

Posted in:

Illinois

* 6:00 pm - Rahm Emanuel’s attorneys have filed an emergency motion with the Illinois Supreme Court for a stay pending appeal. Read it by clicking here.

It begins…

The Appellate Court’s decision involves one of the most far-reaching election law rulings ever to be issued by an Illinois court, not only because of its implications for the current Chicago mayoral election but also for its unprecedented restriction on the ability of individual to
participate in every future municipal election in this State.

More…

the Appellate court’s decision that Emanuel abandoned his Chicago residence when he lived temporarily in Washington, D.C. while serving as the President’s Chief of Staff is directly contrary to this Court’s long-standing precedents. As the dissenting Justice stated, without mincing words, the majority below created a “completely new standard” that shows “a careless disregard for the law shortly before an election for the office of mayor in a major city.”

* From Zorn…

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon,[Board of Election Chairman Langdon Neal] said it will cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to print the 2 million paper ballots the the Board of Elections Commissioners is ordering from Lake County Press in Waukegan. He said plates and being made this evening, and the “ink will hit the paper” tomorrow morning.

Early voting begins a week from today but will use electronic voting machines that can still be reprogrammed. He declined to speculate exactly what would happen if the Illinois Supreme Court reinstates Emanuel on the ballot other than to say “we’ll make adjustments…we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

He said there is no precedent in Illinois for delaying the date of an election due to uncertainties such as this.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:00 pm

Comments

They’re quite wrong if they grant this. The appeals court is correct: this is a physical presence test, not an intent test. Any other conclusion makes redundancies in the law.

The real question is why Rahm’s lawyers didn’t advise him better. The test is very bright line, and this decision creates NO new law. They should have asked the Attorney General for clarity on physical presence: one year, yes, but does that mean you can’t be outside Chicago for a day? a month? I assume they didn’t ask because there was no way Rahm could have passed ANY test for physical presence.

What a clown Emanuel is, and what bad lawyers he has! Ha ha!

Comment by John Ryskamp Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:28 pm
It’s on the Supremes. It would be a heck of a thing if they decided to leave it alone.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:35 pm
Don’t have the decision with me now, but where did the Court say RE ‘abondoned his Chicago residence’??

That was the weird logic in the dissenting opinion (which could have been written in crayon).

Comment by park Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:42 pm
1) All election cases are decided shortly before elections.

2) So, if this case was about the Mayor of Bardolph, the Supreme Court should ignore it?

3) Far-reaching election law ruling that would place unprecedented restrictions? Candidates are ROUTINELY tossed of the ballot for not living in the district they are running for.

Granted, this case will cast a dark shadow over any future candidates who are chief-of-staff for the President of the United States and rent out their homes, but other than that, who is really affected?

That said, I hope the Supreme Court takes up the case, just to send a clear message.

But if they rule against Rahm or decide not to take up the case, I hope Rahm and his supporters will stop whining.

Maybe they think the law is unfair and should be changed…but then again, Rahm didn’t think it was unfair when he was the guy tossing people off the ballot for not meeting the letter of the law on residency.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:46 pm
The run of precedent does favor Rahm, and the A Ct majority did err in substituting a dictionary definition for the long lone of cases

Comment by titan Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:54 pm
As much pleasure as I would get out of seeing Rahm thrown off the ballot, this ruling strikes me as being than congruent with the spirit of the law. Rahm has been a Chicago resident for over a decade. Represented one of the cities congressional districts and love him or hate him he knows Chicago. If the Supreme Court does not review the case, or finds in favor of the appellate court it would be doing a disservice to both voters and future candidates. The plot has thickened in typical Chicago fashion.

Comment by Living In Oklahoma Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:54 pm
Earlier today I heard or read someone, somewhere (maybe it was me) make the analogy between this decision and the refs ruling on the TD catch in the Bears/Lions game Week One.

To paraphrase: Did the Dude reside in the end zone? Yep. Feet in bounds? Check. Possession of the ball by all normal measures? For sure.

Spirit of the law and it’s a touchdown? Damn right. Letter of the law and it isn’t. True again. Fair? Yes and yes. Unfair? Ditto.

Bears get that one and go on to an interesting and mostly successful season because of a controversial interpretation of a pretty certain rule. A rule almost no one thought was fair. But that’s the way things bounce.

Rahm’s the Lions.

Comment by And I Approved This Message Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:55 pm
Wow, the partisans are out. Rahm is a clown, Kasper and Forde are bad lawyers and the dissent could have been written in crayon? You can oppose a candidate without resorting to infantilism.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:56 pm
Is this much ado about nuthin?

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=7916653&rss=rss-twi-wls-article-7916653&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Comment by levois Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:06 pm
Lou Atsaves on the previous post was correct. Rule 316 of the Supreme Court requires something that more generally affects all of the candidates in the race, not something particular to one person. If this were not the City of Chicago and if the candidate were not the front runner, there would be no question of the Supreme Court passing on this. My money would be that they don’t take it. Of course, I thought the Bears would win too.

Comment by McHenry Mike Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:35 pm
==You can oppose a candidate without resorting to infantilism==

Maybe, but infantilism is much more fun especially about Rahm.

Comment by Bill Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:35 pm
It is all Daley’s fault for not informing Rahm that he was going to retire so soon. Rahm expected to be back in Chicago for the 2015 election — no problem. Daley mucked it up by retiring without consulting Rahm.

Of course, Daley, who spends as many days in Michigan as he does in Chicago, always kept a legal voting residence in the city at all times. Rahm could have easily done something similar, but he chose to rent out his home and had to check in and out of hotels on those few occasions when he visited the city. Daley can blame Rahm for screwing up by not talking to him before he rented out his house without finding an apartment.

It is laughable to see both Chicago papers faulting the appellate justices who upheld the law rather than be swayed by Rahm being special.

Comment by Abandon Ship Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:47 pm
We’re still living in a banana republic, where the ward bosses who elected these judicial clowns have the last say, not the voters.

Why would any business want to invest here–high taxes, political corruption, a rigged system. What a joke.

I don’t have any love for Rham, but for crying out loud, the guy represented the city of Chicago in Congress just two years ago and he only left to serve another Chicagoan–who happens to be Commander in Chief!

Comment by Upstate Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:49 pm
it all comes back down to municipal law for a candidate being more strict than other candidate law. and physical presence means don’t rent out your house.

Comment by amalia Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:50 pm
levois,

The article you’ve pointed to is just incorrect. Here is Lampkin’s retention result from the Nov. 2010 election:
http://chicagoelections.com/wdlevel3.asp?elec_code=26

Comment by irv & ashland Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:50 pm
–Why would any business want to invest here–high taxes, political corruption, a rigged system. What a joke.–

They sure do, though, don’t they? Fourth-largest metro economy on earth.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:53 pm
As a Republican downstater who is not a fan Rahmbo. My thoughts are:

1) He got the shaft. While some may think it poetic that a very “real politic” politician like Rahm gets screwed by the process set up by other insiders like Rahmbo, Rahm still got screwed. I have read the decision two times, and it still makes no senses to me.

2) If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. Everyone on this board was probably refreshing the appellate court website(thru the State Court’s website) for an up to the date rulling from that court…LAST WEEK. A decsion should have been rendered last week….it wasn’t. Then, shortly after the courts “decison” city election authorities essentially says “it is too late, we have to go to press without rahm.” So, lets recap: the man with the most money who would have the most “independence” as mayor and who would probably be the most effective mayor, wins at the intial level with Morris, survives the election board, and wins at the circuit court level…….then, then, loses at the appellate court level after that court takes its sweet time to decide less than a week away from absentee balloting. Immediately, election authorities say they will have to print ballots without Rahm…Sounds like an awesome set-up. To put the proverbial cherry on top, the chicago politician most blamed for this anti-Rahm litigation just happens, just happens to be married to the most influential Supreme who will hear this case. THUS, IT IS A DUCK.

3) I hope the Supremes deny PLA and ignore this decison. Having either cmb or gc run the city can only result in chaos. I was too young to remember council wars. But, Counsel War II would be awesome (although, I dont live in the City…I would watch from the outside).

Comment by Cuban Pilot Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 7:57 pm
A lack of adequate planning and preparation on Rahm’s part does not constitute a judicial emergency. He is not the only candidate on the ballot and the election does revolve exclusively around him.

If the Board of Elections and the Circuit Court had been willing to speak the truth to power and follow the law, Rahm would have been off the ballot before Christmas.

Comment by Abandon Ship Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:05 pm
Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eat you.

*snicker*

Comment by U-Haul Ho! Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:06 pm
If Kasper wins this: golden horseshoe winner for sure!!

Comment by NotRMiller Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:28 pm
=fourth largest metro economy on earth=

It’s about the future, not the past. We’ve lost more big corporations than any other city in recent years, with nothing much to replace it. Chicago and Illinois still have great assets, but the politicians have bankrupted the state and city and cemented our reputation for corruption.

This decision adds to the growing perception. A local kangaroo court keeps the chief of staff to the president off the local ballot, in a town he represented in the halls of Congress 24 month ago. It’s rigged. Outsiders be warned.

Comment by Upstate Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:51 pm
Rahm was my Rep for 2 terms. I’m disappointed. But, I’m also pragmatic. As long as the garbage gets picked up…

Comment by Budlong Woods Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:53 pm
===So, lets recap: the man with the most money who would have the most “independence” as mayor===
Umm, somebody who was able to raise $12 mil in large chunks is going to be the most independent? Ask Cindi Canary and the other goo-goo’s what they think of that qualification.

Comment by Been There Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 8:57 pm
I don’t live in the jurisdiction (does that mean I can’t comment?), and thought RE would be just fine as Mayor. But the law’s the law. Judges interpret the law…if the Supreme Court overrules the 1st District, then that’s the law too. But isn’t everyone getting a little too buzzed about this? There’s all sorts of people in the City who can run it as Mayor without destroying Chicago. Have a little faith in the other candidates, folks. It’s not the end of the world if Rahm gets bounced (kinda sad for the L.A. money guys though).

Comment by park Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:09 pm
Seems to me there are some powerful somebodies
who do NOT want Rahm on the ballot. Who? Why?
Could it be daMayor behind all of this??

Comment by Lake County Guy Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:18 pm
–Umm, somebody who was able to raise $12 mil in large chunks is going to be the most independent?–

Stephen Spielberg wanted five no-show jobs at Streets and San plus popcorn kiosks at Midway and O’Hare.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:21 pm
And just when it looked like Miguel del Valle had no chance at all …

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:23 pm
Been there said:

===So, lets recap: the man with the most money who would have the most “independence” as mayor===

Been there is right. I was wrong. MDV raised no money. Thus, he would be more independent than Rahm.

Also, G.C. depends on the Alderman and only raises a fraction of Rahm. So, G.C. would be more independent than Rahm.

C.M.B. depends on playing the “race card”, and she is also inept at raising money, so she would be more independent than rahm.

yeah, I am wrong. Rahm’s money came from a lot of groups outside Chicago. A lot due to his agent brother and a lot due to President BAM. Yeah, Rahm is the least independent of the candidates.

So, lets go Gery, who is the most independent of the candidates.

Comment by Cuban Pilot Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:25 pm
Is Scott Lee Cohen available to fill the ballot spot? When all else fails, vote news value.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:34 pm
— Stephen Spielberg wanted five no-show jobs at Streets and San plus popcorn kiosks at Midway and O’Hare. —

Word,
Even though I never agree with you, you sir are awesome. Popcorn freaking kiosks?

Comment by Cuban Pilot Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:35 pm
CP, the margins at those kiosks are off the charts.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:38 pm
I agree with Word for once…the Supremes need to take this. It has a dramatic affect on the preferred ballot choice of nearly half of Chicago. I still say he should be on the ballot, of that the law should be corrected for future “interpretation” if he is kicked off.

Although it is kind of funny that, with all the shots taken at him and Obama for being part of the “Chicago machine”, Rahm apparently can’t run in Chicago. One wonders, could a president who sold a house he owned in Chicago come back from the presidency and run for mayor of Chicago? Or would he have lost his residency? =P

Comment by Liandro Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:53 pm
I will ask a silly question: Is there a Republican candidate for Mayor of Chicago in the upcoming mayoral election? As you can tell, I don’t live in Chicago. With all of the enormous media coverage over the Democrat candidates these last few months, somehow the rest of us outside of Cook County have never heard anything about a GOP candidate running for mayor. Yes, I know that Republicans are an endangered species in Chicago but maybe this Rahm Emanuel controversy changes the whole Chicago political landscape this time? The name Dan Proft was once mentioned but it could have been just a whimsical suggestion perhaps like mentioning Mike Ditka’s name as a Republican challenger.

It would seem that since there appears to be a substantial division within the mayoral race in Chicago so perhaps there could be a very real possibility of an Independent write-in candidate or a Republican mayoral candidate (aka. a Proft or Ditka or whoever) “suddenly ” becoming an unexpected yet serious mayoral contender.
Or, then again maybe not?

Comment by Pilgrim Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 9:58 pm
Why would any business want to invest here–high taxes, political corruption, a rigged system. What a joke.

Why dont you ask all the companies who have moved here in the last week?

It’s funny to here Republicans characterizing the Da Mare’s candidate getting thrown off the ballot as a sign of political corruption. Fascinating.

Comment by LittleLebowski Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 10:01 pm
Pilgrim, it’s a non-partisan election. No party primaries.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 10:03 pm
@Pilgrim,

There is no Republican candidate in the mayoral field this year. Although the election is conducted on a non-partisan basis, all of the candidates who filed have identified themselves as Democrats.

@Liandro,

President Obama would have no problem returning to Chicago and running for mayor since he still maintains his residence in Chicago. He did not lease his house to tenants and move out. On those occasions when Obama visits Chicago, he stays in his own home. You do not have to stay at home every day and night to satisfy the residency requirement, but you need a place to return to. Rahm forfeited his residency by renting it to other persons without setting up housekeeping at another address in Chicago until October of 2011, almost eight and a half months too late to qualify for the mayoral election.

Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 10:11 pm
That strange staccato sound, heard sometime around noon throughout Chicago, was the simultaneous facepalms of Forrest Claypool, Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Thomas Dart.

Comment by doh! Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 10:22 pm
@doh! - Alexi, David Hoffman…

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 10:46 pm
@Upstate - upholding the law is more important than making sure that the “right” outcome is achieved. So what if he was chief of staff to the president? If he was really serious about wanting to run for the office of Mayor, he should have been willing to comply the residency mandate in the law, even if that meant quitting (or not taking in the first place) the CoS job, and should have been willing to challenge Daley if Daley had decided to run again. Instead, he took the out of town job, and tried to swoop in at the last minute when Daley announced his decision, figuring he would roll over any local opposition to his residency status. His actions are to blame for what happened today. Its the rank opportunisum that is so grating to so many of us here. You can’t go changing the rules once the game has begun just to suit your preferred candidate.

Comment by Bluejay Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 10:58 pm
What I really want to know is who is Burt Odelson working for in this case, and why did he just dye his hair jet black?

Comment by just sayin' Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 11:06 pm
@Honest Abe:

I know Obama keeps his house available, I was speculating on a hypothetical situation in which a President sold or leased his house while in Washington. Not every President in history has had the money the Obama’s have…some left office broke, so renting out the house while gone would have been an attractive option for them.

Comment by Liandro Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 11:07 pm
I was in favor of Rahm in this case at first because this was a guy who wanted to be Speaker of the House and decided to work for Obama because he was asked…being penalized for serving the Commander and Chief seems a bit ludicrous.
Now, though, late at night, as I am considering Rahm’s simplistic plan for education (does he realize this system is at its lowest morale ever and charters are not a magic bullet) and how it really is out of date by a few years, it makes me wonder if the framers of this law had some unique wisdom. Maybe it does matter that you are in town for a while before running. Maybe if you haven’t been around, your ideas and perceptions of the city really are out of date.

Hmmm, whatever the case, Anne Burke better recuse herself or become the target of a lot of soon to launch attacks.

Comment by one too many Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 11:30 pm
Raised 12 large and they aren’t going to let him in? Come on people: He will be on the ballot. At this point it’s called free advertising

Comment by Palatine Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 6:43 am
I served my nation for 30 years, and the entire time I served the nation, I called PA my home. I maintained my driver’s license there, paid state tax there and absentee voted for PA Candidates. It was only after I retired that I, not some panel chose to make a new state (IL) my home and have a license here, vote here and pay taxes here.
Rahm is a resident. He was called upon to serve his nation and for that he should not be penalized.

Comment by DMAC57 Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 7:08 am
It was no secret that Rahm wanted to get his old Congressional job back after serving the prez, indeed, he talked about putting in a “seat-holder” for himself. Daley then throws the mayorship into the mix without warning. Rahm always wanted to come back, he just switched the “why”.

Comment by Newsclown Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 7:17 am
Well, I am married to a former long time staffer. He predicted this scenario all along. Now, the supremes will ride to the rescue and Rahm will be elected, like everyone knew he would, all along.

I am no Rahm fan. Just the opposite. But, I have known people that have lived in DC for 40 years and still reside at their former address. I can’t believe that that is so hard to understand.

Comment by PPHS Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 8:12 am
if the dude doesn’t reside, then the dude doesn’t reside! dude, don’t rent your house, Walter!

Comment by b-town Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 8:33 am
Speaking of presidents who rented out their houses while they were gone… Abe Lincoln himself did that. His house was also rented out for the two years he was in Congress — Mary and the children lived in a boarding house in D.C. part of that time, and the remainder of the time with her father’s family in Kentucky since the house in Springfield was occupied. Lincoln scholars may know better than I do but I don’t think anyone questioned Lincoln’s residency after his term in Congress, did they?

Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 8:49 am
@Just Saying’:

Lots of attention has been focused on Alderman Ed Burke, who has wisely kept his checkbook locked in his desk drawer during the campaign. Less light has been directed to Cook County Assessor and Cook County Democratic Chairman Joe Berrios. Berrios is reportedly angry that Team Rahm, which includes David Axelrod, were promoting Forrest Claypool as an alternative to Berrios, the Democratic nominee, for Assessor in 2010. Rahm also has no support among most of the old time Democratic ward committeemen on the South Side.

Burke has been catching the heat, but he is not alone in his dislike for Rahm.

Comment by Honest Abe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 8:53 am
—Stephen Spielberg wanted …

Spielberg’s contribution is angling for favoritism from Ari, not Rahm. It can be counted as a very wealthy powerful brother donation, but it still proves the point that these outsiders aren’t donating because they think Rahm would do really good things for the people of Chicago. They think Rahm will do really nice things for them.

The parking meter deal has been disguised because the public face is “LAZ Parking”, but it’s still a JPMorgan consortium organized on behalf of the bankers who funneled money through BD.

Rahm’s contribution list is a parking meter scam waiting to happen.

Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 8:56 am
Biggest news here? They use a Lake County printer, instead of several quality Chicago printers.

Comment by Jasper Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:03 am
One more note — if you “a Republican downstater”, why do you feel compelled to comment on who gets on the ballot for Chicago? Unless the Republican downstater is on the Supreme Court, this is really none of business (at least until somebody from your town leaves to serve in the White House, rents out their home, and runs for mayor of your town).
That being said, with all the SOMEBODY IN POWER ORDERED THIS comments, I’m betting there must be a run on tin foil yesterday. If you think secret forces are behind the appellate court decision, point that hat 28 degrees north-north east and you will find out just who is calling the deal.

Comment by Jasper Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:23 am
You have to admit that Illinois politics is pretty entertaining! Where will Rahm end up if he fails to get the support of the Supremes?

Comment by Fed-Up Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:26 am
=fourth largest metro economy on earth=

Very true, but remember, at one time not too many years ago, Detroit was in the top twenty and now look. It doesn’t take long without good leadership to drag a City or State down.

Comment by downstate hack Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:28 am
Speaking of presidents who rented out their houses while they were gone… Abe Lincoln himself did that. His house was also rented out for the two years he was in Congress — Mary and the children lived in a boarding house in D.C. part of that time, and the remainder of the time with her father’s family in Kentucky since the house in Springfield was occupied. Lincoln scholars may know better than I do but I don’t think anyone questioned Lincoln’s residency after his term in Congress, did they?

Lincoln didn’t run for Mayor of Chicago.

Comment by downstate hack Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:33 am
Just reread the Appellate opinion. It is quite logical, and the dissent is more hysterical. Should be upheld. It’s Rahm’s fault for renting out his home and having no Chicago residence. Don’t blame the judiciary. Illinois and Chicago continue to be a national laughingstock. And only in Illinois would a powerful alderman get his underqualified wife appointed to the Supreme Court that will hear the case! We deserve what we vote for.

Comment by formerpolitico Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:33 am
@DMAC57 - its actually the people of Chicago who met the residency requirements as stated in the law and presented themselves as candidates for the office who should not be penalized by being forced to share the ballot with someone who is trying to bend the rules in his favor. And the whole “he was called upon to serve his nation” argument is a crock. He wasn’t forcibly drafted into the CoS job; he made a conscious decision to take that job when it was offered, KNOWING he would have to move to DC to fulfill it. If he had really truly had his heart set on being mayor, he had the option to refuse the CoS job, quit his rep seat, and move back to Chicago to legally establish his residency before becoming a candidate. But he chose a different path, and now he has to live with the consequences.

Comment by Bluejay Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:34 am
Jasper,

I think many folk posting here as well as other voices heard on various media outlets is that the mystery force involved doesn’t necessiarily have control over the appelate court but. The question properly posted has been, “Who is paying Burt Edelson?”

And if you think that what happens in Chicago has no effect on everyone else who lives in this state you are delusional.

Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:44 am
–=fourth largest metro economy on earth=

Very true, but remember, at one time not too many years ago, Detroit was in the top twenty and now look.–

You think a mayor or governor has that much effect on private investment? Local government does not have that much power in a global economy.

The Detroit comparison is phony. In 1950, half of the world’s automobiles were produced in the Detroit city limits. They were a one-trick pony; they had nowhere to go but down. The Chicago metro is much more diverse.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:46 am
Sure it matters, Dan. If things go badly here, where it the rest of the state going to get all that cash? Chicago gives up more than it gets. You Du Page could have the courtesy of saying thanks once in a while.

Comment by Jasper Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:48 am
The story about Lincoln renting out his home is an argument to be made to the Legislature in an effort to change the law, not an argument to be made to a court to influence their interpretation of the law already on the books.

The papers’ editorials have made this same error. Believing Rahm should be allowed to run is different from believing the law allows him to run. We live by the rule of law, and any disagreement with the effects of a particular law should be taken up with the House and Senate. You should only take issue with the court’s decision if you disagree with their interpretation of the statute, not with the effect of their decision.

Comment by chi Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:51 am
And Dan, do you think Burt cast some sort of magic spell over the court? Or is he just a lawyer making arguments?

Because unless he’s got magical powers unavailable to other lawyers, it doesn’t matter in the slighest who is paying him. It is really none of anybody’s business.

Comment by Jasper Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:51 am
Jasper,

Of course it is everybody’s business - it’s politics! If that isn’t everybody’s business then to whom does it belong? That doesn’t mean Edelson has a duty to reveal who his client is. It just means that those who are concerned have a right to be.

Edelson has no magic power unless you call “THE LAW” magical. From what I read he has that on his side. RE has bumped candidates off the ballot in races he has been involved in. Nothing personal, you know, just business.

I am perfectly aware, BTW, of the impact Chicago has on the state - it is an economic engine. All the more reason for the rest of us outsiders to be concerned with the politics.

Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:01 am
It is a heck of a lot more than an “economic engine” Dan. Chicago actually sends more tax dollars in than it gets. The rest of you all owe us money. Since YOU owe US, why should you have any say in how we do things?

And I’m not following the Burt argument. Why the conccern (unless your hat is pointed in a certain direction)?

Comment by Jasper Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:05 am
–The story about Lincoln renting out his home is an argument to be made to the Legislature in an effort to change the law, not an argument to be made to a court to influence their interpretation of the law already on the books.–

There’s no state law in question, it’s a municipal ordinance.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:07 am
Word- it’s a state law. It’s in the Municipal Code, but it’s a state law. 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5

http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=006500050HArt%2E+3%2E1+Div%2E+10&ActID=802&ChapterID=14&SeqStart=33400000&SeqEnd=35200000

Comment by chi Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:17 am
Chi, thanks, I stand corrected. Pardon the error.

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