Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 - Teamsters support Emanuel * Semantics war in Emanuel case

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Tribune’s editorial blasting the appellate court ruling on Rahm Emanuel’s residency was full of a whole lotta bluster, but it did include one interesting factoid…

[Dissenting Appellate Justice Bertina E. Lampkin] accused the majority of ignoring case law that clearly supported Emanuel’s argument —including a significant case in which Hoffman prevailed.

From Justice Lampkin’s dissent…

The majority completely ignores Dillavou, a recent Fourth District case that addressed candidate residency, even though Walsh, on which Justice Hoffman previously concurred, favorably cited Dillavou and discussed it at length. […]

Of particular relevance to the case before this court, Dillavou quotes the language of Clark and Kreitz, which provides that, once established, a residence will not be lost by an individual’s absence from that residence unless the individual demonstrates such an intent.

Dillavou is a case from the 3rd District, so the 1st is not bound to abide by its reasoning. However, Walsh v. County Officers Electoral Board of Cook County is a 1st District case and, as Justice Lampkin notes, Justice Hoffman concurred in its result. Walsh involved Rep. David McAfee, who rented a little studio apartment in his post-remap district. He never moved his family to the apartment.

* Perhaps the most important aspect of Justice Hoffman’s opinion was whether the phrase “resided in” meant the same thing regarding voters and candidates. He ruled they did not. A voter would be given far more leeway, but a candidate must actually live in the municipality. Hoffman did admit yesterday, though, that Walsh assumed “implicitly that the terms were synonymous.” From Lampkin’s dissent…

In Walsh, [Justice Hoffman] agreed that physical presence and intent to remain at a place as a permanent home created a residence for purposes of candidacy. In Walsh, Justice Hoffman agreed that intent was a factual consideration and that Delk, which he now dismisses, supported his position.

The Supreme Court denied an appeal on the Walsh case, buttressing Justice Lampkin’s point.

And then there was this from the dissent…

Moreover. if the legislature had intended the phrase “has resided in” to mean “actually lived in” as the majority proposed, then the legislature surely would have chosen to use the more innocuous word live rather than the verb reside and the noun residence, which are charged with legal implications.”

* This is a pretty good summation of Justice Hoffman’s logical twists and turns…

They plowed through 193 years of history only to find their answer in the words of the last person to amend the law, State Sen. Dave Luechtefeld (R-Okawville).

Hoffman wrote that an amendment Luechtefeld sponsored in 2007, allowing those returning from military duty to run for local office, undercut Emanuel’s argument.

He wrote that a clause in the amendment refers to a person becoming again a resident of a municipality.

“If the military service person must ‘again’ become a resident of the municipality, then it logically follows that the person lost his or her resident status at some time prior thereto,” Hoffman wrote.

* And the majority also came to its conclusion by ignoring a state Supreme Court case that Lampkin believes is highly important, and to a layman’s eyes, looks quite relevant to today’s situation…

The majority is wrong when it contends the Smith decision was “based solely on the officeholder’s intent to return.” To the contrary, the court, in reaching its determination, considered “all of the circumstances in evidence,” and not solely the prosecution’s failure to establish that the appellant never intended to abandon his Illinois residence. Specifically, the court considered the appellant’s frequent declarations that his move to Tennessee was only an experiment and he would return to Illinois if he found that he could not remain with satisfaction among the Tennesseans. Further, the appellant refused his partner’s request to vote in Tennessee for a particular candidate, saying he did not want to lose his Illinois citizenship. The appellant also refused to sell his Illinois law books, saying that he would probably return to Illinois and would need them in his practice.

Moreover, the appellant only rented his residence when he left Illinois.

Eerie, eh?

* So, why the flip-flop? Nobody really knows. There is plenty of dark speculation, however…

The two Appellate Court judges responsible for tossing Rahm Emanuel from the ballot in February’s mayoral race both won their jobs after being anointed by a Chicago political power broker who openly supports an Emanuel opponent. […]

Longtime Appellate Court Judges Thomas E. Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall — who on Monday ruled that Emanuel’s stay in Washington precludes him from running for mayor this year — were both judicial candidates slated for election by the Cook County Democratic Party judicial slating committee chaired by Ald. Edward Burke, 14th.

Burke, one of Chicago’s most powerful politicians, holds huge sway in the election of judges at every level, including the Illinois Supreme Court, where his wife, Anne, sits as a justice and where the Emanuel ballot question is now headed for a final decision.

*** UPDATE - 10:36 am *** Teamsters Joint Council 25 just announced its endorsement and continued support of Emanuel.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:29 am

Comments

It struck me (not an attorney) that Kreitz is very relevant as well as the fact has been used a bunch since 1888 (see the number of old law books that reference it via a google search)

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:40 am
this is just crazy. will Chicago voters really be denied the ability to vote for Rahm because Alderman Burke is influential? What a travesty.

Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:41 am
What a headache.

Comment by Aaron Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:41 am
Dillavou is a case from the 3rd District, so the 1st is not bound to abide by its reasoning.

Resolving such conflicts between the circuits is the main job of the Supreme Court

Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:45 am
It’s amazing how important this election is to the rest of the State, but we can just watch from the sidelines!!

Comment by South of I-80 Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:46 am
Uhm, the late State Representative David McAfee won his residency case.

He never moved his family to the apartment because he and his wife were separated and en route to a divorce. He leased the apartment, changed his voter’s registration and driver’s license and moved his possessions into the apartment. His landlord testified on his behalf.

McAfee testified that he spent a few nights at his former family home in Indian Head Park when his wife was out of town and he was called upon to watch the couple’s minor child, but his principal residence was in La Grange.

Don’t bother Justice Lampkin with reciting pertinent facts that subtract from her analysis.

Comment by Honest Abe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:49 am
Like so much else that has been said about this case, the dissent glosses over the point made very articulately by the majority that residency is only half of the issue. The municipal code has two conditions that a candidate has to meet: be a qualified elector, ie a resident registered to vote, AND have resided in the city for one year. The majority agrees with everyone else that Rahm is a resident and meets the first condition, however he has not resided in Chicago for one year. Judge Lampkin ignores this second point.

Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:49 am
Flip-flop? Just because you call it a flip-flop and cite some cases doesn’t make this a flip-flop.

>

Had Emanuel not rented out his home he probably would have demonstrated such intent, but to move your entire family and to rent your home (with a fixed lease) clearly demonstrates that you do not wish to reside nor do you reside in set municipality.

Now as to the contention that the GA would have chosen “live” instead of “reside,” this is a childish argument and you shouldn’t event be quoting her on it. The GA most likely chose reside because well, it’s a residency requirement, it’s not a living requirement.

Comment by ChicagoFirst Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:49 am
Another lesson in why judges should be appointed from lists submitted by selection panels, and not elected — particularly in Cook County, where the ballot is too long for there to be any pretense that the voters know what they are doing.

As it is now, Ed Burke is the single most important person in deciding who serves in the Illinois judiciary. Mike Madigan, who has in the past reportedly circulated lists of approved candidates for associate judge, the entry level position, may be second. Ed Vrdolyak was always very influential, as well.

There is plenty of fodder for dark speculation.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:50 am
Will anyone be able to chase down Burke today and get him on the record on all this stuff.

Like Roy Cohn used to say to his underlings, “Don’t tell me what’s the law, tell me who’s the judge.”

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:50 am
HA, don’t be daft. McAfee winning his residency case bolstered Lampkin’s argument.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:51 am
Justice Lampkin certainly did her homework. I’m curious about the timing of the decision. Why did the media expect a verdict last week? Was it a hunch, or did someone tell them to be ready for an announcement? Did anyone know the latest date the ballots could go to print?

Comment by SR Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:51 am
===AND have resided in the city for one year.===

Correct. But the problem becomes when the majority assigns a different definition for “resided in” to voters and candidates.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:53 am
===The GA most likely chose reside because well, it’s a residency requirement, it’s not a living requirement. ===

Which is exactly the point. The majority says it’s a living requirement, the dissenter says it’s a reside in requirement.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:53 am
Why can’t we all just get along? Or is that too much to ask?

Il. continues to look like a laughing stock to the rest of the country. It is unbelievable to me that 2 out of 3 judges are blind, to residency law.

Evidently, a snow bird couldn’t run for mayor, either, then.

Comment by PPHS Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:55 am
Unlike Emanuel, McAfee had an actual place to call home. Where was Emanuel’s exclusive Chicago residence in February of 2010?

That is a huge difference that cannot be glossed over.

Comment by Honest Abe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:55 am
SR- If one were making dark speculation, one could speculate that the same majority that refused to certify the case to the Illinois Supreme Court sat on the ruling a couple of extra days to make it harder for their ruling to be overturned. Judges have a responsibility to decide time-sensitive cases quickly enough so their judgments can be carried out and to allow for effective review. This panel, to put it kindly, pushed the limits on the latter.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:56 am
“But the problem becomes when the majority assigns a different definition for “resided in” to voters and candidates.”

No it doesn’t. They were very clear about this. Someone can move and register to vote for an upcoming election. The same can’t be said for someone actually running in the election. That’s why there are residency requirements.

Someone can still register to vote for the mayoral election on 2/22 in Chicago TODAY!

Comment by Logical Thinker Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:58 am
This is great political theater, and I hope it continues past the commencement of Monday’s early voting. More lawyers! More men in black robes! More CMB incoherent ramblings! More man on the street interviews!

When will Pat Quinn weigh in?

Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:58 am
I can’t. I don’t “reside” in Chicago.

Comment by Ray del Camino Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:59 am
===Someone can still register to vote for the mayoral election on 2/22 in Chicago TODAY! ===

Red herring. The argument is over the definition of “resided in.”

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:00 am
I’m not a lawyer, and I have no idea which way the Supreme Court will rule. But I read both the majority opinion and dissent carefully and tried to follow the logic as closely as I could. It was not obvious to me that one was logically superior to the other. Neither contained any obvious logical fallacies. It thought both opinions were very well reasoned. The Supreme Court will have to decide which points have stronger legal weight (as opposed to logical strong opinions, I don’t think there is any evidence that the majority were politically motivated (or at least any more politically motivated than the dissenter). So I think we should give all three justices the benefit of the doubt that they doing their best to interpret the law as best they could. We’ll see what the Supreme Court says (and inevitably hear accusations of political motivation no matter which way they rule).

Comment by centrist Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:02 am
My bad, maybe Rahm could have lived in the crawl space and slept on the boxes while his tenants lived upstairs.

Too creepy. Sounds like the made for television movie “Bad Ronald.”

If nothing else, this is an interesting topic for discussion. Have fun everybody.

Comment by Honest Abe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:02 am
===Correct. But the problem becomes when the majority assigns a different definition for “resided in” to voters and candidates.===

Rich - as a matter of statutory construction, the fact that the legislature wrote in two requirements means that they have to assign a different meaning to it. Otherwise it’s meaningless.

What is so hard about understanding that the legislature intended for there to be a different standard for candidates than for voters? We don’t require people to gather signatures in order to register to vote. Besides, the provisions about voters don’t use the phrase “resided in,” it uses “be a resident of.”

It is a problem that “resides” is not defined anywhere. But the judges’ job is to interpret what is in front of them, not fix policy mistakes (if one believes that there is one here) created by the legislature.

Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:04 am
Another example of politics s a blood sport here in Illinois.

Had the candidate been anyone but RE, they would have been unceremoniously booted booted from the ballot long ago with no hubub. Candidates have been barred from running in this election cycle for reasons as silly as improperly binding their petitions. Determining residency by ‘intent’ seems quite hard to establish. There seems to be a substantial number of election attorneys who doubt that RE’s status was that of a resident. While the constitution guarantees an individuals right to vote, there is no such unlimited right to run for a specific office. I can think of a number of people I believe would do a good job as Mayor of the City of Chicago, but I cannot complain about being denied the opportunity to vote for them because they do not reside in the City. One example would be Paul Vallas. Thee only blame here is on RE and his advisors. They should have ben able to foresee the potential of losing the argument.

If the law is bad, then the legislators should update it to avoid future chaos, not have it changed by litigation.

I now shudder at the increased chances of CMB achieving the office of Mayor.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:04 am
====SR- If one were making dark speculation, one could speculate that the same majority that refused to certify the case to the Illinois Supreme Court sat on the ruling a couple of extra days to make it harder for their ruling to be overturned.====

Is there any reason, besides “dark speculation,” why they would have done that? If they were confident in their decision, why would they care if the Supreme Court considered it?

Comment by SR Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:05 am
In other news, the Teamsters are standing behind Arnold Schwartzenegger for President, throwing caution to the wind when it comes to residency or “natural born” mumbo-jumbo.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:05 am
Why does having an empty residence make someone a resident while having someone else stay there cancels your residency? That ridiculous, arcane point just sticks in my craw.

Comment by Juli Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:06 am
Sorry for the mistake in the last post. Beginning in the first parentheses, it should read: “(as opposed to logical consistency). Both are strong opinions. I don’t think…

Comment by centrist Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:06 am
>Evidently, a snow bird couldn’t run for mayor, either, then.

Exactly! Snow birds may run for alderman, committeeman and chair of the Cook County Democratic Party, but not Mayor.

I do think the fact that Rahm has no residence to return to plays an important role (though I might overlook it were I the judge.)

So I go back to the question - why did Halpin refuse to vacate? Was he really just ornery? It’s possible. But it was a lot of money he turned down. What’s Halpin up to now? Can someone in the media commit to check in on his career a year or two from now?

Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:07 am
Good summary of the case law and issues Rich.

As someone else said this morning, if Rahm Emanuel can’t fix this, he doesn’t deserve to be mayor of Chicago.

Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:09 am
Glad you’re enjoying this Cinci.

Those of us who live here have a lot at stake beyond keeping you entertained. I happen to think, of the candidates in the race, Rahm would be the best mayor of my city. It’s unfortunate that Mayor Daley’s decision was made with no thought to succession. It’s unfortunate that Rahm probably will not qualify for the ballot.

And it is unfortunate that in his absence, the next Mayor is likely to either be beholden to Ed Burke or be in over her head. Either way, it makes my city a worse place to live and work.

That’s my opinion, but I just live here, so what do I know?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:09 am
Not to be trivial but this reminds me of the court scene in Miracle on 34th St. where the US Postal Service’s acknoeledgement of Kris Kringle certifies him as The Santa Claus.
In the same vein doesn’t the fact that Rahm was required to pay Illinois Income Taxes for that year AND was allowed to vote in an Illinois election in that year pretty clearly underscore that the State certified that he was a resident? If like fees or documents were sent to him by the City for payment and the like, the argument could be made that the city also certified that he was a resident.

Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:09 am
I think what the court said is that “intent” is irrelevant in the face of the clear and present fact that Rahm rented out his home to someone else.

Lampkin made a colossal blunder when she used her dissenting opinion as a vehicle for personally attacking Hoffman.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:09 am
The legal discussion on Chicago Tonight last night was interesting. the residency issue difference comes with voter vs. candidate, and there is a difference with the law of Chicago. This is familiar to those in politics because there are frequently more strict requirements that mirror the grip of the machine, signatures, strange forms. And, residency comes down to where he could actually reside, not that he had an address at which he could vote. So that line believes he voided the residency when he rented out the house and the Kass column today actually nails the thing that could end the bid for mayor. One attorney on Chicago Tonight was clear that the law for Chicago, and cases from that, have shown the key difference on the residency issue.

tv just says Rahm won’t run as a write in if the SC doesn’t go his way. and Firefighters with Chico, Teamsters with Rahm.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:10 am
And now this all comes down to the Quad Cities and what Rock Island resident and Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Kilbride will do. Drum roll please ….

Comment by NW Illinois Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:13 am
Snowbirds still have a building that they can go to and actually live in, as opposed to being a snowbird, renting your house, then trying to break a lease to get back into the house, because your plans did not include coming back to live in the building for a long period of time ….

Sounds like something different than being a snowbird …

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:14 am
Kidwell’s story in the Trib makes an interesting observation - that Burke helped facilitate the election of the two majority judges to the bench.

But it leaves unanswered two key questions:

1) Just how extraordinary is it for a judge in Cook County to have had support from Burke? It’s my understanding that this is NOT extraordinary, since Burke is the big guy behind slating, and many if not most judges in Cook County could therefore be “linked” back to Burke. And if that’s the case, then just how meaningful is this article “linking” these two judges back to Burke?

2) Was the dissenting judge also slated by Burke? If not, then it would make Kidwell’s gotcha story somewhat more relevant. If so, then it would clearly diminish the point of this article.

Comment by Coach Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:15 am
@irv & Ashland -

I believe the media reports were that it was Halpin’s wife who refused to budge.

I get the sense that Rahm tried to Bigfoot the woman out of her home, and she didn’t like it.

Frankly, it probably wouldn’t have affected this case.

By the time Daley announced he was stepping down, it was too late for Rahm to legally establish residency.

Buuut, it sure would have improved perceptions if he was back in his old house.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:16 am
The Walsh case stated that a permanent abode is necessary to constitute a residence within the provisions of the Election Code. It stated that two elements were necessary to create a residence, physical presence and intent to remain there as a permanent home.

I guess that’s why Obama never leased his house when he went to Washington. Kirk keeps his townhouse in Fort Sheridan/Highland Park and doesn’t rent it out. We can check out all the Washington folks and probably get the same results.

What the majority is saying in their decision is this: Emmanuel had intent, but Emmanuel had no actual physical presence in his rented home unlike the challenged state representative in Walsh who moved into the one bedroom apartment, changed his drivers license, voters registration and had his paycheck sent there, among other things. At best, Emmanuel had a few stored boxes and two pieces of furniture. He did not “occupy” the abode, nor did he have the right to occupy it during the term of the lease, assuming compliance by all parties of the terms of the lease. For Emmanuel to prevail, he will need to show that he was an occupant of the house in question for a year preceding the election, something which he can’t show. Intent is one factor in deciding actual residency, not the overriding factor. At best he can show that he had a right to occupy the premises some time in the future, either at the expiration of the lease or from a termination of the lease for any number of reasons (non-payment of rent being one).

According to the majority, the definition of “actual residence” vs. “constructive residence” means actual occupation of the abode. Not just hanging a shirt in a closet or having a few boxes around.

The Tribune can bluster all it wants to on this issue. The Supreme Court can take the matter up on the petition filed by Emmanuel’s lawyers, or elect not to take it up. Even if it takes the case, the Supreme Court also has the option of affirming the majority decision, something everyone is also forgetting.

As a lawyer, I find it fascinating reading.

The Tribune urging Justice Burke to hear the case anyway, in spite of any perceived conflicts, is pretty sad. If there is a conflict, Justice Burke must recuse herself, period.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:17 am
===What is so hard about understanding that the legislature intended for there to be a different standard for candidates than for voters?===

That’s true. There is a different standard. The argument is not about that, but whether they intended “reside in” to mean two wholly different things in two very interconnected statutes.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:17 am
I have to say, I’m really disturbed about the timing of this decision. The media expected a decision last week, and I think that would’ve been reasonable.

Now, two judges slated by Burke vote Rahm off the ballot, the decision is released the day before ballots are printed, and Langdon Neal says he’s moving forward no matter what.

This is shenanigans, the fix was in on this one. Obviously Neal is part of the Stop Rahm brigade too. I doubt anything involved rises to the level of criminality, but I wouldn’t mind seeing an investigation opened.

It’s a shame Burke is unopposed, an opponent might’ve been the benefactor of significant campaign cash.

Comment by Thoughts... Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:17 am
If Rahm is indeed kept off the ballot, which would be a travesty; and he were to return to some position in Obama’s administration, picture Chico or CMB arriving at the White House to parlay for a favor and having Rahm greet them at the door? Awkward!!.. well that was a wasted trip.

Also anyone that doesn’t think that a weak Mayor in Chicago won’t affect the whole State hasn’t lived here long or isn’t paying attention.

Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:18 am
Can anyone say Bush v. Gore?! This is another example of judges struggling to reach a particular outcome and creating a legal precedent that cannot apply to any other situation. It is intellectually dishonest and creates more cynicism toward the courts.

Comment by Fed Up Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:19 am
Agreed, YDD. My sympathies are with Rahm and if I were a betting man, I’d say he’ll prevail. But it was dumb to rent out his house. I don’t think he needed the money.

Comment by Ray del Camino Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:19 am
Judge Hoffman for years was the top motion judge in the Law Division of Cook County. Ask any attorney who practiced there back then. There was never a hint of favoritism. He decided motions on the facts and law with well reasoned opinions. You had to be well prepared whenever you appeared before him, not just wink and say I’m with so-and-so firm. His ascent to the appellate court was universally applauded. Read some of his other appeals court opinions. My opinion is that there is NO WAY on earth his opinion is politically motivated. His opinion is motivated by his view of the facts and the law. The supreme court will tell us if he was right, assuming they even take the case.

Comment by DE Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:21 am
The failure of the majority to certify the case for appeal to the Supreme Court is, to me, the most telling thing. The requirement for certification under IL Supreme Court Rule 316 is that the case “involves a question of such importance that it should be decided by the Supreme Court.” How anyone could argue this case isn’t important is beyond me. Not only does this particular case involve a mayoral election in the largest and most culturally, economically, and politically important city in the state, but it also creates/defines rules that will apply to many candidates in the future. Even after this election, residency rules will continue to be a key factor in dozens — hundreds — of cases across the state over the years. To claim that this hugely significant result is not “important” is hogwash. It’s like the Bush v. Gore case, where the Supremes in essence said “this case won’t be precedent for anything in the future.”

Comment by Muskrat Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:23 am
Hoffman opinion absolutely logical; dissent is somewhat hysterical. Supremes should either deny taking the case, or affirm. It’s Rahm’s fault, not the judiciary’s. This whole episode is hilarious - the people and the voters of Illinois deserve to go down the tubes for always re-electing all these clowns!

Comment by formerpolitico Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:26 am
The Court posted the PLA:
http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/SpecialMatters/2011/012511_Leave_To_Appeal.pdf

Comment by Jasper Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:30 am
2010 Chicago Council of Lawyers evaluation for Justice Lampkin:

Hon. Bertina E. Lampkin — Qualified
Justice Bertina E. Lampkin was appointed to the Appellate Court in 2009 and presently sits in the First District, First Division. Prior to her appointment to the Appellate Court, she was a supervising Judge in the Circuit Court, Criminal Division. She was admitted to practice in 1974. Prior to her election, Justice Lampkin was an Assistant State’s Attorney and member of the Chicago Corporation Counsel’s office.
As a Circuit Judge, she was considered to have good legal ability and was reported to be an exceptionally hard working jurist. She served on the Illinois Supreme Court criminal pattern jury instructions committee and was chair for the last five years. In that position, she was responsible for writing the new death penalty instructions. She has taught for the last several years in the area of death penalty litigation and created her own seminar materials. As an Appellate Justice, Justice Lampkin receives many positive reports focusing on her preparedness and vigor during oral argument. Her opinions are considered to be well-reasoned. She has made a successful transition to the Appellate Court. The Council finds her Qualified for retention.

Somewhat less favorable evaluations from earlier years:

http://www.chicagocouncil.org/judicial_pdfs/L/Bertina%20E.%20Lampkin.pdf

She was orignally appointed an associate judge. In those days, various organizations submitted slates for election.

Justice Lampkin was then elected as a full Circuit judge from a subcircuit. (As background, subcircuits were created to increase diversity by allowing each committeeman to get his or her own brother or sister-in-law or other supporter on the bench, and thereby somewhat limit the power of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee’s slating committee (currently chaired by Ed Burke).)

Justice Lampkin was then appointed to the Appellate Court. While such appointments are formally made by the entire Supreme Court, in practice the justices usually rotate the appointment authority among them, taking turns. Those who are appointed to the Appellate Court are usually slated as a matter of course, though some horse-trading may be involved.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:31 am
Jasper, I posted that last night.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:32 am
Doesn’t surprise me about Justice Hoffman. I argued a case and referred to a case that he had decided to support my point. He interrupted me and said I was wrong and that the case supported the opposite position. He wasn’t willing to look at the case. He just wanted to prove he was smarter than me (though he WAS wrong). Similarly he failed to follow precedent in my case in order to reach the decision he wanted to make.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:33 am
Lost in the Shuffle was Rahm’s good government endorsement from the Teamster’s Union Joint Council. I mean it’s not as if “Hired Trucks” were ever a scandal in this town.

I am not sure if this is an endorsement that I would want to broadcast to the goo goos.

Comment by Abandon Ship Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:34 am
As I’ve indicated before, the flaw in the majority is in its misbegotten ignorance of the facts. This is not Alan Keyes seeking to run as a carpetbagger or someone w/ no residency or connection w/ Chicago parachuting in to take advantage of an opening. Rather, this is a person w/ legitimate ties/residency who was serving the U.S. government being denied the opportunity to exercise his right as a citizen to run for office in his home. The way the majority reads even if Rahm had not rented his Chi house, he could not have satisfied the “reside in” standard created anew by the opinion because he was serving in DC. As the dissent points out, how much time is enough to be in town to “reside in”. Based upon the new standard for “reside in” Obama would not qualify because of the few days he has spent at his home. This turns the statute on its ear and thwarts the intent and purpose of the statutory scheme. No matter how one feels about Rahm, Eddie or any of the candidates or judges, the law is to be interpreted so as not to create absurd results. The majority op is an absurd result.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:34 am
Impressed. I need to read this stuff more closely.

Comment by Jasper Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:35 am
===As the dissent points out, how much time is enough to be in town to “reside in”. ===

Exactly. Taken to the logical extreme, legislators who spend so much time in Springfield some years might not qualify, especially if they also take a long out-of-district vacation.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:36 am
There are absurdities on either side. One side tells us that ‘reside’ in the muni code means something different than ‘residence’ in the election code. The other side is outraged, OUTRAGED, at the revolutionary and unbelievable idea that anyone honest could, as they put it, construe ‘reside’ to mean ‘actually reside’.

How many palm cards fit on the head of a pin?

Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:38 am
Under the majority opinion, temporary absences for work or play would NOT disqualify a candidate as long as he had an actual place to stay in the city or district where he resided. Rahm did not. Critics are way off-base when they argue the gloom-and-doom of this opinion.

Comment by formerpolitico Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:44 am
Oy vey! In the PLA, Kasper raises the argument that representatives and state senators may run the risk of forfeiting their residences while attending legislative sessions in Springpatch and the same applies to those in Congress while in D.C.

Seriously, how is this twaddle remotely helpful to Emanuel’s case?

Comment by Whoa Nelly Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:44 am
=====Yellow Dog Democrat: I believe the media reports were that it was Halpin’s wife who refused to budge.

I get the sense that Rahm tried to Bigfoot the woman out of her home, and she didn’t like it.====

Based on? The testimony at the residence hearing indicated Rahm through his attorney asked if the Halpins if they would consider moving out early and made offer compensate for each month. Mr. Halpin said no, his wife really liked the house. He called back later and asked for $100,000.

Comment by SR Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:46 am
====Taken to the logical extreme, legislators who spend so much time in Springfield some years might not qualify, especially if they also take a long out-of-district vacation.====

Under the majority’s reasoning, they can take a year vacation and still be eligible, so long as they maintain their actual residence status. If they have the right to come home and sleep in the abode, then that is still actual residency for that one year time frame. Now if they rented out the abode for a year to travel the world, that would be a different issue.

That in a nutshell is what Emmanuel will need to overturn.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:46 am
Thanks for the repost of the PLA link. Even if Rich did post it before - it reminded me that there’s some better place to get it than by following the Trib’s Scribd link, which I’ve been wrestling with for 10 minutes. Using Scribd is like a nostalgic trip to the early days of the internet, when you might click on a link, put some grounds in a filter, make coffee, pour some half and half in it, and return to find your link had nearly loaded.

But if the Trib pointed directly to a source rather than posting it on Scribd, then you’d know it wasn’t really the Trib’s document, but just a public document …

Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:47 am
Rich said:

Taken to the logical extreme, legislators who spend so much time in Springfield some years might not qualify, especially if they also take a long out-of-district vacation.

Especially when the majority opinion only says that some number of nights away from Chicago is too many — but doesn’t give any guidance as to what that magic number of nights is.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:49 am
that Kasper argument on residency for the Springpatchers is totally silly and still does not address the point…..they could still come home “to their own bed” as Michelle Obama said just the other day. Maybe this is a sign that Rahm is not a true Chicagoan….he did not figure that municipal law would matter.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:54 am
This case is now the election, no question. Which is another reason it bugs me.

If it is overturned, expect a significant sympathy vote towards Rahm. Mayoral election over. I wouldn’t be surprised if he cracked 50% in the first round.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:54 am
Why the heck didn’t Burke run for mayor himself and eliminate all the alleged middle persons?

Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:56 am
From Rahm’s filing:
>two presidents, who under the court’s ruling could not return to Illinois and continue their public service as elected officials

Which of Lincoln, Obama and Grant does he not recognize? My guess is they forgot or excluded Grant. The accepted bio of Grant suggests that, while his ties to the state weren’t really that deep, that he did live in Galena prior to his presidency.

It’s silly anyway. Can you see Obama, for instance, returning to run for Mayor less than a year after his presidency? Or Grant heading back to seek a seat on the Galena city council?

Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:01 pm
Louis and Amalia, what page of the opinion backs up your reasoning? As far as I can tell, the dissent it right: the majority doesn’t care if the house is rented or not, it’s the number of nights you spent in the house in the last year, a number they did not provide.

Comment by Legalese Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:04 pm
ATTENTION: BAD SATIRE ALERT

Right now Emmanuel’s people are trying to organize a “flash mob” on Facebook to show up and show their support for him.

Unfortunately, the directions they gave were for “Ryan Field” in Evanston. Apparently they didn’t realize the city limits are just north of Howard Street.

On a more serious note the Bush V Gore analogy works best for me. Judges straining to find an outcome which suits their political needs and or beliefs.

Rahm as victim. Whooda thunkit?

I love the theater aspect of all this.

I picture Ed Burke sitting at the head of a table filled with election lawyers and judges stating something like “who will rid me of this turbulent candidate”.

Comment by IrishPirate Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:04 pm
@ SR:

I remember the $100,000.00 settlement figure was pitched by tenants as a counter-proposal, but I think Emanuel had made an offer of about $32,000.00 ($5,000.00 per month) to buy out the remainder of the lease. I think this roughly approximated the amount of monthly rent that the tenants would have had to pay for the remaining ten months, so what good was that offer?

The Halpins would have to pack up and move and find new housing with nothing extra to show for their inconvenience. If they had broken the lease in September, Emanuel could have sued them for the same amount.

The money offered was no more than what the family had budgeted for their housing for the next ten months. I can see many people rejecting such a proposal. If Emanuel was serious, he should have sweetened the deal instead of playing hardball and offending the couple.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:05 pm
if you rent the house, you can’t spend ANY nights there.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:08 pm
Look, it was a question of fact DECIDED by the Board of Elections that Emmanuel was a resident. The fact that he rented his house out was hashed out before them. They were satisfied that the reason he rented his home was that an occupied home would be less subject to break-ins and vandalism than if he left the home vacant. He did not have the luxury that the Obamas have in leaving their home vacant because the First Family’s Chicago residence (when was the last time he spent the night there?) is guarded 24/7. The fact that many condemen Emmanuel because did the prudent thing is troubling. Lampkin noted that the Board of Elections is the sole authority to find facts, and that should be that. Hoffman overstepped his bounds and he should be reversed.

Comment by phocion Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:11 pm
Supreme Court just said Emmanuel stays on the Ballot for now…

Comment by Just sayin Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:15 pm
http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/emanuel-court-illinois-appellate-ballot.html

He’s back according to Pallasch

Comment by Aaron Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:15 pm
Rich…Here’s a clue about the “legislative intent”…Legislators are MUCH more concerned about restricting potential candidates vs. allowing some individual to vote. I think it is altogether logical that the “reside in” meant live in to the legislator voting on election law. After all, they draw maps every 10 years with various potential candidate home locations on the maps used to draw legislative districts.

Comment by Louis Howe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:18 pm
===Why the heck didn’t Burke run for mayor himself and eliminate all the alleged middle persons?===

Because he knew he couldn’t win.

Comment by Thoughts... Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:18 pm
Aaron, before posting a link to an outside source, try to hit “refresh.” I posted the entire order long before the CS-T did.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:24 pm
if this sticks, does odelson become corp counsel, or just city’s go to defense attorney?

Comment by el supremo Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:26 pm
There are arguements on both sides but it clearly, at least too me, is a well reasoned arguement by the majority. Too accuse them of some dark conspracy seems unfair and unwarrented.

BTW, just for fun, I looked up the definition of reside. Here it is:

“to live permanently or for a considerable time (in a place); have one’s home (in)”

I’m not sure what the final outcome of this fiasco is but don’t disparage the judges for making a decision you don’t agree with.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:29 pm
Very bold move by some of these newspapers to attack the majority decision and the judges who drafted that opinion.

As a lawyer, I think the majority opinion was very well reasoned and reviewed the totality of the relevant laws. The dissenting opinion appeared to be based more on emotion than on facts - while there was supporting case law in the dissent, it does not appear to be squarely on point.

Having been involved in the process of judicial evaluations, I take them with a grain of salt, but here is what the Sun-Times said today: “Chicago’s bar associations have always rated Justice Hoffman as one of the most knowledgeable judges on the appellate court. He has published numerous books, and other judges often cite his opinions.”

Comment by Big D Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:32 pm
So Rahm is back on the ballot (either temporarily or permanently), and early voting begins Monday. Either way, voters are disenfranchised. If you vote for Rahm, and he’s later removed from the ballot, your vote is worthless. If you vote for a different candidate because you think Rahm will be removed, and Rahm stays on, you’re disenfranchised (if you planned to vote for Rahm).
Wouldn’t it be nice if Lang’s bill HB27 was the law of the land, and folks could register and vote at the polls on election day? Problem solved.

Comment by unspun Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:44 pm
clarification: Lang’s bill would only benefit those that newly registered.

Comment by unspun Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:47 pm
==Either way, voters are disenfranchised==

People who vote early always are taking a chance and always do it knowing that the electoral landscape could be quite different by actual election day. (a scandal, a candidate’s death or illness, a civic upheaval of some sort.) Probably smart voters will just wait to vote until this thing is resolved, rather than possibly “waste their vote”.

Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:57 pm
Somewhere in the weeds here was a comment that judges should be selected after recommendations from a panel. I’d venture a guess that most states that have this type of system (Florida comes to mind) leave it to the governor to select circuit court judges from a list of 4-5 judges sent to him by the panel. So, you want Rod Blagojevich or George Ryan selecting judges? “I’ve got this thing . . and it’s $%^*#@’ golden, and I ain’t giving it up for nothing.”

Comment by Kyle Orton's Neck Beard Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:23 pm
Several times in the last few days I’ve heard this reference to whether, under this decision, Obama could come back and run for Mayor. Putting aside the relevance of whether he rented his house and the specific statutory language, am I the only one who thinks the pro-dissent folks are hurting their cause with that analogy? Because no, as a matter of common sense, I do not want someone who’s been out of the city and state for several years parachuting in to run for Mayor, no matter who they are. I know that they’re trying to hitch their wagon to the state’s superstar, but every time they bring it up, I find their case less meritorious, not more.

Comment by Corduroy Bob Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:24 pm
Do you think it’s different when the selections are made by the party or by the Circuit Judges on the recommendation of certain politicans? A merit selection panel won’t eliminate all forms of politics. The advantage of a panel is that the bottom of the barrel will be eliminated. (And in Illinois, the bottom reaches far up the barrel.)

Also, by focusing the selection process on the appointing authority (whether it’s the Governor or Supreme Court, and whether or not the appointments require confirmation), it’s possible to shame the appointing authority into appointing judges from the top of the barrel. (Sadly, the top of the barrel in Illinois is pretty thin.)

If you look to states with appointed judges, the quality is, as a whole, far better than the Illinois judiciary. Especially in Cook County.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:29 pm
Anon, what do you base that on? Cook County appears to be the only county in the state where people complain about the selection process?

Comment by Kyle Orton's Neck Beard Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:39 pm
What’s interesting here is that it doesn’t even occur to most of the writers that the judges’ decisions on either sides of the issues are honest and based on the law.
This just shows how Illinois’ culture of corruption colors people’s outlook on their government, even the judicial branch.

Comment by Jim Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:51 pm
KON Beard - Cook County is one of the few places where judges have been convicted for fixing murder cases, as well as other cases. It’s one of the few places where judges best known as practicing lawyers for lending their name or their firm name (but not their efforts) on cases occasionally get to the Supreme Court. And Cook County still has judges who got their start on the bench when a reputed Pat Marcy/mob associate was chair of the associate judge screening panel.

But putting that aside, there are several other indicators of quality:

- Almost no judges in Cook County attended national law schools (with the exception of Northwestern). While fine lawyers and judges come from all law schools, there should be a significant percentage of top lawyers from Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Columbia, NYU, Cal, etc. Many graduates of those law school practice in Chicago. But they don’t get elected to the state bench.

- In many states, the finest federal judges are appointed after distinguished service on the state bench. With limited exceptions, the finest federal judges here have come from practice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or the academy, and not from the state bench.

- In many states, former federal prosecutors are routinely appointed state judges, because of their unique courtroom experience. Here, (with a few exceptions), we don’t want nobody who was a fed.

- It’s rare to see other states relying on Illinois law.

No selection process is perfect. But you don’t get the same level of complaints about quality in states with appointed judges. Or the same level of concerns about motivation.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:53 pm
Anon at 1:53, at one time, not long ago, the University of Chicago law school grads had the lowest percentage passing the bar on the first try of any law school in Chicago. And speaking about one fine judge at the federal bench in Chicago, Bill Hibbler, he started as a Cook County prosecutor and moved to the State bench. Your assessment of judges in Chicago is deficient in these two respects.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:17 pm
Judge Hibbler is a fine man and a good judge. But most federal practitioners would say he isn’t the first string. The judges who have been most respected in the District Court and the Seventh Circuit in Chicago over the past decades, with only a couple of exceptions, have not come from state court. And that’s true across the political spectrum. While federal court practitioners would give you different lists, examples could include Kocoras, St. Eve, Zagel, Moran, Coar, Williams, Castillo. The last top judges to come from the state courts to the Chicago bench were Bua and Aspen, over 30 years ago. And they were exceptions at the time.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 9:14 am