Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Is bankruptcy off the table?
Next Post: Setting the stage while dealing with the fallout
Posted in:
* 11:57 pm - From the Illinois Supreme Court…
“It is ordered that the emergency motion by petitioner Rahm Emanuel for stay pending appeal is allowed in part.
“The appellate court decision is stayed. The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering the case the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for the mayor of City of Chicago.
“That part of the motion requesting expedited consideration of the petition for leave to appeal remains pending.”
I posted Emanuel’s petition for stay yesterday, but click here to read it if you missed it the first time around.
…Adding… With a hat tip to a commenter…
Rahm Emanuel is narcissistic and flippant, according to the lawyers opposing the former White House chief of staff’s request for injunctive relief from the city’s plan to print ballots without his name on it.
“The petitioner narcissistically asks this court to value his non fundamental right to be a candidate for mayor over the fundamental voting rights of potentially thousands of voters,” writes attorney Burton Odelson in a brief opposing Emanuel’s effort to have the ballot’s include his name regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding his eligibility to be a candidate. […]
But Odelson argues the actual effect could lead to disenfranchisement should Emanuel ultimately be deemed ineligible because many voters may not be aware of the court ruling and vote for the former Obama aide anyway.
“The petitioners flippant attitude to the disenfranchisement of potentially thousands of voters is disingenuous,” wrote Odelson.
The full Odelson response in all its glory is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 11:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Is bankruptcy off the table?
Next Post: Setting the stage while dealing with the fallout
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Thank goodness.
Comment by David Aubrey Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:03 pm
The right result. If the choices are, “Have his name on the ballot and have to tell people not to vote for him because he’s ineligible” and “Not have his name on the ballot but have to tell people that he is eligible,” the former is clearly preferable.
Comment by A.J. Feeley's Clipboard Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:04 pm
Wise decision … who hasn’t had a candidate cross off a ballot when voting. It’s easier to remove via white-out, then print all new ballots.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:05 pm
I am shocked… Shocked to find that gambling is going on here.
Comment by The Dark Horse Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:07 pm
wow. so who pays for the ballots already printed (and, apparently, to be discarded)? any chance that we can get the loser of the suit to pay for the damage caused to the mechanical process of holding elections? elections’ boards are already under-resourced, and i seriously doubt chicago’s boe can afford this miscue…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:07 pm
so the printing continues, but when is the voting to start? cause with his name on there, if the case does not go his way, those who voted for him have thrown away their vote if they vote in the period in which his name is still eligible. will early voting be held up until the SC decides?
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:11 pm
==wow. so who pays for the ballots already printed==
I was wondering if they would have gone forward with printing had the Appeal gone to Rahm. The elections folks waited until yesterday, they could have waited until the end of the day today and asked the Supreme Court for a quick response on how to proceed.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:11 pm
I would expect arguments tomorrow and a ruling by Monday. They can work fast if they need to.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:12 pm
This is all just a big conspiracy. Rahm Emmanuel and Ed Burke are co-owners of a printing company.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:13 pm
With this single simple statement, we are now guaranteed more post-election lawsuits. Could not an expedited review of the situation be performed in the next 24-48 hours and resolve this issue once and for all? Aren’t these people salaried? Get ‘er done!
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:15 pm
The Royal Coronation may proceed regardless of any laws violated.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:15 pm
===This is all just a big conspiracy. Rahm Emmanuel and Ed Burke are co-owners of a printing company.
====
Shhh!!!! “No one asked you ’bout dat, don’t worry ’bout ‘wat’ dey own, got it? ….”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:18 pm
This order seems fair and just. It maintains the status quo for the time being while the Court considers the petition for leave to appeal.
Apart from absentee ballots, I am not sure how many printed ballot booklets are actually in use right now. Chicago has committed significant resources to electronic touch screen voting devices in its polling places.
Comment by Honest Abe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:18 pm
===we are now guaranteed more post-election lawsuits.===
How so? Who would be the plaintiff(s) and on what grounds are we guaranteed to see legal action?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:19 pm
===we are now guaranteed more post-election lawsuits.===
How so? Who would be the plaintiff(s) and on what grounds are we guaranteed to see legal action?
VM, which laws are being violated?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:22 pm
In a bid to one-up Appellate Justice Hoffman, the Illinois Supreme Court announced today that they are selecting Gery Chico as mayor of Chicago by judicial fiat.
“No one second guesses the Supreme Court. That’s why we have that name, you know, because we’re Supreme.”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:27 pm
Langon Neal said after the ruling yesterday that they were going to start printing first thing this morning, so i vote we hang the bill on him.
Comment by Thoughts... Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:28 pm
Where will the revolving door stop spinning?
Comment by vole Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:34 pm
Before either side starts reading too much into this, I don’t think the stay means much, other than it is a lot easier and less expensive to white out a name on ballots than it is to print new ones. There are two steps left. One is acceptance of the case and the other is the ruling. I’d be surprised if they didn’t take the case. As far as the ruling, I have absolutely no idea.
Comment by centrist Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:35 pm
Voting rights violations, no matter the outcome. Plaintiffs can be either voters or opponent candidates. Rahm will have a federal case if denied if he chooses to pursue it.
Anything that delays the ability of the voters to cast the early ballots on Monday triggers a suit, especially if the ballot does not reflect the final outcome of the case. Luckily, there are only about 50 early voting locations in the city, which minimizes the logistics of getting properly marked ballots to the polls. Also, I would think that not all of the anticipated number of ballots need to be delivered at one time.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:37 pm
Apropos of nothing in particular, but the judicial system never ceases to amaze me. In school, they taught you that every case would be considered the same, with due process for all. But I’m always chagrinned to see how little time it takes powerful political folks and corporations to get their cases heard on an emergency basis, versus any unknown and unmonied person of no influence.
As far as Rham, the rapidly closing window of the election forces the issue. I think the supes are going to let him in. I wonder if Rahm should offer to cover the ballot reprint costs, he can sure afford it, but does it look good on him or not?
Comment by Gregor Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:42 pm
If they were certain not to take the case, there is no reason to enter the stay. Anyone see Carol Marin on MSNBC this am, she made it sound like every Judge owed their position to Ald Burke.
Comment by truthteller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:44 pm
===Rahm will have a federal case if denied if he chooses to pursue it.===
He may file, but as a nonlawyer, I don’t see that he has much of a federal case. And yes, anybody can sue anyone for almost anything. I just don’t follow your logic that the Court’s stay order necessarily triggers any other action. Why don’t we wait and see how it all plays out before claiming the result will be more turmoil?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:49 pm
=If they were certain not to take the case, there is no reason to enter the stay. Anyone see Carol Marin on MSNBC this am, she made it sound like every Judge owed their position to Ald Burke.=
Silly Carol Marin. Only half the judges are owned by Burke. The other half are owned by Madigan.
Comment by Chicago Dem Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:49 pm
“Silly Carol Marin. Only half the judges are owned by Burke. The other half are owned by Madigan.”
I thought 10% were still owned by Fast Eddie.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:51 pm
Gregor, lots of election law cases are heard like this for lots of people that aren’t in control or hugely powerful. Rauschenberger’s case last year is a case in point.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:54 pm
The funny part was the objectors’ reply to Rahm’s petition, filed today. in which they called Rahm “selfish” and “narcissistic”.
Comment by Rarely posts Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:56 pm
>“Silly Carol Marin. Only half the judges are owned by Burke. The other half are owned by Madigan.”
>I thought 10% were still owned by Fast Eddie.
In a partnership, even a contentious one, all the assets are jointly owned by all partners.
Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 12:59 pm
47th,
My point really is that no matter the outcome, there is enough ambiguity that someone will claim to be an aggrieved party and start another lawsuit. I am making more of a condemnation of our litigious society, unintended consequences, and their costs, more than I am saying anything about the merits of this particular case.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:10 pm
Like Rarely posts said, the respondent’s brief is pretty rich. Available here:
http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/SpecialMatters/2011/012511__Response_In_Opposition.pdf
Especially great:
“1. The petitioner in his motion for stay pending appeal (”Motion”) selfishly moves this Court to disenfranchise potentially thousands of voters within the City of Chicago merely so the petitioner can continue to cling to his false and unlawful candidacy for Mayor of the City of Chicago.”
“7. In this case, the petitioner narcissistically asks this Court to value his non-fundamental right to be a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago over the fundamental voting rights of potentially thousands of voters. This issue is in and of itself determinative of Petitioner’s Motion for Stay.”
Comment by 60657 Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:10 pm
Everyone is reading too much into this stay. It is very limited. They have not ordered the Board of Elections to place Rahm back on the ballot as an official candidate. They are only instructing the Board to place his name on ballots if they are being printed. They haven’t even decided to hear the case. Don’t jump to conclusions and Rahm has no Federal recourse in this case. There isnt a federal constitutional issue at stake.
Comment by deminsider Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:15 pm
as one of my friends just said
i’d pay good money for a press release from rahm that simply says “i know you are but what am i?”
Comment by I'm Just Saying Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:18 pm
Narcissistic? Flippant? Harsh words from one of the guys who worked so hard for George W. Bush to win Bush v. Gore. And if you want to talk about disenfranchising voters….
Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:21 pm
Effectively and publicly dissing the 40 some % of voters who hope Rahm prevails is not the smartest move by Odelson, his backers, and his crew. Calling the petitioner narcissistic and flippant is not likely to persuade the high court on anything salient, while looking sleazy and unprofessional to the layperson. This kind of stuff is textbook on why neither lawyers or politicians are held in particularly high regard these days.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:22 pm
If The Supremes uphold The Appellate Court, Daley could always announce his intention to be a write in.
Comment by Black Swan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:24 pm
Interestingly, the stay order does not require that ballots printed yesterday can’t be used at this point. It only addressed those printed “while the court is considering this case[.]” Until there is a final decision by the Supremes, it appears that Rahm’s name might appear on some ballots and not on others.
Comment by Draznnl Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:25 pm
We have a new order… https://capitolfax.com/2011/01/25/this-just-in-supremes-allow-leave-for-appeal/
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:26 pm
I’m a bit confused. Is the fix in to keep Rahm ON the ballot or OFF the ballot?
Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:26 pm
- Deep South - Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:26 pm:
“I’m a bit confused. Is the fix in to keep Rahm ON the ballot or OFF the ballot?”
Yes.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:39 pm
Odelson/Jaconetty filing is flippant all by itself.
you can sure tell that these election lawyers don’t get enough time in the spotlight and put the pedal to the metal in the rare occasions that they are on stage. where’s Marty “two U.S. Senate votes on the ballot” Oberman to comment?
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:03 pm
IF the Supremes go for this intention residency test how will the decision be applied to aldermanic elections in the future?
Comment by chimack Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:15 pm
==I’m a bit confused. Is the fix in to keep Rahm ON the ballot or OFF the ballot? ==
The problem you see is a disagreement between the fixers.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:20 pm
@soccermom—Right you are! Though, having had first-hand experience with Burt at the BOE, I think his word choices are more ironic, even humorous, than they are harsh
))
Comment by Indeedy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:04 pm
Sometimes, I think that if Emanuel’s parents had bothered to call him selfish, flippant and narcissistic a few times during the course of his childhood and adolescence, he might be a better man today. What part of “no” don’t you understand son?
Comment by Abandon Ship Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:07 pm
Of course, if the Supremes ultimately decide to keep Rahm ON the ballot, and voters accidentally vote on Rahm-less ballots, and can’t get their votes back, they’re being disenfranchised as well.
The posturing on all sides of this case is extreme.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:21 pm
–Narcissistic and flippant–
He says that like those are negative things. He should have added “elitist.” Anyone who wants to be mayor of Chicago, of course, should be all of those, rather than a delicate flower that closes up at the first sign of frost.
I don’t have a horse in this race, and I’m not a Chicago voter, but this is nothing compared to when Burke, Mell, Ronan and the Shaw Brothers joined forces to back Sawyer over Evans after Harold died, cutting the deal in the back of Mell’s Caddy in the rain at the parking lot of the Blue Angel on the Northwest Side.
Afterwards, Burke (there’s that man, again) was quoted that one of his greatest accomplishments was dividing and conquering the Washington Coalition. Which he certainly did.
Emanuel is a lot nastier, smarter, wired and funded than Eugene Sawyer. All those qualities would make him a better mayor of a very, very tough town.
The fact that The Supremes are jumping leads me to believe it will go his way. But, then again, I picked the Bears over Green Bay.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:38 pm
===Sometimes, I think that if Emanuel’s parents had bothered to call him selfish, flippant and narcissistic a few times during the course of his childhood and adolescence, he might be a better man today. What part of “no” don’t you understand son?===
Maybe they did. From the bits I’ve gleaned from various interviews, he didn’t seem to have an overly privileged childhood. I mean, he lost his finger working at an Arby’s. The “won’t take no for an answer” attitude more likely came from growing up in a highly competitive household.
Comment by SR Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 5:06 pm
@SR,
New Trier Township is not exactly an impoverished community.
Comment by Abandon Ship Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:09 pm
I’m well aware of that, but well off does not automatically equate to spoiled rotten. If you want some insight into how he was raised, the Charlie Rose interview with the three Emanuel brothers is probably the most informative.
Comment by SR Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 8:43 am
People like him are part of the problem with politics in this country, not part of the solution. Send him his walking papers from public life. Don’t worry though! He’ll be able to get a job with his brother in an industry where weasels are still appreciated and indeed being a member of the family Mustelidae is a job requirement: as an A&R guy in the recording industry.
Comment by events productions washington dc Friday, Jan 28, 11 @ 8:51 am