Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Outdated and wrong numbers, but what else is new?
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* I’m almost speechless…
There was one fellow who would have defeated Daley in a one-on-one race, reform Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd. Waguespack terrified City Hall by actually speaking up against the cost of corruption. He began criticizing that terrible parking meter deal. He promised that if elected mayor, he’d hire IRS agents to conduct forensic audits of every department going back 20 years.
Almost immediately, Daley stepped down. Then the usual suspects — those who’d never dare challenge the mayor — crawled out of the bush and made like change agents. In such a crowded field, poor Waguespack was forced to withdraw.
OK, if Waguespack was such a great candidate, wouldn’t he have stood out in this big crowd? After all, he had an enormous campaign bank account balance of $33,260.63 at the end of last year. Surely, those billions would’ve allowed him to stomp Daley as well as dominate the big field.
Also, do you have any idea how long a 20-year forensic audit would take? Probably 20 years [/snark]. Daley’s cronies would’ve all passed away to that great patronage hiring hall in the sky by then.
* Let us now turn to analysis based on something resembling the real world…
The [appellate] court concluded that the words “resided in” in one election law mean something entirely different from the same words in a second election law. It did so even though neither the second law nor the Illinois Supreme Court has defined them differently.
The Supreme Court has for decades defined “residency”… to mean the place where you intend to make your permanent abode. If you leave your home for a temporary work assignment intending to return to your home, your residency does not change. The court has not interpreted the word to mean where you “live” or sleep each night. Emanuel obviously lived in Washington while serving as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, but clearly he intended to return to his Chicago home. […]
Two Appellate Court judges agreed that Emanuel is a “resident” of Chicago under this definition, as he had not abandoned his permanent home and intended to return to it. The court therefore held — under the first law — that he can vote in the mayoral election.
But when the court returned to the very same words in the second law (a related law regarding candidates), it decided that “resided in” could mean something different because the laws were separate. And it decided that in this second law, the Legislature had used the word “reside” to mean two different things within the same sentence — and that one of those meanings equated “reside” with “live.” [Emphasis added.]
That appellate ruling is a total mess. Subscribers know more, but that was a pretty good look by David Hoffman.
* More on the case from the AP…
Experts say a court never has ignored a candidate’s intent.
“We’ve all been working under this absolute presumption based on cases of the last 50 years that intent was really the key,” Dorf said. “But the appellate court got rid of intent.”
Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University who heads the school’s election law program, said the court’s decision to disregard intent was striking.
“There is a general theme in election law that when in doubt, you err on the side of democracy,” he said. “If there is any doubt about the understanding of the statute, you interpret it so that you let the voters decide.”
*** UPDATE *** From an op-ed written by Jim Thompson, Ty Fahner, Jim Ryan and Dan Webb…
Adlai Stevenson II was absent from Illinois for much of 1945-48, while serving as an American delegate to the United Nations in London and New York. Then, in 1948, he was elected governor — despite the Illinois Constitution’s requirement that a candidate for governor must have been “a resident of this State for the three years preceding his election.”
* Related…
* Will Emanuel ruling escape political taint?: Joseph Tybor, spokesman for the Supreme Court, said it would be unfair to imply the high court is tainted by politics simply because the constitution requires they be elected. “I challenge you to find one case, or two cases, in which a judicial decision was made because of improper political influence,” he said.
* Chico Says He’ll Hire 2,000 More Police Officers
* Quigley to Endorse Emanuel for Mayor
* Braun Looks Out of State For Campaign Cash
* Patricia Van Pelt Watkins’ Gritty and Inspiring Life Story: I think [Carol Moseley Braun has been] missing in action. I didn’t even know she still lived in Chicago. All the challenges we face in this city, and we haven’t heard anything from her.
* Biggest donor in mayor’s race explains the gift
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Outdated and wrong numbers, but what else is new?
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m beginning to think that that eye infection he wrote about on Sunday may have bored it’s way into Kass’s brain………
Comment by I'm Just Saying Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:57 am
Good post in the Ward Room:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Rahm-n-Eddie-Feuding-Already-114718569.html
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 11:59 am
Interesting. I didn’t know Ms. Watkins is also a Reverend: http://www.unitedcongress.org/people3
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:05 pm
I love the Illinois Supreme Court spokesman’s challenge: “I challenge you to find one case, or two cases, in which a judicial decision was made because of improper political influence,” he said. He’s not exactly sure there hasn’t been one, so he’s demanding TWO examples!
Comment by Chicago Dem Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:05 pm
When justices come pre-owned, how do you define “improper political influence?”
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:06 pm
KAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
This guy just doesn’t get it. He must sell papers, because I haven’t seen an intelligent column from the guy in years.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:08 pm
look, everyone complains about a judge when there is a ruling. judge, justice, election case, whatever case, if it does not go the way they want complaints and accusations come. What complaints did we hear from the media about Judge Ballard? just cause, you know, we seem to be keeping score and on that one they seemed silent. odd.
Comment by amalia Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:10 pm
Quigley endorses Rahm. There’s a big shocker. He wants Rahm as far away as possible from his 5th CD job.
Comment by BSP II Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:10 pm
Does Daley know he stepped down because of Waguespack?
Someone should probably let him know.
He’d be: “Scott who?”
Comment by Jo Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:13 pm
Waguespack would have beaten Daley?!???
In this Kassian Festivus world if a charisma challenge were held after the “airing of the grievances” Wags would come in a distant loser to Dan Hynes.
I like Alderman Wags, but the idea that he would have defeated Daley is silly, silly, silly.
Comment by IrishPirate Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:14 pm
Kass got one thing right, “poor Waguespack” indeed.
Comment by The Captain Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:19 pm
Ok - Apparently the Cinkus decision issued by the IL Supreme Court that overturned intent to pay a fine has gone unnoticed in the debate regarding intent.
This case clearly got rid of ‘intent’ when candidates file their SOC’s…I am not a lawyer however I would think this is applicable as it speaks to intent as well.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-supreme-court/1005724.html
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:24 pm
Board rules that Jon Burge can keep his pension. What an utter joke.
Comment by aaronsinger Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:27 pm
Kass is losing it. I wish he would stop trying to practice law without a license. He’s giving me a headache
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:28 pm
The Election Code, under the section entitled “Qualification of VOTERS”, says “any person who has resided in this state and in the election district for 30 days next preceeding the election therein” is entitled to register to vote in that jurisdiction.
Sec. 3-1
3-2 (a) of the SAME section (relating to VOTERS) says: ” A PERMANENT ABODE is necessary to constitute a residence within the meaning of Sec. 3-1″ and then goes on to provide the “business of the United States” exception which was originally written during the middle of WWII for people serving in the military, and has never been held to apply to anyone who happens to take a civilian job with the federal government. (Caps supplied)
The Municipal Code says that the candidate must be (1) a qualified Elector (ie. registered voter) AND “has resided in the municipality for at least one year prior to the election”. 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5 (a).
The appellate court might have been better off focusing on the “permanent abode” requirement and then tackling the “business of the United States” as it pertains to civilian employees. Based on Emmanuel’s interpretation, everyone who works as a congressional aide, or takes a job with the Post Office for that matter, regardless of for how long (ie. 20 years), retains their right to vote, and become a candidate for election, in their original home town, so long as they don’t change their voter registration. I don’t think that was the intention.
Comment by McHenry Mike Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:29 pm
Kass is wrong about the alderman. Probably would admit it if he thought about it. But he’s been consistently right about the slap heap that is Illinois government. Don’t understand why people on this board have such a problem with him being right about the combine.
Re Tybor, how about the apportionment ruling that always are split on political lines? Is that a coincidence?
Comment by Jim Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:34 pm
McHenry Mike…
So if I have a job that requires me to spend most of my days and nights in another location (for example I travel as a consultant) so I am only at my residence two nights a week (Friday and Saturday) is it still my abode?
What if I take a 6 months assignment to England and rent my place out to my brother. Is the time a factor, how much of my stuff I leave in the house?
How many days can I be away in the previous 6 months to lose my ‘abode’?
I think that is in part why the courts have used the intent idea.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:36 pm
Rich - No one is recognizing the david v. goliath fight here. While Rahm has superb counsel with the Fordes, Rahm’s sole election lawyer is Kasper. Kasper is going up against 3 well regarded election lawyers, Odelson, Nalley and Jaconetty, i.e. the Goliath.
Comment by Northside Blogger Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:41 pm
Scott is in the process of losing his re-election bid for alderman. If he ran for mayor he’d be right behind Doc Walls in the polls. $32K????? He probably lent that to himself.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:42 pm
OneMan, you nailed it on the head. And as the dissenting justice wrote, the majority has established an “actual living in” rule that it cannot explain. How many nights must someone sleep in her own bed through the year to qualify to run for municipal office? It’s just goofy.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:45 pm
Didn’t Gov. Quinn establish a standard with what was in his fridge and where his underwear lay?
Comment by hammer Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:49 pm
Is it just me or does it seem Rich is getting more apoplectic than usual.
It feels like Olbermann has been re-incarnated on this blog lately.
Comment by Barton Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:49 pm
Does David H. have a hose in the race? Has the definition given to intent included some tangible proof, or only the thought? Has the tangible proof (if any) included having an abode where the candidate could have stayed at any time? If yes, all the stuff about how many times the candidate needs to stay at the abode would be nonsense.
Comment by Just Asking Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:55 pm
==Is it just me or does it seem Rich is getting more apoplectic than usual.==
It depends on what the definition of apoplectic is.
Actually, He is turning into quite the Rahm fan. Maybe his future is in city hall.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:55 pm
=Rahm’s sole election lawyer is Kasper.=
This is completely inaccurate. Kasper didn’t even make the oral argument at the appellate level. Rahm has a team of lawyers. Just look at any of the briefs filed.
However, I’m sure Mr. Kasper would like being referred to as David instead of Goliath for once.
Comment by chi Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:56 pm
JA, it’s always been a mix of tangibles and intent. You can’t just say you wanna live somewhere, there has to be some sort of proof along with intent.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:56 pm
Barton, bite me. It’s not my problem that you view factual matters as ideology. It says more about you than me.
Bill, do the same.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:57 pm
- Bill - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:42 pm:
Scott is in the process of losing his re-election bid for alderman. If he ran for mayor he’d be right behind Doc Walls in the polls. $32K????? He probably lent that to himself.
Wags has the single best election sign of the campaign. “Wags Voted Against the Parking Meter Deal”.
He will be reelected easily and likely without a runoff.
Comment by IrishPirate Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:01 pm
It’s probably a meaningless verbal slip, but I do love “one case … two cases” - as if he thought to himself, “wait, there was that case back in ‘05. I better ask them to show me two cases.”
For the record, I don’t think that’s what happened. I just think the quote is funny for lending itself to that interpretation.
Comment by irv & ashland Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:01 pm
Kass gets many details wrong, repeats the ones he gets right ad nauseam, and yet in broad strokes explains the system in a way that is fairly accurate, catching things that the reporting herd doesn’t, or doesn’t bother to write about. Many columnists don’t achieve what he does. There are others who do. But if I had to give someone 5 columns that explain Chicago politics in the first decade of the millennium, Kass would have written 1 and maybe 2. Rich would have written 1 or 2, but your focus is so often on illuminating details that it’d be tough to pick one or two that were sufficient to explain the workings you illuminate. Carol M. one. Who else? Zorn? Mary Mitchell? I like Mark Brown but it’d take him a month of columns to achieve the clarity you get from Kass.
Maybe it’s an unfair exercise - you can’t really understand enough by reading 5 columns. You do have to read the papers day in/day out. But I think Kass gets more grief than he deserves.
Comment by irv & ashland Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:07 pm
” … better off focusing on the “permanent abode” requirement … ”
If that was the deciding factor and he didn’t have a ‘permanent abode’ wouldn’t he then have voted illegally? I don’t recall anybody accusing him of such.
Comment by MikeMacD Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:11 pm
Best sign of campaign: “Wags endorsed Scott Lee Cohen”.
Comment by Just a Thought Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:13 pm
- hammer - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 12:49 pm:
Didn’t Gov. Quinn establish a standard with what was in his fridge and where his underwear lay?
Interesting. According to the majority opinion, it appears that Quinn is neither a resident of Springfield or of Chicago. Or is he a resident of both? The Appellate Court just wants candidates to keep guessing. Keeps the election lawyers in clover, I guess. The more I look at this, the more I’m convinced that Justice Hoffman has penned one of the most ludicrous election law opinions of all time.
Comment by phocion Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:14 pm
I’m not a legal expert and don’t really care who the Mayor of Chicago is. I think Rahm is awful, but many of the alternatives make him appear to be a statesman.
That being said, it is very unappealing to see the overkill and attacks being directed at those who dare question Rahm’s eligibility to run. The attacks on Justice Burke, in particular, are disgusting, and the intemperate screeds by the city’s editorial boards are mystifying. It’s too bad some of these voices — particularly on the part of former statewide elected officials — all too often have been silent during the decay of Illinois.
All these histrionics on behalf of Rahm unfortunately give credence to that ridiculous John Kass’ charges of an Illinois Combine.
Comment by LincolnLounger Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:17 pm
==Kass gets many details wrong, repeats the ones he gets right ad nauseam, and yet in broad strokes explains the system in a way that is fairly accurate, catching things that the reporting herd doesn’t, or doesn’t bother to write about.==
He’s the Jay Mariotti of political writers. I read just what Rich quoted here and could tell who it was.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:22 pm
And what if a lifelong Chicagoan is elected Governor and spends most of his or her time in the Executive Mansion? It would be silly for that person to no longer be considered a Chicago resident.
I think the most amusing outcome would be if the IL Supreme Court issued this very short opinion ASAP:
“In regard to candidate “residency” and “intent,” the Appellate Court decision is hereby overturned, because none of us knows anyone who would actually WANT to live in Washington, D.C. permanently. The mere idea is ridiculous on its face. Duh!”
Comment by Statewide Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:24 pm
I thought the Waguespack blurb in the column was just sarcasm, not a literal endorsement. At least, from the other “answers” in the column, that is the impression I cam away with. I don’t read Kass’s columns too much, so maybe those with more of a burr under their Jack Kasses see the answer as literal. Seems silly to me to even post the blurb in the first place.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:25 pm
Dear Jim, Ty, and other combine members: did Adlai come back and sleep at the farm during any of those years? Cause Barack comes back to sleep in Hyde Park so no one is questioning him about anything.
Comment by amalia Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:25 pm
Courts make seemingly silly distinctions every day. Here, the Appellate Court distinguished between “resident of” and “reside in”. Using logic you will find in thousands of court opinions, if the legislature had wanted to say the same thing in both statutes, it would have used the same language. That it used similar language shows that similar but nut not identical meanings are intended.
Not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling here, just saying that it isn’t as absurd as some would argue.
Comment by Draznnl Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:25 pm
Simply put, Kass just isn’t a very good columnist. From the moment he got the spot, he intentionally set out to be the second coming of Mike Royko - complete with made up characters like Slats Grobnik. Even when he’s agreed with me, I’ve found it hard to take him seriously.
I personally like Scott Waguespak and very much respect his independence. But politically and in his constituent service, he’s more than a bit tone deaf. I hope he’ll hold on to win, but beat Mayor Daley? You’ve got to be joking.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:29 pm
@Anonymous:
Reread the Cinkus decision, it stands for the principle “in pari materia” - the court did not disavow intent! This is why Cinkus was not allowed to run - it’s precisely what the appeals court got wrong.
Comment by GetOverIt Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:35 pm
Meaning the appeals court did not apply the principle.
Comment by GetOverIt Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:37 pm
I’ll wear Kass’s label like a badge of honor.
What if Adlai Stevenson could not afford to keep the home he owned empty and rent a home while hew was on business of the United States?
Comment by SR Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 1:37 pm
I agree with amilia @1:25. I would bet the farm that Adlai didnt rent out the farm and he came back to sleep there.
But I disagree with Statewide @1:24.===It would be silly for that person to no longer be considered a Chicago resident.===
If the governor gives up his home in Chicago by either moving out and renting or selling, and his abode is the mansion, then I would argue that he doesn’t reside in Chicago and couldn’t run for mayor. Have a permanent abode to hang your hat and you can run.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:01 pm
All these ‘great legal minds’ miss the whole point. Adlai Stevenson maintained his Libertyville home as his residence throughout his UN service. Emmanuel had no such Illinois residence - he rented his house out. Statute has two requirements: must be a qualified elector (i.e - voter) AND have resided in the municipality. Thus these two requirements are different.’ Elector’ requirement includes intent; ‘resides in’ requirement does not. That’s what the court said, and it is more logical than the dissent. And Mssrs. Hoffman, Webb,etc. are not election law experts. But this being Illinois, I’m sure that big money and clout will prevail and Emmanuel will be put bcak on the ballot.
Comment by formerpolitico Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:03 pm
From day one this has been just a little too slick and slickly orchestrated for my tastes. First Rahm and all of his slickery and now all of this slick trickery nonsense in response to the Appellate Court ruling this week.
I mean, just look at all of these friend of the court briefs masquerading as sweet ‘n’ innocent little newspaper guest editorials. I’m gonna guess that Stevenson could put his key in the door to his home that he had been away from, and open the door and freely enter unannounced and unexpected. The same was (lol…and is still) not true in Rahm’s case. Thereinlies the key (no pun intended) difference.
I hope and pray that the IL Supreme Court follows the rule of law and doesn’t give in to the media and all of the other nonsense. But, this is Illinois and I have a funny feeling that this will all go in Rahm’s favor.
Given the obvious attempts here to continue arguing via these slick guest editorials, despite the IL Supreme Court setting the parameters by which they will decide the case, does the IL Supreme Court have any recourse at the this point? Can the IL Supreme Court regard these obvious attempts to influence it and dismiss the case letting the Appellate Court ruling stand?
Rahm’s candidacy reminds me a lot of the gubernatorial election in California to replace Grey Davis. Arnold Schwarzenegger with his mucho- macho- tough -man- take -no- prisoner persona was hyped up by the press, and the public being totally gullible fell for it all. The people didn’t want substance, because all that glittered was all that mattered. So here we have Rahm. Nevermind the fact that his resume and record of accomplishment are light considering the job he is seeking, and there is a far more qualifed candidate in the race with actual experience suited for the mayor’s office: Gery Chico. Like the people of California, I hope the people of Chicago get just what they got coming.
Comment by The Celery Stalks at Midnight Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:05 pm
===I hope and pray that the IL Supreme Court follows the rule of law and doesn’t give in to the media and all of the other nonsense.===
And, of course, you know exactly what the law says and truly means, right?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:12 pm
formerpolitico, look up Smith v. Illinois. Smith rented out his house.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:14 pm
If you look at page 15 of the appellate decision, they are unsure emanuel even meets the voter residency requirement (the alleged traditional test), but determine its immaterial because the “business of united states” exception applies.
Comment by publius Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:15 pm
One Man,
The difference is that you had a place to return to at any time that was not transient, like a hotel. That is a “permanent abode.”. Emanuel did not have one- he rented it out.
Hoffman is wrong, by the way.
Comment by 42nd Ward Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:20 pm
Consider the source? One of Dorf’s clients was the late great Congressman Sid Yates who seldom if ever returned to Illinois in the latter years of his life. Yates did keep a residence and so did former Governor Adlai Stevenson.
A person’s “intent” is important. You do not have to reside in your hometown 365 days and nights per year to maintain residency, but you do need a home to return to at some point. This is where Rahm screwed himself by renting his house out and not establishing a new residence within the city limits.
Let’s tell the truth, before Daley announced his retirement, Emanuel’s agents actually extended the Halpin’s lease until the Summer of 2011. That is an inconvenient fact that cuts against Rahm’s current protestations that he was a resident of Chicago throughout 2010. Yes, the appellate court decision did not spell it out in great detail, but that was a HUGE argument for the objectors. If Rahm had hired an employee to maintain his house during his absence or rented a room at the YMCA, his eligibility would not have been jeopardized.
Rahm Emanuel did not live with his tenants. If Daley had announced his retirement on February 22, 2010, Rahm would have had the same problem, he had nowhere to live at. On his few trips to Chicago, he had been staying at hotels. Over the holidays, he did not even stay in the city or have his family come to Chicago. They spent their time out of town.
Comment by Honest Abe Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:21 pm
Smith was an appointed judge in 1869, not a candidate under the Municipal Code. As the Appellate Court has correctly pointed out, Illinois law has changed since then, differentiating between “domicile” and “residency”.
Comment by 42nd Ward Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:27 pm
Sure, I do.
I saw his tax records that he later slickly amended.
The Chicago house that Rahm merely owned was not the house that he resided in or lived in a year prior to running in the mayoral election. He is as Odelson et al. have proven ineligible!
One can own a residential property without living in or residing in it.
Comment by The Celery Stalks at Midnight Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:29 pm
One has to wonder if the public pressure on the Supreme Court from the media and politicos could backfire.
Comment by 42nd Ward Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:32 pm
1. According to some interpretations floated in comments, homeless people have no “permanent abode” — can they run for Mayor?
2. How large of a piece of property must one continue to rent in Chicago in order to preserve residency? Must the property be fit for habitation or have a dwelling built on it? What if I rent office space?
3. I have a written agreement with a good friend that whenever I am back in Chicago, I can crash at his place. He’s even given me a key. Does this arrangement preserve my residency? Can I run for Mayor?
4. I am an astronaut. Every 90 minutes, my space station passes directly over Illinois. After my two-year stint in space is over, can I run for Mayor?
Comment by lincoln's beard Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:34 pm
===As the Appellate Court has correctly pointed out, Illinois law has changed since then, differentiating between “domicile” and “residency”. ===
Not true.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:37 pm
@The Celery Stalks at Midnight:
Agreed. But if you own a home and it has a mortgage, you must indicate whether its your principle place of residence or an investment.
Comment by GetOverIt Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 2:41 pm
Lincoln’s Beard:
(1) Only if he has a cardboard box.
(2) Large enough for a cot, unless you sleep standing up or in a fetal position. “Abode” implies a roof of some sort so an empty lot would not work. Offices are not zoned residential, so no there.
(3) If you and your brother are co-owners or co-tenants on the lease, yes. Otherwise, not.
(4) Only if you are “serving the United States”. If you are an astronaut, you may be in military service so you could run. If you were a civilian, maybe not, assuming you gave up your pad before launching from one.
Comment by McHenry Mike Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:03 pm
The bottom line is there is enough fodder on either side of the argument for a Justice to make a reasonable argument. I think that means this becomes purely political.
Another words-phone a friend.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:09 pm
Wow, thanks dude! I haven’t gotten a bite me in years.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:15 pm
–Kass gets many details wrong, repeats the ones he gets right ad nauseam, and yet in broad strokes explains the system in a way that is fairly accurate, catching things that the reporting herd doesn’t, or doesn’t bother to write about.–
The only thing Kass has ever wrote that was interesting was when one of The Two Eddies was dictating juicy inside stuff on their enemies and Kass was typing.
Didn’t you ever wonder why you’ve never seen a negative column on Vrdolyak or Burke?
When he tries to come up with something on his own, it’s weird, stupid, silly, incoherent or all of the above (hence, the Ald. Scott Waugesomething column).
How the heck did that get by an editor? Or there editors at the Trib any longer.
As a writer, Kass is a great typist. Rokyo was syndicated all over the country. What’s Kass’ syndication deal? He’s had Page Two of the Trib for years and no other paper will pick him up for chi-chi beans.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:21 pm
is it over yet? don’t we have to get to reports of what Rahm will wear to the coronation?
Comment by amalia Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:26 pm
Under Illinois law one can have many “residences”, but only one “domicile.” The two terma have different definitions.
Comment by 42nd Ward Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:35 pm
===Under Illinois law===
You got a statute citation?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:45 pm
Another point being lately overlooked is that the Municipal Code provision has a specific exemption for the military, but no such exemption for other “business of the United States.” The latter proven is only in the Election Code. The specific inclusion of one group in the exemption is interpreted to mean that the Legislature intended to exclude all others.
I bet we will find that when Adlai Stevenson spent all that time in New York and London on government business, his home in Libertyville was ready and waiting for him.
Comment by 42nd Ward Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:46 pm
The Illinois Supreme Court case of Pope v. Board of Election Com’rs, 370 Ill. 196, 18 N.E.2d 214, speaks of being “lodged” at the residence and states: “Residence, for the purpose of registration and voting, means more than a mere technical domicile”. Domicile is intent based.
Comment by 42nd Ward Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:55 pm
Foretti claims it was his candidacy for Mayor, not Scott’s, that caused daley’s decision not to run.
Comment by 2nd warder Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 3:59 pm
42nd, that is partially correct. The correct answer is that I’ve always understood it to be a mixture of intent and fact. You can’t just say, “Hey, I intend to reside in Chicago,” if you have nothing to actually point to. And that goes all the way back to Smith.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:05 pm
From Pope…
[once a residence has been established] “a person, by temporary removal of himself and his family into another State with the intention to return, will not thereby lose his residence in this State provided he does no act from which the acquisition of a new residence may be inferred.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:16 pm
==acquisition of a new residence may be inferred.” ==
Would that be something like renting a home in another state, declaring himself a “part-time” resident on his tax return, enrolling his children in private school in DC, not returning for more than a few days in two years and stuff like that.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:25 pm
Trib says the IL Supreme Ct will decide today.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 4:47 pm
In the 90’s and first half of last decade most of Chicago’s media eagerly regurgitated the “Greatest Mayor Ever” theme. Kass was one of the few voices in the wilderness (along with some investigative journalists) who illuminated the seedy underbelly of the Daley administration.
At some point between Hired Truck and the Parking Meters it became chic to criticize Daley. Media members who cowered in front of Daley were no longer as fearful. At that point I think Kass lost some relevance as he was no longer as unique. As a result he drifted into topics where he does not belong, like legal analysis.
He should return to what he does best: Shedding light on the obscure connections between local political players and providing possible motive for their actions.
Comment by Independent Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 5:47 pm