E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
CHICAGO -- Rahm Emanuel's attorneys say they intend to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.
Four of the seven Supreme Court justices have to agree to hear the case. One of the justices is the wife of Chicago Alderman Edward Burke, who has endorsed one of Emanuel's opponents. One of Emanuel's attorneys tells WMAQ's Mary Ann Ahern that they do not intend to ask her to recuse herself.
Emanuel's lead attorney also acknowledges to Ahern that the state Supreme Court does not usually overturn the appeals court.
And early voting in the race starts one week from today -- Jan. 31.
Leave a Comment:
I just read the opinions and I find it ridiculous that a person who, for example, served in Iraq would be ineligible to run for office. Unbelievable. Is this Myanmar? Who are these clowns that want to choose our leaders for us? Let the people vote.
Before all you Rahm haters get too excited about this you might want to think about the implications of this decision on the rights of Chicagoans on active duty in the military to participate in this democracy.
29 days to chicago mayor election,,and rammy is no where to be seen ,,not his forte hey chicago,,
he has waste alot of time and money for the democrats and the unions ,knew the law but still wasted everyones time,,a republican candidate would be a good choice at this point.
Probably a dumb question - but has Chicago ever had on honest mayor???
Illinois law explicitly PERMITS members of the armed forces to return and immediatly run for mayor. The order of the appeals court described that aspect of the case and pointed out why it didn't apply to Emanual. In fact, the fact that the military provision was the only exception to the "reside in" requirement, and that did not cover Emanual, was a large part of the basis for disqualifying Emanual.
I had not made up my mind about who to vote for, but I am so bothered by this whole decision that I am going to write Rahm Emanuel in. This way none of the whiney candidates left can get the 50% majority needed. Let us decide who we can vote for! He served our country (granted, not in a war, but still....) by serving the president. Let him run and give him a shot. How can Hilary run in NY after openly not being a New Yorker and he can't run for mayor even though he's been a Chicagoan forever?!
I was wrong. This doesn't impact the military. I still think that the judges are wrong. Not because I love, Rahm (which I admittedly do), but because if someone sacrifices themselves to serve the country as chief of Staff of the POTUS, they should not be penalized, just like the military are not penalized. It is a difficult thankless job which requires you to neglect your family and it its a necessary position to keep this great country, which I love, running. People shouldn't be penalized for serving our country.
I think Bryan E has found the words we were all searching for on this story....
Of course he is gonna Appeal, I mean After all he has 11.3 Million dollars to spend . why can't he just Accept the fact that he can't run.
Because if he stops running, someone may catch him. And, in the meantime, your party's icon, I Am Not A Witch O'Donnell, proved that one can live quite well on campaign donations.
He can run - He'll be the next mayor.
That is so cool that Anna Molly gets to choose "our" party's icon. Interesting pick, how did you come up with it? Thought you all had it in for Palin? And although I know some around here think Bachman is an idiot, she did graduate college, law school and passed the bar. I wonder is our resident brain trust of Fiesty and Bev. have an AA degree between them?
And PS. I totally think you made Dominico happy - he's got the hots for O'Donnell.
It is interesting, you'd think someone like Rahm would have read the statute before going to all the trouble. Reading the law is sometimes important, right Anna M?
I commented on the earlier thread that the next stop would be ILL Supreme Court. Rahm has as much right to challenge the decision as those who challenged his right to run. Unlike recent state and national supreme court justices, I would hope the one who already endorsed someone else does the honorable thing and recuses herself. Failure to do so would raise a lot of questions.
Rahm's name is already on the ballot--hypothetical, what happens if he wins anyway?
Hi Jody:
About 15 minutes ago I too predicted that this was heading to the Illinois Supreme Court. Guess we Iowans and Hoosiers do know what we are talking about. I think there are about two or three more chapters left in this book. It ain't over yet.
I'm glad someone around here does. ;-)
The irony here is that he would probably win the election, but this is the same legal tactics that Barack Obama used to keep opponents off of the ballot.
Wow, you mean, even in Illinois, rules is rules?
Who ever would have believed it?
Not a fan of Rahm, but the fact that he irks right wingers so much is a plus.
Any one who thinks politics are dirty in Chicago, should visit the Peoples Republic of Utah. No one holds a candle to this red state.
This ruling is completely shocking to me, given that the law clearly states you do not lose your eligibility to run if you leave the state to serve in the federal government. I want the justice dept to investigate the judge who made this ruling. People should be outraged that politics has swayed this judge's opinion.
Amy
Interesting point can you share a link to that law you talk about
Thanks in advance for the assist
Amy,
Which one of the 3 would you like them to investigate?.. I say we investigate the one that didnt Vote in favor of Turning it over and taking Rahms name off the Ballot. . Perhaps his Politics played a role in his Decision
Actually, it's pretty simple to see how the court made the distinction. The specific provision that you're referrring to applies to eligibility of voters (i.e., "electors"). The question was whether that provision should be read in pari materia with the provision that relates to candidates and residency. In other words, should that principle about federal service be borrowed from one part of law, relating to voters, into the other, relating to candidates. The court decided, after reviewing a lot of technical statutory construction principles, that it should not. But the Supreme Court will probably review this de novo and can make its own decision. So it's possible for it to be overturned, although apparently it doesn't happen very frequently in Illinois.
The link wouldn't post for me, but you can find the actual decision on line. I read it from a link that I found at HuffPo. If you do, the applicable discussion occurs at about p. 20 ff.
So, what you are telling us, annamolly, is that Emmanuel tried to use a statute that was clearly written to protect the voting rights of those serving in the military and government to serve his own purpose?
I am simply shocked.
It seems to me that, since he was interested in running for mayor, he should have either kept his residence, or rented a small apartment he could go back to periodically. That way, he would not now be in the position of trying to twist statutes to suit himself.
From they way I read the opionion renting a small apartment would not have changed the decision. He would have to have actually had to be phyisically present a majority of the past year. This ruling will also apply to anyone serving overseas in the military.
Personally, I think serving as chief of staff to the POTUS should be treated the same. And thankfully it is. That is not in question. Anyone who claims to support the rights of our troops to participate in our democracy should be very alarmed by this decision. Forget for a moment that you hate Rahm and just think about what this decision is saying.
LoL no joe ~ You've picked the wrong pigeon. I don't like Emanuel anyway. And I had the same reaction when I read the decision, especially when I got to the part where he was relying on a previous decision that had subsequently been overruled. Whatever he was paying for lawyering, it was apparently WAY too much. Either that, or not creative enough.
As for the apartment, evidently, they kept their house, but pretty much emptied it out, except for their "precious" photo albums and china. They had even leased it, and then had to buy out the lease. On the other hand, Emanuel had kept his Illinois driver's license and a few other indicia of intent to maintain residency. But the court was unimpressed.
To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly sympathetic.
The court not unimpressed by those details. The court found those details sufficient to prove residency for voting rights. The court is making a distinction between what is required for voting rights and the right to be a candidate. The court is saying that you must be physically present for one year to be a candidate.
If you are happy with this decision then you must also be happy that Chicagoans on active duty in the military are not allowed fun for office when they return home to Chicago.
What I think the decision is saying is that, since the statute clearly uses language that states you must reside in the city for one year, as well as being a qualified voter, anyone serving overseas could not run for mayor.
Nor should they.
you have 30 days to legally change your license if you move to another state or work or stay in another state for 30 or more days ,,rammy should be charged and fined for not getting license in his new location.
Okay then. We'll have to agree to disagree. Let say John Smith of Chicago is in the National Guard or Reserves and gets ordered to deploy to Afghanistan and then happily risks his life defending your freedom. When Mr. Smith returns home and decides to run for mayor the people he was protecting won't let him. I do not think that is right. I don't think we should treat our troops like second class citizens. Hey, just my opinion.
300 million citizens have to follow rules and regulations or pay fines or imprisonment.
20 million illegal immigrants ignore the rules and regulations .
rammy should as a citizen understand there are rules for reasons as well as anyone in the military .
so anyone signing up for a 4 year stint in the military should allow 5 years and 1 day if running for polictical office is in the future.
maybe if harry ried had passed the dream act then rammy would have a chance...who knows
What if we re-instate the draft? Would your opinion change? Becasue the way the law was interpreted by these two judges it would still apply if you were drafted.
Illinois law explicitly PERMITS members of the armed forces to return and immediatly run for mayor. The order of the appeals court described that aspect of the case and pointed out why it didn't apply to Emanual. In fact, the fact that the military provision was the only exception to the "reside in" requirement, and that did not cover Emanual, was a large part of the basis for disqualifying Emanual.
Okay. I re-read the opinion a little slower and I see what you are saying. This opinion does not impact the military. I will add however, that some people did admit to not caring about how this would impact the military as long as the people of Chicago are not allowed to chose Rahm.
Not till they re-establish residency, anyway. Whether that's a hardship or not, I don't know. In that regard, I think you could probably make a case to distinguish between voting and running for office, especially as related to local offices. But let's face it, I just don't like Rahm Emanuel. The Supreme Court may very well disagree with the Court of Appeals. They're entitled to do that.
Three words that do not go together;;;chicago, honest , mayor...the trifecta oxymoron..
Slow news day? I figure this one was about as likely as the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning and I didn't need a headline to tell me it was going to happen...
It doesn't seem fair. Rahm Emmanuel temporarily left the city of Chicago because Barack Obama asked him to, to serve his country and his president. He always intended to be a citizen of Chicago, like a senator or representative from Chicago would be. I think, if the people of Chicago want Rahm to be their mayor, he should be their mayor. And as for the law...well, judges should use judgement, shouldn't they? That is why they are called judges.
He needs 4 of 7 Supreme Court Justices to agree to hear the appeal. I suspect that will be a tough bar to hurdle.
Why have laws that some people are exempt from because of who they are? That is discrimination. Rahm knew the law about the residency issue and he disobeyed that law by being on the ballot. He evidently believes he is special, but he is not special and should not be treated as such just because he was Barack's Chief of Staff. Evidently, he felt since he served under Barack that the law or laws don't apply to him. Rahm is not superior to any other American citizen when it comes to our laws. He is just one of many millions of American citizens and does not qualify in any way whatsoever to have the law or laws suspended for him.
I would not be at all surprised that if the Illinois Supreme Court hears Rahm's case that they will abolish that law enabling him to run since he is a Democrat. Illinois, especially Chicago, is well known for their corruption tactics.
The favoritism occurred when Rahm was deemed eligible to run in the first place. But that's how city politics work on behalf of "special" people. If he had been Joe Blow, he would have been disqualified from jump street.
As the requirements currently stand, they differ for voters and candidates. You can maintain your residency status if you move out of state for school, to serve in the Peace Corps, etc. But if you are thinking of running for office, then you must live in the city for one year to be eligible. This requirement ensures that someone from Utah or even Arlington Heights doesn't skirt the law by renting cheap apts to establish city addresses while actually living someplace else. Suddenly, the courts would be crowded with a crop of newly formed candidates.
If this was really on Rahm's mind, he should have been prepared. His advisors should have talked to him about long-term goals and how to meet them. Creating an exception for Rahm would just open a can of worms where other potential candidates who didn't run because of requirements could legitimately call foul. In short, he effed up.
well I am not 100% on this but im pretty sure this is right. To the people saying o well what if u were on active duty in the military they would be disqualified for running for office also. I don't think that is the case at all I have read both the majority and the dissenting opinions of the case and to the best of my understanding of what they wrote was this. In order to be eligible to run for mayor you must have resided in the geographic region where u are running for office at least a yr.It also says that no one can loose there residency if they are "serving the united states of america" im guessing they are talking about military people in that part. The difference between someone who is in the marines and Rom is the Marine who lives in chicago but has served in Iraq for the last year,is the Marine's Abode is still in Chicago it's just he isn't because he is on active duty. Thats not in anyway the same as someone who moves to DC to take a political job. Not only did Rom himself move but so did his abode.Maybe if he kept his house in Chicago and didn't rent it out and just had an apartment in dc but kept his family in Chicago maybe then he would have a stronger case for saying that he was "serving the United states of America" and thats why he was in DC.But after he rented his house and moved his whole family to DC as well i think he kinda forfeited the claim that his abode was in Chicago. So I know i didn't tie that all together that well so ill sumerise. This decision in no way applies to people in the Military like alot of people have been posting. If Rom was in the military and thats why he wasn't in Chicago he would be eligible to run.
If the administration truly wants to help military families, this is how they can do it:
1. Increase the protections against foreclosures and loss of home value when a service member receives permanent change of station orders. Many of us we forced to move during the height of home values and with the lack of available housing on base purchased homes in the community. Normally this wouldn't be a big issue, but when we are forced to move a few years later and have lost half of the home's value it can utterly destroy the family for the rest of our lives. Many of us have had to choose over staying out of bankruptcy/foreclosure or our careers. We try to remain in place, at a detriment of our career so we don't end up going into foreclosure and endangering a security clearance or future credit. The "bill" that was passed years ago only helped a narrow segment of us. The timeframe needs to be expanded.
2. Increase the availability of housing and childcare on base. There is not enough of either.
3. Stop mandatory charitable donations. Each year I am forced to give up $500-$1000 of my pay for "volunteer" or "charitable" giving; it is not volunteer or charitable if we are forced to donate.
4. Fix the commissaries and exchanges. These used to be a great value to the military families. Now they are usually more expensive for what we actually buy. Fix them or get rid of them.
5. More MWR activity availability. Campgrounds, cabins, lodging, rentals, etc. Not the 50 year old stuff that currently exists.
6. Make pay day loan shops illegal, at least within 50 miles of a base. I am all for business, but these businesses are immoral in their practices.
7. Make the drinking age on base 18 again. When it was raised to 21 we faced all new problems. The troops WILL drink; I would rather have control of the situation. I didn't worry when they only had to walk back to their barracks room, now I have to worry about them drunk driving. They are fighting wars for this country and are generally more mature than civilian 18 year olds, they deserve the privilege.
The fact that he equates living with all the perks of a WH appointee and rep of the Pres., attending WH galas, etc to serving in the military is a slap in the face of those truly serving.
I am sure that anyone of the military in Iraq or Afghanistan would gladly switch roles. Does he also equate the dangers of having his driver avoid DC potholes with IEDs?
And people wonder why politicians are held in such low esteem.
There is a residency law that he does NOT meet. He is also a dual citizen of Israel. Don't worry America does not single out edomites to discriminate against them. If fact, they control and own everything.. e.g. U.S. Federal Reserve, U.S. Supreme Court, stock market banks, news, ... etc.
"I care not what puppet is placed”
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
Rotschild Jewish Edomite Owners of U.S. Federal Reserve and ALL World Banks. Thy make their money by funding wars.
Are you Sharon Angle?