E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Illinois appeals court that found Rahm Emanuel unqualified to run for mayor of Chicago ruled today that while he is unquestionably qualified to vote in the election, he isn't qualified to be a candidate because he hasn't lived in the city for a year before the election.
The case turns on the meaning of an Illinois law providing that a person cannot run for a city office "unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality" for at least a year preceding the election.
It's an issue for Emanuel -- a Chicago native and former congressman representing the city -- because he went to Washington to become White House chief of staff when President Obama was elected. At first, he lived in an apartment while his family remained in Chicago. Then, in June 2009, he and his family rented a Washington, DC house while leasing the Chicago house to another family.
The 2-1 ruling said Emanuel meets the less restrictive state law test of being "a qualified elector," because he clearly intended to live in Washington temporarily and then return to Chicago. What's more, Illinois law says no voter can be found to have lost his legal residence "by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States."
But the court found that the legal test for the residence of a candidate is more narrow. The requirement that a candidate must have "resided in" the city for a year before the election means, the court said, to "actually live rather than having legal voting residence" -- a qualification that Emanuel "unquestionably does not satisfy."
The court cited a 1901 ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court, which said that someone who has residence in name only, as opposed to actually living in the city, "has no better opportunities for knowing the wants and rightful demands of his constituents than a non-resident, as is as much beyond the wholesome influence of direct contact with them.
The court's dissenting vote, Justice Bertina Lampkin, said her fellow judges ignored long-standing Illinois court rulings about whether being qualified to vote was good enough to be eligible to run as a candidate. The majority's reading of the law "is indefensible," Lampkin said. She accused her colleagues of embarking "on a revision of Illinois law concerning candidate residency requirements."
Leave a Comment:
1901, thats how far they had to go back to find a resemblance of the Issue!
110 years!
I got no dog in this Hunt, but i think thats a bit of a Stretch!
Oh my. Obviously unfamiliar with the concept of precident, undaunted our man Rick bust off some fine wisdom. "resemblance" of the issue? Maybe you out to get Bev. down off that pole and seek her assistance.
Or maybe Drive By still has some time on the clock?
Naw Spank, 1901 is how far they had to go back to suit thier Position's! Not Precedent!
BTW, it aughtta, Not "OUT". A fine Internet businessman such as yourself should learn a keyboard.
Whazzzzup BuckWheat!
Aughtta? WTF?
Thanks for the typing tip Rick. But I think you got the point, eh? Oh and as Michele Bachman could tellyou, precedent has a tendency to reach way back sometimes. But I'm sure you are well versed in legal theory and authority.
It would appear that your buddy Drive By has clocked off for the evening.
It matters not how far back the decision goes Rick. If the facts of the case are the same, and the precedent has not been overturned by a more recent ruling, it stands.
What the age of this precedent indicates is that either there has been NO similar case in that jurisdiction since then, OR similar cases in that jurisdiction since have been ruled on consistentely with that 1901 precedent, thus upholding it and making it foundational.
The precedent of corporate personhood - that the left has such trouble with until they want to sue - goes back even farther.
This should not be a shock to Rahm or anyone else. The law encourages voting and gives more latitude on the residency requirement for ordinary voters. The right to run for office is a much higher standard. That's why one needs thousands of legitimate signatures on nominating petitions among other requirements. That's why the residency standard is stricter for running for office than it is for merely voting in an election. The only exception to actually living in Chicago is to be a member of the armed forces on assignment. Working for the White House in an appointed position does not meet that standard.
However, this is a corrupt city in a corrupt state and Lord knows what actually will happen. With the possible exception of Gary Chico, who seems to be a reformer, the other candidates are just as bad, if not worse.
The problem with a ruling that old is that it presumes that being out of town for 1 year puts you irrepairably out of touch with the constituency. Having an exception for military members doesn't make them any more "in touch", so why an exception for one class and not another (person's serving at the request of the President)? I don't think there's reason for any exceptions, but I think the arguement about being "in touch" is moot in the digital age... being gone for 1 year in 1901 is a lot different from being gone for 1 year in 2011...
Actually it is precedent. YOU cannot redefine that that is precedent to suit your bias. YOU may choose to implement those changes through litigation.
Bill Clinton tried to redefine the meaning of IS only to find out it meant IS.
What is that sound I hear over here in Iowa? Oh that's just Rahm expressing his opinion of the latest court ruling.
For how many years has Rahm lived in Chicago before he took the White House job? I guess owning a home and paying taxes don't count as residency in Chicago. Very interesting this ruling, I bet it has nothing to do with politics at all just the law, right?
you know what? Rules are rules and he has to abide by them just as anyone else. His Residency did NOT comply with the law!
A lot of you are acting like the law is clear with "rules are rules" comments and the like. If there is one thing we can say about this case is that the rules are not clear. Otherwise we would not have two judges disagreeing with two other judges.
Cities don't want Washington DC, or state-wide politicians running them. 1 year more than anything is to guarrentee you have some understanding of what is really going on in the city in recent history. Rahm has been concentrating on DC, not Chicago for 2 years - how can he say he knows what is going on in the city when he didn't plan to run for it, and has no study of how the city has worked or changed.
Yet there is a special exception for military members to run for office without the 1 year requirement. How are they any more qualified than he is to run for mayor, having been gone all that time?
They are serving the interst and the security of the United States of America. Rahm was serving his president that he agreed with idealogically and was paid to do. No oath, no commitment, no life on the line. Believe me-there is a huge difference.
FLYP: You just proved "Revlucifer's point.
RevLucifer: You are on the right track. Continue thinking about the military provision cited. Who is the head of the military?
You're right, there is an ideological difference in how that year was spent; however, there is not a substantive difference. Both Rahm and the deployed service member lack the year-long "direct contact" with their constituents necessary to gauge their "wants and rightful demands."
Besides, if we're trying to determine where a service member is eligible to run for office, should it be where they spent the first 18 years of their life, or one of the numerous duty stations where they've had the opportunity to spend 2-3 years in "direct contact" with their "constituents"? *roll eyes*
Conservatives will, of course, jump for joy at the thought of a liberal politican being deprived of a civil right. Will they also endorse the logical extension of the ruling, the denying of the same right to run for local office to any member of the armed forces who spent the last few years dodging bullets and IED's in the Middle East?
Emmanuel isn't losing his 'rights'. He's ineligible to run because of his own choices, and now (if he's an adult and not a self-important, entitled demagogue) he's going to have to deal with the consequences of his choices.
Now, as to being a member of the military (nice to see that liberal support of the troops, BTW) most state laws allow residency to remain intact, since the armed forces member has to have a legal residence somewhere.
Conversely, a member of the military may claim residency in the state where he/she is stationed, so, for example, they can attend a State school and pay residency rates.
That's the law. The law applies to Emmanuel in the same way. Sucks not to be 'superior', huh?
Emmanuel, on the other hand, is a greedy politician who's only out for what he can get.
And in this situation, he gets bupkis.
Sorry, Steven, but by the ruling, members of the armed forces would not qualify for elected office. Here's why:
"The requirement that a candidate must have "resided in" the city for a year before the election means, the court said, to 'actually live rather than having legal voting residence'..."
By the court's own ruling, the military member may have retained legal votig residence, as Rahm did, but did not "actually live" in the municipality. So the situations are no different based on the ruling that you had to physically live in the city to qualify, not just be a voting resident. If being a voting resident was enough, then Rahm could run, as could any military members returning home.
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.
Cal, how you must hate conservatives. This is Chicago. The other candidates in the race are probably more liberal than Rahm. The real issue is fairness ( not a liberal ideal, I know). It is unfair to the remaining liberals in the race for a guy to come jet setting in from Washington and try to be mayor after being gone for 2 years.
My guess is Rahm will probably be a decent mayor. Much like the Daleys he will crack heads and get things done, the Chicago way. He can run in 4 years, after someone else screws it up.
If there is a military exception, then that makes a difference, but that would fly in the face of the "spirit of the law" cited in the decision that a person so seperated from the municipality wouldn't know what was relevent to the community at that time. Based on the decision, that's the crux of the arguement; that if you haven't been in the community for a year, then you don't know what's going on. So why there would be a special exception for military members is beyond me, especially when there is a residency exception for persons not in the municipality "by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States."
My point is that if you say that someone who has not physically lived in the city is so out of touch that they cannot run for mayor, then a special exception for military members is kind of backwards, since they would be just as out of touch by virtue of being in another state, or even another country, for that time.
Now, I don't care one way or the other, but I hate to see laws that are unequitably applied. I'm all for "fairness", that idea that us liberals "don't get".
Cal, the SOB has spent all but a tiny bit of his childhood in the suburbs and not in the City. I lived in the city proper 6 times longer than he has and have no delusions that, if I buy a building and rent it out, I am eligible to run for Mayor of Chicago. Forget the right vs. left on this one. He is fully backed by the Machine and the Daleys. He is their puppet. They installed him as White House Chief of Staff and now one of them has taken his place.
Forget what party he belongs to or what wing. He is an imperious, ill-tempered bully boy - an enforcer. It is about time he was put in his place. Unbelievably, it has actually come from a court in Illinois. I can't believe he or one of the Machine didn't buy the court off.
bigz. Why not let the people of Chicago decide wether or not they would like him to be mayor?
The requirements are very clear and he doesn't meet them. Period.
Actually, he does meet the requirement He lived in the city for a year before the election, just not the year before the election.. If the statute said "lived in the city in the year before the election, then he is out. It doesn't even matter that he claimed to be a non-resident while living in DC as long as he lived in Chicago for at least a year.
i agree with dpick. I also feel he will be strong and be able to take care of the problems that chicago has. He knows Chicago and the people of it. You live here or work in the city, you know all about the city...even if you are away for some periods of time. you never forget chicago.
He has the drive, yes intimidation/bullying persona that needs to be had in a corrupt state and outlawish nature of certain municipalities. There are tough decisions going around everywhere in this country. i feel he is one that can handle the stress and do what has to be done.
No. The requirements are not clear. If they were clear we wouldn't have 2 judges interpreting it one way and 2 judges interpreting it another. If there is one thing you can say about this is that the answer has never been clear and continues to be unclear.
He has not lived there!
NUFF SAID
a law is a law is a law
a crook is a crook is a crook
let's see which wins on this one in Chicago. Think there might be some pressure from Obama and Blago and Father Daley?
I thought the political machine in Chicago could accomplish anything that the Progressives want.
Interesting that no one seems to be looking at the point that Emanuel also claimed "non-resident" for purposes of Illinois state income tax for the year preceding.
Seems to me that claiming non-residence on a legal state document should count somehow in the mix.
You are, of course, correct.
But that kind of decency has never gotten in the way of a politician's aspirations!
Like Snowball and Napoleon...they're "more equal" than the rest of us.
Love the non citizen fact if it is true.
Only self righteous liberals can make that seem right
Hahaha...As, "Kelso", from "That '70's Show" would say....OOO Burn!!!
Glad to see some politicians/Real citizens using the law to protect us from the criminals taking over our country.
So by extension, a Service person returning from Iraq or Afghanistan after serving a tour should not be eligible to run either? Serving ones country whether it be in the military or at the pleasure of a President (any President), should not bar someone from further service to the people.
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.
In that case all other candidates should be rejected for the same reason, None of them were in Chicago for 365 consecutive days before the election, If working/vacationing out of town excluded him it should exclude all,,,,,,,,,,,I can't imagine that any of them have not left the city during the past year
Quit splitting hairs. You know damned well what the intent of the law is. Reside in the city for 1-year before running for office so that you know and understand the issues of the constituency of that political entity. Going on a picnic or vacation does not violate that intent-but then you know that-you are just trying to redefine what IS is.
Bo1925019: Your logic is correct. Also the military provision cited by the court is diametrically contrary to the basis of the ruling. The ruling will be overturned forthwith.
He should immediately file suits against ALL other Candidates, If running for Mayor requires 365 days of living inside the city any overnight vacation or working outside of the city should make a candidacy null and void
How will Chicago survive without him? The law should be ignored in his case. Give him a free pass. Obama needs him in Chicago as Mayor.
Juan Garcia-2974006
How will Chicago survive without him? The law should be ignored in his case. Give him a free pass. Obama needs him in Chicago as Mayor.
The President hasn't backed anyone in Chicago. I find this all very interesting since it was the tea Baggers who started this fiasco.
Geez Beverly what kind of stupid statement was that? "... since it was the tea Baggers who started this fiasco." Are you a fair representation of the Chicago intellect? I certainly hope not. I do not even live in Chicago and yet I know it was the other democrats who have to share votes with him that filed the original lawsuit.
Anyone who thinks he won't be on the ballot is sadly mistaken. This guy will go to any lengths...legal or illegal. Thug in a suit.
I find it laughable that the Administration that started prospered in the beginning by find ways to disqualify their opponents in local and state elections gets disqualified by a technicality. I guess you reap what you sow!
His appeal should be thrown out as insufficient on its face. He clearly does not meet the eligibility requirements. And to those equating this to a person in the military, I think it should still apply and for the same reason: a candidate can't know what's really going on in the city unless he or she lives there. If this person is to be a representative of the people in any way, how can he or she do that without knowing the people? And once again, before anyone mentions the internet and this being a smaller world, yes, it's true, but then again, we've never heard of someone pretending to be someone they're not on the internet have we? The spirit of the law, as well as the letter, is clear in this case and the court made the correct ruling.
I fully agree, having a special exception for military members to not meet the residency requirement stands the "spirit of the law" on it's head by saying that being in another state makes you too out of touch to be mayor, but being in another country, that's not a problem. If the spirit of the law is about a person's ability to be "in touch" with the elctorate, then military members should be barred just the same.
I disrespectfully disagree with you. Semper Fi.
JimP1969: The court actually ruled against its own argument. Very poor adjudication of law.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of the Chicago voters don't know what is going on in their city either, and maybe even most of the other candidates. They are all too busy with the rest of their lives to know every detail of what is going on in their city. And that goes for any elected office. Do any of you posters really know what is going on in your locality, county, state? Are you really "fully" qualified to run for any office? I would almost bet that Rahm knows just as much about the workings of Chicago and its needs, even while serving in the WH, as any of the other candidates. After all, the mayor's job has been a dream of his for years, according to his comments when he stepped down as CoS in October.
Anyone who has had his/her "eye on the prize" as long as Rahm has is going to stay informed, no matter where they are "living" for any period of time.
It's not a "Civil Right" to be able to run for office in violation of local laws. Emmanuel forfeited the right to be a candidate for Chicago mayor when he moved away. The court ruled appropriately.
His permanent and only home is IN Chicago, He is registered to vote ONLY in Chicago, If the simple act of not being in Chicago for 365 consecutive days excludes him from running, It should also exclude the other candidates who vacationed or worked outside of the city
Bo, he doesn't have a permanent home, he rented it out to make more money. Had he not rented it out he would be on the ballot. Would there be this much discussion if he was a conservative. I think not.
Then tell me Richard,,,Where is his home?? He owns his family home in Chicago and was simply working in DC with full intent to return to his home, He owns nothing in DC, I've worked all over the world myself and I've had many people stay in my home while I was gone,,,,,,,,,,,But it is still MY home
Considering over 1/2 of Chicago wants him as Mayor,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Over 1/2 of Chicagoans are then idiots to want someone that has not lived in there fair city to represent them as a carpetbagger.
Also, I'd like to point out that the "in touch" arguement is rather moot. Again, we have to look at the differences between 1901 and 2011. In 1901, being gone from town for a year means you are significantly behind on the happenings that have occurred in that time. In 2011, you can get local papers delivered virtually anywhere in the US, not to mention internet news. So someone who has been out of town for 3 months in 1901 is less informed on the local politics than someone who has been gone for 2 years in 2011. We have to remember that laws are written for the time, and new technology needs to be accounted for when interpreting the "spirit of the law"
Something is wrong here! One of Obama's minions is not allowed to break the law? Where is that call from the White House demanding special favors for "a friend?" And Raul thought he would get to trade-up from his White House job.
Anyone who was cheif of staff for the POTUS clearly could live in Chicago at the same time that he worked in Wash. DC. Give him a break. The law should not apply equally to Rham since he is the best candidate for Chicago Mayor.
LMAO!
Where is that Cat 6 storm when you need it...
CHILDREN, HERE HERE !!
HERE, archaic precedent has in more contemporary years been overturned by newer contrary precedent.
PRECEDING means "came just before", NOT 110 YEARS AGO ... PRECEDENT CAN & HAS BEEN SUPERCEDED.
The SPECIFIC ALLOWANCE FOR SERVING ONE's COUNTRY & immediately returning to run for LOCAL OFFICE
in Illinois WILL be construed by their state Supreme Court as SPECIFIC ALLOWANCE FOR SERVING ONE's
COUNTRY -- REGARDLESS of what position you've been called to serve. It's an EASY LAW decision to make,
as nothing more is Excluded, yet a current Inclusion is simply being expanded via "SPIRIT of the LAW" ...
Having said all this, however:
We will come to find HERE that three Democrats have set up a 2-1 STRAW MAN argument to keep Rahm
from running as a printed name on the Chicago Mayor ballot, to APPEAR as if they might be appeasing the
conservatives who have a habit of trying to prove THEIR case by pulling a RABBIT OUT OF A HAT. All this ??
BOTTOM LINE :
IT DOES NOT MATTER. Outgoing Mayor Daley will readily back Emmanuel as a WRITE-IN CANDIDATE.
NUFF SAID.
DONE.
LeeRoySpirit: You may very well be right. I don't know what the agenda's are nor am I familiar, at least first hand, with Illinois politics. The ruling however and the basis cited are laughable. This fact is why I think you may be on to something. It would be hard for any judge of half assed credentials to render such a ruling based on the arguments cited.
I'm actually glad to see this. I've too often seen political hacks with delusions of grandure use one office after another as stepping stones to the high level office they truely desire. I firmly believe that long time residents, who actually live in a community, make far better public officials in those communities than carpetbaggers who decend upon a place just because it will make for a good mile post on their way to higher office.
How is Rahm a carpetbagger? He simply left his home that he still owned to serve this country in a new position as CoS instead of Representative. Remember, he was still serving Chicago as its Congressional Representative when the President tapped him to be CoS. Because the new job was one that did NOT allow him to travel back home as often as being a Representative, he moved his family to DC during his second year of serving as CoS. Like any other homeowner, he did not want to leave his house sit empty and unattended for that time period. Plus, I'm sure if he had known a year ago that Daley would decide not to run for office again, he would never have moved his family, since he always had his "eye on the prize." But then again, even if he hadn't moved his family, would the same ruling still apply since he himself was residing in DC, whether as a Representative or as CoS? That is where "residency" always becomes a problem.
The same applies to having a home in two different places. Which home is your "legal" residence? According to most state laws, you have to reside in that one place "continuously" for a minimum of 183 days.
"serve this country"?? Are you kidding me, he was serving himself as is his boss. There was no "sacrafice" in serving his country, if anyhting, he helped bring about its decline and create a bigger divide between the two parties. Bottom line is, he left the state, rented out his residence and was NOT a citizen of the state/city as required udnder the law. It's written in black and white in the statutes so what is it about these politicians that make them think they are above the law as it is enacted? Play by the rules, just like the rest of us have to. the same requirements are set forth for college students in determining if they pay in state or out of state tuition, for unemployment benefits etc. Did he claim "homestead" exemptions on his property taxes? If so, he then is guilty of fraud under this statute, if not, then he admittedly did not have a homestead in the state. Either way, he's screwed and I just wish for once politicians would quit their whining about having to play under the same rules as everyone else. Again, he is not interested in servingt he people of Chicago, he is interested in serving his own ego and interests.