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:
In some cities, to be a Police Officer of Firefighter in that city, or to be employed by the city, you have to show residency and live within the city limits (or in some cases a neighboring city) prior to becoming employed. If the city employees are held to this standard, the mayor should be as well.
Anyone know if Chicago has this rule for any of its city employees?
Yes, it does.
That's why so many of the homes just barely inside the city limits are owned by cops, firemen and other city employees.
They get to work in Chicago (big bucks for little work) and still shop in the 'burbs where everything is cheaper.
Ahh!, political judges turned archaeologists. Probably appears thicker under a microscope. This will be overturned quicker than a cat can lick its ass.
can he still obtain the office as a write in candidate given all these arguments about eligibility?
does the ruling prohibit him winning even if ppl give him a wining percentage?
My interpretation of the law, and I'm not licensed to practice law in Illinois so this is not legal advice, is no, he is not eligible even as a write-in candidate. The law reads that "A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office..." It doesn't read that the person is not eligible to be on the ballot. I would say that even if he wins as a write-in candidate he is still not eligible to serve as mayor.
The lame stream media's unqualified interpretation of the law is about all we can expect; biased, Obama-centric, and redundant. Finally we have a court that respect the letter of the law. No doubt Obama will stick his nose into the fray - give it 24-48 hours. The corrupt forces that be will probably find a way to do their dirty work. That is the biggest shame of all.
This ruling is an abomination. Serving the President of the United States, regardless of party affiliation should receive the same distinction as serving in the military. By nature those who serve in such capacities are ambitious individuals and likely candidates for other office. To impose a consequence for serving the Federal Government represents an unnecessary barrier. Rahm Emanuel has served his city by representing a portion of it in the United States House of Representatives and then his country by serving in a position that's unarguably more powerful than the Vice President. He traveled for work like many of us do. He did not give up his residency in Chicago.
Don't b!tch about the law or the outcome of the case if you aren't prepared to do something to change it. The law is what the law is and as I recall there is a concept that a law is to be interpreted by its plain meaning. What that means is a court reviewing a law is to first consider whether the issue can be resolved by reading the statute literally, with the ordinary words used in the statute. If it can then that is the way it is to be interpreted.
The language of the law is pretty clear. "A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2 or Section 5-2-11." 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a). There isn't anything that leaves room for interpretation in that statute.
I suppose one could argue that "resided" cannot be determined by its plain meaning, and that might be true if you simply looked at subsection (a) of the statute. However, if there is any question, subsection (d) does provide guidance. "If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person's spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement under subsection (a)." 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(d).
Several have argued that serving in the White House should be equated to active military service. Unfortunately, that is a conclusion that is not reasonable. It has also been argued that being gone for a year today is different than being gone in 1901. Again, for the supporters of Rahm, this is not reasonable. What I haven't seen discussed is the history of this law. It has been amended several times, for example in 2004, 2007, and twice in 2008. In fact it was the 2007 amendment that created an exception for military service and if the legislature intended for it to be more than for military service it certainly could have at that time expanded the exclusion. It did not, so making a comparison between the two is unreasonable. It should also be said that if the legislature did not feel it necessary to reside in the municipality for the year prior because of the availability of information today being different than that of 1901, again, the argument stands that the legislature considered this law 4 times in the last 7 years and failed to remove the 1 year requirement.
The law is what the law is. It is not an old and archaic law. Rahm should lose the case. Supporters should see if they can change the law in the legislature where the change should take place and not in a court.
Well now I guess we will find out how honest Emanual is when we find out what he is going to do with that 10 million dollars in his war chest. Is he going to give it back, give it to the Democratic party, or keep it??????
Now we will find out how honest Emanual is. What is he going to do with the 10 million dollars in his war chest. Is he going to return it, give it to the democratic party, or keep it????
Speaking of rules... try enforcing them on a public servant... oh sorry, dictator. Arnold is just upset he didn't pull it off because Hitler is his hero... Rolling stone, magazine.
The US Supreme Court uses the Constitution which is over 200 years old. Any questons about that?
And which has been amended numerous times because the original document did not cover all situations. Slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person? Women not eligible to vote? Civil Rights?
Sorry Mike46, that dog won't hunt.
I just love state laws. Doesn't matter what state. Every one of them has some quirky laws that were written by folks long-since dead when they begin to conflict with the current culture, and yet there will be those who grit their teeth and hang onto them as though defending a religious tenet. It was so much simpler when the Daley Mob was in power.
I don't have the actual text of the law in front of me, but based on the text of the law reported in the news; one must have resided in the city for one year prior to the election-nowhere have I read where one had to reside in the city THE year immediately preceeding the election. He certainly qualifies as having resided in Chicago for one year PRIOR to the election. I don't even like him or the President, but fair is fair
The law reads "one year next preceding", which means the year immediately prior to.
Bring back Bush and Cheney. They could have the judges waterboarded until the agree to let Rahm on the ballot. :)
Maybe he can go over to Israel and run for mayor of Jerusalem. He served in the Israel Defense Forces in the 1990s during the Gulf War (I think this tells us what country he has allegiance to) so I'm sure they would welcome him back with loving arms.
Who really cares. IL. is about bankrupt because of their crooked politicians and if the people of Chicago/IL want to continue down that road more power to them. Just don't ask the Federal Goverment/ie...the rest of us...to bail you out. Live in your own swamp. You made the bed sleep in it.
Maybe Mr. Obama can announce they are "acting stupidly", then use his powers to get him on the ballot. Isn't that how politics work in Illinois? Mr. Obama has plenty of experience with that I am sure.
You forgot the part about buying them each a beer.
LMAO
I guess that a number of responders to this article think that a law from 1901 is archaic and shouldn't be upheld. That's interesting when Mayor Bloomberg was not supposed to be running for a third term he was allowed by the city council. That was a slap in the face of the law that forbade more then two terms in office as mayor of New York, but who cares what the people voted for, just let the poor rich man have his way.
So what if a law is 109 years old, it's still the law. If we have to rewrite laws every few years to make it crisp we will have no laws because of bickering about the contents of the law. Does a law against murder, which dates back many hundreds of years, be any less important.
Most states have laws on elections and this is one of them. Just because you still own property somewhere does not make you a resident, if that were the case the Charly Rangel is a Dominican because he owns property in the Dominican Republic. Ownership of income property does not make you a legal resident of that community.
That's the "beauty" of our so-called legal system. Now I'm really afraid they will find a court precedent indicating that while Loughner MAY have murdered a federal judge and Giffords' aide Zimmerman, the shooting death of little nine-year-old Christina Green was most likely an accident! Feel BETTER, now NRA?
A.J.--Really that's a strech for anyone. Even if there were a ban on owning handguns criminals and insane people could still get their hands on them. To blame the NRA which is what you are doing is just plain stupid. Handguns have been around for 100's of years. No way to put Pandora back in the box.
JIM Who said anything about handguns? However, if I had my way, only sixguns or 10-shot automatics would be permissable for self-defense. If you can't solve a problem or feed your family with 10 shots, get a bow and arrow or a bag of rocks!
Sure, the right to vote should trump a law, particularly, when you are the one that is effected, right Emanuel?
Guess, you need to ask Obama for the cushion White House Job again.
It will be interesting to see the Ill Supreme Court rule on this, because the law itself seems quite clear that Mr Emmanuel should be ineligible to run for Mayor in Chicago.
Early voting starts Monday and Rahm's name will not be on the ballots, how will they overcome that if the court were to rule in his favor.
Since he is ineligible to run (right now) would those ballots be discarded as invalid?
Rahm didn't read or pay attention to the law or the constitution while he was WH Chief of Staff. Why does anyone think he would bother to have read IL law.
Well he learned from the best; Obama ran UNOPPOSED for his Senate job. It seems his opponents 'voter signatures' didn't measure up so they had to drop out. These Chicago guys, you know how they are.
RevLucifer
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?
Military personel are still considered residence of their city, state even when abroad. Hence the lack of the need to renew driver licence, ability to vote in local and state elections of their home state.
AFAIK Rahm, changed residency, voted locally based on his new address in the DC area. So it seems to me he gave up his Chicago Illinois residency
you're right mike. But the libs like to make up their own rules.
I would not vote for the guy even if I was a resident of the City of Chicago, I don't agree with his political views, and he seems to behave rather poorly quite frequently, but it seems to me the court found a flimsy excuse to deny him a candidacy.
It's not like he wasn't gainfully employed in a respectable job, whether you like the party in control of that job at the moment or not, and apparently he went to great, 100% legal lengths to maintain himself as a resident of the City of Chicago.
I am a resident of the State of Illinois, and find this decision yet another embarassment for our state, even though I don't support his politics or his person as a candidate for public office.