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:
The law states
"(a) A permanent abode is necessary to constitute aresidence within the meaning of Section 3-1. No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State." 10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008).
Though the law was clearly written with servicemen and women in mind, however nowhere in this law does it mention them specifically. Our service people provide a vital service to this country and I have the utmost respect for them, but they draw a paycheck from the United States of America just the same as Mr. Emanuel. The argument that he does not legitimately fall under the protection of this statute because he was payed to do the job of Chief of Staff to the President of the United States is laughable.
Regardless of what you think of the President of the United States, he still is the President of the United States. Wether you voted for him or not, he is still your President and the Commander in Chief of this great country. His job and the jobs of those who serve under him are fundamentally the business of the United States.
Regardless of what you think of Rahm Emanuel, he served as the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.
There is no office in the country more directly involved with the "business of the United States" other then perhaps the president himself.
By the courts own admission he clearly and undeniably falls under the protections of this law. They freely admit that he has the undeniable right to vote in the Chicago elections. As service members do in like situations. The court claims that this law is not applicable to candidates. That means that service members in a like situation could not run for office as they claim that Mr. Emanuel can not.
The dissenting opinion made the rather interesting point that the term "reside in" is not defined in any context. Ideally there is an obvious spirit of the law but as such concepts are easily twisted, the letter of the law is what usually counts.
He called the city his home and maintained a residence there filled with things such as family heirlooms, his wifes wedding dress, his children's report cards and the many other incidentals that accrue in ones primary home. A home which he has in fact owned and lived in for a number of years before being asked to serve as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.
The real question then becomes the following:
If you take a year long temporary job in another state, knowing its temporary and with every intention or returning when the job is finished, where is your home? Does it matter if all your treasured personal effects, your official place of residence, your voter registration, and your drivers licence have the same address?
If this dose not qualify as "residing in" then the term must be taken to mean physically living in. As he has since leaving the service of the United States as Chief of Staff to campaign in his home city. If he is to be excluded for not having been physically breathing within the city limits for some of the previous year, then every other candidate who has left the city limits for the previous year must also be disqualified.
But dont take my word for it. Read the statements of the court yourself. Read the dissenting opinion too.