E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRahm Emanuel's attorneys have filed their appeal with the Illinois State Supreme Court.
Technically, it is a request for permission to file an appeal. It takes four of the seven justices to agree to hear the case. One of the justices is Anne Burke, the wife of powerful Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, who has endorsed Emanuel opponent Gery Chico. Ed Burke is also the chairman of the panel that decides which Democratic judicial candidates get the blessing of the Cook County Democratic Party -- so a lot of judges owe their election to his support.
Both the traditionally Republican Chicago Tribune editorial page and the editorial page of the Chicago Sun-Times blasted the appeals court ruling that knocked Emanuel off the ballot. The Trib editorial's headline: "Judicial Arrogance." The Sun-Times': "Rahm ruling a disservice to voters."
*** UPDATE *** NBC's Pete Williams breaks down the appeal:
Yesterday's court decision "is one of the most far-reaching election law rulings ever to be issued by an Illinois court, not only because of its implications for the current Chicago mayoral election but also for the unprecedented restriction that it imposes" on the ability of people to run for office, Emanuel's lawyers say in briefs filed today.
The lower court found that while Emanuel was qualified to vote in the election, he wasn't qualified to run, because he did not physically live in Chicago for at least a year before Election Day. Such a finding has never been endorsed by any state appeals court in Illinois, his lawyers argue.
In fact, Emanuel's lawyers say, previous court rulings hold that the residency requirements for candidates are based on the rules voting eligibility. The lower court simply made up a stricter standard for candidates, they argue.
They also claim that the lower court's new standard -- that a candidate must physically live in a city for a year in order to run for local office -- would create all kinds of doubt. What about people whose companies assign them to work for a month on a special project out of town? How about members of Congress who are typically gone for several days a week? Would they be barred from running for a municipal office, on the grounds that they did not physically live in the city for an entire year before an election?
Monday night, Emanuel's lawyers asked the state supreme court to block the lower court's order and direct election officials to keep his name on the ballot. The court has not yet acted on that request.
Leave a Comment:
Interesting. The Chicago political authorities write an ordinance that provides one residency standard for voters and another residency standard for candidates, and an appellate court has the "judicial arrogance" to follow the law and construe them separately.
Well, I never.
But, happily for people in my line of work, for every legal construction principle, there is an equal and opposite legal construction principle.
So, whether it's judicial arrogance or just plain strict constructionism, Emanuel may not be finished yet.
But I hope his lawyers were smart enough this time not to cite cases that have been overruled and to seek an injunction on the election going forward.
Because this may all be moot otherwise.
Based Upon this
One of the justices is Anne Burke, the wife of powerful Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, who has endorsed Emanuel opponent Gery Chico. Ed Burke is also the chairman of the panel that decides which Democratic judicial candidates get the blessing of the Cook County Democratic Party -- so a lot of judges owe their election to his support.
i think its a sure thing rahm wil not get back on the ballot. the Burkes are more powerful than the governor
Go Rahm! I predict protests if his name stays off the ballot. The people of Chicago sacrificed having a powerful and effective Representative for the sake of the country when Rahm went to Washington. Chicagoans should not be punished further for lending one of their leaders to the Federal Government.
Seriously, Charles ... did Chicagoans get a vote on whether he should go, or was that solely and completely HIS decision, to feed HIS personal ambition?
My guess is the latter, and he should have to live with the consequences. I don't think they re-wrote that ordinance while he was away, did they? As for Chicagoans, in general, it's just like anyplace else. You get exactly what you vote for. When you voted for Rahm, Rahm was what you got.
Very seriously Anna. Disenfranchisementis a very serious issue. There are many people in Chicago who did not want to lose Rahm as their Representative but understood the importance of the job of chief of staff. I don't agree that he did this for his own personal ambition. I believe that it was a sacrifice that he made for the service of our country. I don't think he really wanted to do it but he was being called to service and he thought that he would be good at the job. No one will ever know for sure which one of us is right about that, but it is not relevant anyway.
It is not relevant because, while it is true that they did not re-write the ordinance while he was away, the ordinance was re-interpreted since his decision to go to Washington. Rahm reasonably thought that he would be able to run for mayor when he was through with is honorable service to this great country.
This is exactly the opportunity that many, if not most, Chicagoans want and expect from a Democracy. The ability to choose their leaders, without which they are disenfranchised.
Talk about hyperbole. You're not "disenfranchised" just because you don't like the candidates. If that's the case, why have any residency requirements at all? What you're saying is that we should all get to vote for who we want, anytime we want, and if we can't, then waaaaaaaa ....
And even if the rule was reinterpreted while Emanuel was gone, that was a chance he took. When he made the decision to come back, he should have been aware of it. In fact, I think his lawyers were aware of it, which is why they cited a case that had been overrruled. Now they cry unfair. Well, life changes the rules sometimes, and courts sometimes change their minds. But they didn't do it just because of Rahm Emanuel.
I'm a democrat, Charles, an attorney, and a die-hard liberal. I completely fail to see any injustice here that rises to the level of all the noise that's being made about it.
I understand that legally speaking this is a cloudy issue but I do see a huge moral injustice with respect to democratic principles.
I don't think it is right that someone in the military should lose their eligibility for pubic office because they are overseas. That is not in question here. The fact that laws were written for this purpose shows that law makers considered it an injustice for those displaced because of participation in the military to lose their eligibility to run for office.
What is in question is whether the same rules should apply to others that are called to serve our country away from their homes. This is where the law is unclear as demonstrated by different judges coming to different conclusions. I strongly believe that it would be an equal injustice for someone serving under the POTUS to lose their eligibility because they accepted their call to serve.
I also believe that the magnitude of this injustice is multiplied by every Chicago voter that would like to vote for Rahm. I believe this because the will of the people is at the core of a democracy. Since he is polling at 40 plus percent, this makes it a huge injustice.
Charles,
I've seen you complaining about this for 2 days now and the only thing I can ask is how many active duty military members are running for mayor of Chicago?
Darrell, zero. The hypothetical situation of the returning soldier seeking office is central to both the legal and moral questions this case raises. Also, hypothetical situations help us detach ourselves from our biases that may be influencing the positions we take on issues. I have been frustrated by what seems to be an "ends justify the means" attitude many people have taken on this issue because they dislike Rahm. (I'm not talking about Anna Molly, she has made her points based on logic) I have used the example of the returning solider against some people who seem to not care how Rahm is prevented from being mayor so long as he is prevented.
In my case I am not from Chicago and haven't the slightest interest in the mayorship of that town. I just think it's funny that so many non-Chicagoans are in an uproar about it.
Living only 10 miles away and in the same county, I am impacted greatly by the mayor of Chicago. The economy of the entire region (Chicagoland) is impacted by the leadership and decisions made by the mayor.
It's a badly kept secret around City Hall that Ald. Burke is paying for the ballot challenge to Rahm. He should be outed and his wife should recuse herself.
Sorry that will never happen, the burkes are sometimes more powerfull than the governor as jeff stated,
They have been a fixture in chicago for over 30 years, Ed is one of the most powerful aldermen and his wife is a justice on the Illinois State Supreme Court. guess what is going to happen.
this is chicago politics at its best, the IL supreme justice's husband endorsed Gery Chico, Rahm needs to get back on the ballot and its up to her to help him get back on, Yea right. think again,
THIS IS CHICAGO!!!!!!!
Kinda weird that Bev and Fiesty have kept oddly quiet on this issue. I guess that they can't quite stretch that link to the Tea Party/Republicans/Fox News. It is simply a case of not knowing the rules before he jumped in the fire.
Write in works. Run as a write in candidate. He will win with no problems.
I was just wondering about that myself. What would happen if people wrote in his name often enough to give him a majority of votes? Does someone need to be "officially sanctioned" as a write in candidate a la the Murkowski fiasco in Alaska, or can people just write his name down in the "Other" space and elect him?
Having read the first column of my day being that the court ruled in RE's favor, all I can say is that it sounds properly adjudicated to me. Mind you, I'm just a librarian (with some law library experience), and would not presume to give you legal, medical or tax advice:
However--
Most of what some of you are saying here would be tossed out as Speculation; the rest of you would be tossed out for Contempt of Court.
Have a nice day.