E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Illinois Supreme Court has just issued a stay of the appeals court's order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the ballot and directing the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to restore his name to the ballot.
This is a strong indication that the court will accept the case and, perhaps, of which way the justices are leaning.
*** UPDATE *** NBC's Pete Williams has more:
Less than 24 hours after an Illinois appeals court bumped Rahm Emanuel off the ballot for Chicago's election for mayor, the state's supreme court put that ruling on hold and ordered the city to include his name on any ballots being printed.
"The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago," the Supreme Court said in a one-page, unsigned order.
The court said it acted after receiving legal briefs from Emanuel and from his legal opponents who claimed he was unqualified because he did not meet residency requirements of state law. Today's order left unresolved whether the state's high court would take up the entire case on a speeded-up basis, but the order gave Emanuel the rapid relief he was seeking -- to keep his name on the ballot.
*** UPDATE TWO*** NBC Chicago's Mary Ann Ahern reports that the court will hear Emanuel's appeal.
Leave a Comment:
East Berlin or do you mean MOSCOW.
I see one thing lacking form most of these comments...
What Does The "Residency Law" Actually say?
I am resident of 1 state, yet the majority of my time is spent in yet another state due to work. I pay income taxes in both states, non-resident income tax to the state where I work & resident income tax on the same income to the state where I am a resident.
So could I run for office in the state where I work? NO! But I could run in the state where my residency is at.
What presents a prima facia evidence case for residency?
(1) The state my DL was issued by & the address of residence stated on the Drivers License. (2) The state I calim as my state of residen e on my Federal Income Tax forms & the state to which I file a Resident Income Tax form. (3) The State (& city) in which I am registered to vote.
Most people working in Washington actually remain registered to vote in their home city/state. So if Rahm is & was registered to vote in Chicago then there is his case to run for office in Chicago. Add to that his DL & tax returns ... He was a resident of Chicago the ENTIRE time he was in Washington!
So I ask: Does the "Residency Law" state he has to be resident of the city or does specifically state he has to live in the city for the eyear before running? Has nybody actually bothered to look at the wording of the actual law?
Hillary ran for Senator for NY. She established residency in NY to do so, yet she never actually lived in NY prior to running for office. How did she manage to do that?
Rahm has lived in & been a resident of Chicago for many many years, certainly enough to qualify to be on the ballot. It is simply a technicality of interpretation that raises the question if he can or can not be on the ballot! An interpretation that many legal scholars say would be a slippery-slope of case-law should the court order his name removed.
Sharkie - you can claim residence anywhere you want. Upon legal review you have to meet the residency requirements of that state if state residency is what you are talking about. Every state I have lived in (4) and own property in (4) stipulate "reside"= live = residence. For a DL you cannot list a property that you use as a rental in any state I know of. If you do you have falsified your application. Same goes for state residency. He would be a resident of Chicago, and Ill., if he had not relinquished it by turning his residence into rental property. You cannot claim residence in a home you vacated to rent out and owning property/paying taxes has nothing to do with residency requirements. In this situation I would think that he would fail the residency requirements of Ill. as well, IF that state had any real intention of trying to follow the law.
Sorry folks! A similar comment below was left in the wrong string. The web site locked up and would not allow me to make the correction or deletion.
He's on, he's off, he's back on once again! So why shouldn't he run for the office? While on active duty military service (regardless of whether being stationed overseas or in another State from the original home left to serve or work in the military--also true for D.O.D. or Contractors working overseas or in another State), there is such a thing called, "Home of Record", whereby you are allowed to declare a city and state of permanent address on a legal Government Document/Form. From that point on, all taxes, unless in an actual war zone, are then directed back to your State, Home of Record". Since D.C. is not a State, OR because politicians are considered a Federal Employees on a contract in another State, it is possible that politicians are allowed the same status as the active duty military, or Contractors with their "Home of Record". Having been in the military for a very, very long time, I know this for a FACT. However, I cannot say for actual certainty that this is true for politicians, too, leaving their State to work for the Government in D.C. or elsewhere. That will be up to the Courts to decide. Therefore, in all fairness, until they finally decide what the status for his home of record is, his name should remain on the ballot. I doubt seriously that R.E. would have gone into this election in the blind of his State of Residency. If you recall, before R.E. left to accept the appointment of the Chief of Staff, he had told the President and the people through the news media that the job would be only temporary, because he some day wanted return to run for a political position in Chicago. I hope this clears up some of the confusion over the residency issue. Anyways, the Court System will finalize it.
Sharky is correct. dansu you are partially correct. You can "establish" residency where ever you want, but you give up residency in your prior state.
It goes back to the first read of the election code:
"he is exempt from that requirement under the Election Code provision stating that "no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008) The arguement is, his service to the President, exempts him from the requirement to physically reside in the City/State as long as the intent to return was never waived.
In addition, although the supreme court's discussion in Smith was based nominally on principles of "residence," it appears from its analysis that it actually applied concepts of domicile. Despite the facts that the officeholder had left Illinois with his family and had rented out his Illinois home, the supreme court concluded, based solely on the officeholder's intent to return, that he retained his "residence" in Illinois.
Remember, physical presence (living) in a state is considered being "domiciled" in that state. As long as the Chicago Election Law does not state that the "candidate must be domiciled" within the city for a period of one year prior, he will be found eligible.
Because the question goes to "residency", the supreme court ruling will stand. He satisfies the "residency" requirement.
Ok New Yorkers are as dumb as the people of Chickago.
The Law says you must live in the City one year prior to runing for office. How hard is that to understand.
Ron, it doesn't say live.... It says "reside". This then goes to the definition of Residency. Not Domicile.
It goes back to the first read of the election code:
"he is exempt from that requirement under the Election Code provision stating that "no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008) The arguement is, his service to the President, exempts him from the requirement to physically reside in the City/State as long as the intent to return was never waived.
In addition, although the supreme court's discussion in Smith was based nominally on principles of "residence," it appears from its analysis that it actually applied concepts of domicile. Despite the facts that the officeholder had left Illinois with his family and had rented out his Illinois home, the supreme court concluded, based solely on the officeholder's intent to return, that he retained his "residence" in Illinois.
Remember, physical presence (living) in a state is considered being "domiciled" in that state. As long as the Chicago Election Law does not state that the "candidate must be domiciled" within the city for a period of one year prior, he will be found eligible.
Because the question goes to "residency", the supreme court ruling will stand. He satisfies the "residency" requirement.
Got to go to a party so I enjoyed my chat today. Love Ron the Beerman
He's on, he's off, he's back on once again. So why shouldn't he run for the office? While on active duty military service (regardless of whether being stationed overseas or in another State from the original home left to serve or work in the military--also true for D.O.D. or Contractors working overseas or in another State), there is such a thing called, "Home of Record", whereby you are allowed to declare a city and state of permanent address on a legal Government Document/Form. From that point on, all taxes, unless in an actual war zone, are then directed back to your State, Home of Record". Since D.C. is not a State, OR because politicians are considered a Federal Employees on a contract in another State, it is possible that politicians are allowed the same status as the active duty military, or Contractors with their "Home of Record". Having been in the military for a very, very long time, I know this for a FACT. However, I cannot say for actual certainty that this is true for politicians, too, leaving their State to work for the Government in D.C. or elsewhere. That will be up to the Courts to decide. Therefore, in all fairness, until they finally decide what the status for his home of record is, his name should remain on the ballot. I doubt seriously that R.E. would have gone into this election in the blind of his State of Residency. If you recall, before R.E. left to accept the appointment of the Chief of Staff, he had told the President and the people through the news media that the job would be only temporary, because he some day wanted return to run for a political position in Chicago. I hope this clears up some of the confusion over the residency issue. Anyways, the Court System will finalize it.
He's on, he's off, he's back on once again. So why shouldn't he run for the office? While on active duty military service (regardless of whether being stationed overseas or in another State from the original home left to serve or work in the military--also true for D.O.D. or Contractors working overseas or in another State), there is such a thing called, "Home of Record", whereby you are allowed to declare a city and state of permanent address on a legal Government Document/Form. From that point on, all taxes, unless in an actual war zone, are then directed back to your State, Home of Record". Since D.C. is not a State, OR because politicians are considered a Federal Employees on a contract in another State, it is possible that politicians are allowed the same status as the active duty military, or Contractors with their "Home of Record". Having been in the military for a very, very long time, I know this for a FACT. However, I cannot say for actual certainty that this is true for politicians, too, leaving their State to work for the Government in D.C. or elsewhere. That will be up to the Courts to decide. Therefore, in all fairness, until they finally decide what the status for his home of record is, his name should remain on the ballot. I doubt seriously that R.E. would have gone into this election in the blind of his State of Residency. If you recall, before R.E. left to accept the appointment of the Chief of Staff, he had told the President and the people through the news media that the job would be only temporary, because he some day wanted return to run for a political position in Chicago. I hope this clears up some of the confusion over the residency issue. Anyways, the Court System will finalize it.
Thinker:
A Military Man from my own heart. I continue to use the Military exemption. Why would I pay taxes in California, when Illinois doesn't tax my Military income.
The arguement is: The code says "reside". This then goes to the definition of Residency. Not Domicile.
It goes back to the first read of the election code:
"he is exempt from that requirement under the Election Code provision stating that "no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008)
The arguement is, his service to the President is "business of the United States", which exempts him from the requirement to physically reside in the City/State as long as the intent to return was never waived.
In addition, although the supreme court's discussion in Smith was based nominally on principles of "residence," it appears from its analysis that it actually applied concepts of domicile. Despite the facts that the officeholder had left Illinois with his family and had rented out his Illinois home, the supreme court concluded, based solely on the officeholder's intent to return, that he retained his "residence" in Illinois.
Most of the people writing here do not understand the definitions (or differences) of Reside and Domicile. The "physical presence (living) in a state is considered being "domiciled" in that state. As long as the Chicago Election Law does not state that the "candidate must be domiciled" within the city for a period of one year prior, he will be found eligible.
Because the question goes to "residency", the supreme court ruling will stand. He satisfies the "residency" requirement.
Nothing has changed since the demise of "Blago".
I think he'll make a good, if not great mayor. It's almost like the other candidates, which the majority of the voters don't want, don't want Rahm on the ballot. Let the people decide not the courts, or the other candidates. Also at least he is still trying to stay in Service, not like a large number of others who've served in Public Service then go on to become Lobbyists.
Chicago (& Illinois) politics at its finest - Daley (x2), Burris, Rahm, Obama, Bloggo... Rahm has already been Christened Mayor by the powers that be so how can anything like a little, insignificant law get in the way? I'm glad I'm not from Chicagoland but it does make for some good entertainment.
Illinois appellate courts in MY experience are NOT particularly intelligent nor are they fully aware of the ILLINOIS state laws... moreover, they are after all, LAWYERS.... I'm sure you get my meaning. Corruption in Illinois is spelled LAWYER.
The Court must now follow up and confirm Rahm's right to run for Mayor.
To those who suggest Rahm should have left his home unoccupied - are you goofy or what? As if he would have a home left when he was finished serving in Washington? Take a look at the foreclosed (VACANT) homes where you live. How many are being destroyed?
The eissue doesn't concern JUST someone in politics who goes to Washington, or even just the military. Among those who are away from their home residence are:
College students. Not just undergrads, but grad students as well, who have a home, pay taxes, vote and renew their licenses in their state and city of residence.
Corporate employees. People who work for companies overseas, even bring their families there, but continue to pay taxes, vote and keep their driver's licenses current.
Consultants. Those who are independant contractors with employment contracts that require they are away from home, even while they maintain their licenses, vote absentee and pay the taxes that are due.
"Snow Birds" who do not stay in the cold weather, but live half the year elsewhere.
Sales reps. Those people who spend most of their life on the road.
Truckers and pilots. Those who spend the greater part of their life traveling.
The list goes on. With a global economy, employment that no longer includes 9-5 at the local factory and professional and educational settings out of one's city of residence, the pool of people that would be considered eligible to run for political office shrinks dramatically.
It is absurd to think that someone who has maintained a home (renter or house sitter, is there really a difference if it is to make sure the house is not vacant?), paid taxes, voted in their home district and maintained all licenses and credentials as a resident can't be considered a resident if they aren't under a specific roof every night.
The reverse is also true - if the physical presence is the sole qualification, students from other states and countries residing in Chicago who vote and pay taxes elsewhere would be eligible to run, but the aforementioned residents who are absent from their homes would not be. That's where the whole argument that he had to be present in Chicago collapses.
I have no dog in this race, and I don't think Rahm is particularly anything special, but I do think that just because he went to Washington DC to work for the administration, that this doesn't negate his residency at all. If that were the case, most senators would have to travel daily back and forth to their states.
Good work. Thanks for the info. very useful tips indeed.
The article you have written is brilliant. Your information is very well founded and presented in such a convincing way. I have read many articles on this subject, but by far, yours is the best.
<a href=” displays</a>