Court Rules Against Rahm
Wow!
An Illinois appeals court panel has ruled that Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff, does not qualify to run for mayor of Chicago in next month’s election.
The ruling, which was announced on Monday, comes as a significant and unexpected setback for Mr. Emanuel, who has been a front-runner both in polls and in fundraising in the race to replace Richard M. Daley, the city’s longest serving mayor, who will retire this spring.
The question of Mr. Emanuel’s residency — and whether he had lived in Chicago long enough to appear on the city’s ballot — had been a matter of debate since Mr. Emanuel departed the White House last fall to run for mayor.
There is no way this will stand. They will take it to the Ill supreme court. Or Obama will make a presidential decree. There is too much money involved for Rahm not to be the next mayor of Chicago.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2011 at 1407 hrs
Outstanding
A big high five for these two judges. Or did he just forget to pay them?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2011 at 1425 hrs
Court rulings don’t mean shit. Obama will just deem him mayor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2011 at 1914 hrs
some learned discourse here. nice, folks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2011 at 2113 hrs
some learned discourse here. nice, folks
Nice way to add to the subject matter at hand. What is your actual opinion on the whole matter, or is it your life mission to monitor speech on the various blogs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2011 at 2338 hrs
I think this is rather telling:
Sara Grosby, 58, said she was shocked by the court ruling. She was leaning toward voting for Emanuel, but now must reconsider the other candidates.
“In my opinion, he already was a civil servant, working for Obama,” said Grosby, an aviation security worker at O’Hare Airport. “I would think the court could cut him some slack.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 0120 hrs
“I would think the court could cut him some slack.”
Great work on the quote brainstew - I am always amazed at people who think laws don’t apply to them.
I’m not an expert on Chicago residency laws, but since an appelate court ruled against him - I would assume that the residency laws mean you actually have to live there for a one year - not just own a house there. Since it is pretty obvious he was living in Washington D.C. as the chief of staff (hardly a job you can do from home) I don’t see how he could think he’s going to skirt around this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 0729 hrs
I certainly don’t live in Chicago BUT I love to visit! Compared to the other candidates, whether you like him or not, he is shoulders above the rest. For the sake of our neighbors to the south, I hope the Ill. Supreme Court overrules this decision.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1001 hrs
“What is your actual opinion on the whole matter, or is it your life mission to monitor speech on the various blogs? “
Kettle, black.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1024 hrs
The Wall Street Journal makes a strong argument in favor of Rahm. It’s behind a paywall, so I can’t link (buy today’s issue and support good journalism!) but here are highlights:
“Conservatives like to gripe that too many politicians go native in Washington and never return home. So why are so many people rejoicing that an Illinois appeals court ruled yesterday that former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is ineligible to run for mayor of Chicago on February 22 because he hasn’t lived in the city for the past year?
“[Rahm] has lifelong ties to the Windy City, and for six years he represented the Fifth Congressional district that includes part of Chicago before President Obama offered him the White House job in late 2008. While in Washington, he maintained his Illinois driver’s license, paid income taxes in both locations, and continued to pay property taxes on his Chicago home, which he rented out during his absence.
“It’s tempting to enjoy Mr. Emanuel’s ballot troubles because he’s a darling of rich Chicago liberals and it’s a rare misstep for the Daley machine, which is backing him. But we don’t think Mr. Emanuel should be penalized, or Chicago voters denied the chance to vote for him, because he chose to serve his country.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1041 hrs
While i am not a fan of Emanuel, and i don’t like courts reading into the laws things that weren’t there. It seems that the law is vague enough for “service to the country” - and the voters can decide. I would put him on the ballot. If Wisconsin had such a law, and Tommy Thompson were barred from running against Russ Feingold, I would have felt the same way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1104 hrs
Here is the Illinois law - what do you think:
65 ILCS 5/3.1 10 5) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1 10 5)
Sec. 3.1 10 5. Qualifications; elective office.
(a) 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 20 25) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1 20 25)
Sec. 3.1 20 25. Redistricting a city.
(c) If it appears from any official census that a city has the requisite number of inhabitants to authorize it to increase the number of aldermen, the city council shall immediately proceed to redistrict the city and shall hold the next city election in accordance with the new redistricting. At this election the aldermen whose terms of office are not expiring shall be considered aldermen for the new wards respectively in which their residences are situated. At this election, in a municipality that is not a newly incorporated municipality, a candidate for alderman may be elected from any ward that contains a part of the ward in which he or she resided at least one year next preceding the election that follows the redistricting, and, if elected, that person may be reelected from the new ward he or she represents if he or she resides in that ward for at least one year next preceding reelection. If there are 2 or more aldermen with terms of office not expiring and residing in the same ward under the new redistricting, the alderman who holds over for that ward shall be determined by lot in the presence of the city council, in the manner directed by the council, and all other aldermen shall fill their unexpired terms as aldermen at large. The aldermen at large, if any, shall have the same powers and duties as all other aldermen, but upon the expiration of their terms the offices of aldermen at large shall be abolished.(65 ILCS 5/3.1 25 75) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1 25 75)
Sec. 3.1 25 75. Districts; election of trustees.
(b) Each of the districts shall be represented by one trustee who shall have been an actual resident of the district for at least 6 months immediately before his or her election in the first election after a redistricting, unless the trustee is a resident of a newly incorporated municipality. Only the electors of a district shall elect the trustee from that district.(65 ILCS 5/5 2 2) (from Ch. 24, par. 5 2 2)
Sec. 5 2 2. Except as otherwise provided in Section 5 2 3, the number of aldermen, when not elected by the minority representation plan, shall be as follows: In cities not exceeding 3,000 inhabitants, 6 aldermen; exceeding 3,000, but not exceeding 15,000, 8 aldermen; exceeding 15,000 but not exceeding 20,000, 10 aldermen; exceeding 20,000 but not exceeding 30,000, 14 aldermen; and 2 additional aldermen for every 20,000 inhabitants over 30,000. In all cities of less than 500,000, 20 aldermen shall be the maximum number permitted except as otherwise provided in the case of aldermen at large. No redistricting shall be required in order to reduce the number of aldermen heretofore provided for. Two aldermen shall be elected to represent each ward.
If it appears from any census specified in Section 5 2 5 and taken not earlier than 1940 that any city has the requisite number of inhabitants to authorize it to increase the number of aldermen, the city council shall immediately proceed to redistrict the city in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 2 5, and it shall hold the next city election in accordance with the new redistricting. At this election the aldermen whose terms of office are not expiring shall be considered aldermen for the new wards respectively in which their residences are situated. At this election a candidate for alderman may be elected from any ward that contains a part of the ward in which he or she resided at least one year next preceding the election that follows the redistricting, and, if elected, that person may be reelected from the new ward he or she represents if he or she resides in that ward for at least one year next preceding reelection. If there are 2 or more aldermen with terms of office not expiring and residing in the same ward under the new redistricting, the alderman who holds over for that ward shall be determined by lot in the presence of the city council, in whatever manner the council shall direct and all other aldermen shall fill their unexpired terms as aldermen at large. The aldermen at large, if any, shall have the same power and duties as all other aldermen but upon expiration of their terms the offices of aldermen at large shall be abolished.
If the re districting results in one or more wards in which no aldermen reside whose terms of office have not expired, 2 aldermen shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 2 8.
(Source: P.A. 93 847, eff. 7 30 04.)
(65 ILCS 5/5 2 11) (from Ch. 24, par. 5 2 11)
Sec. 5 2 11. In any village which adopts this Article 5, the board of trustees by ordinance shall divide and, whenever necessary thereafter, shall redistrict the village into 6 compact and contiguous districts of approximately equal population.
Each of the districts shall be represented by one trustee who shall have been an actual resident of the district for at least 6 months prior to his election, unless the trustee is a resident of a newly incorporated municipality. Only the electors of a district shall elect the trustee from that district.
The provisions of Section 5 2 8 relating to terms of office of aldermen in cities shall also apply to the terms of office of trustees under this section.
(Source: P.A. 95 646, eff. 1 1 08.)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1154 hrs
Kettle, black.
Tool, box.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1247 hrs
thanks bill.
although i am really thankful that i am not an attorney - reading that was causing me to go blurry-eyed.
I probably missed it - but i didn’t see any exceptions referring to serving the country - at all. If that is the case, then i think Rahm should not be on the ballot.
I don’t think we should be making exceptions because we feel like it. If the law doesn’t make sense, then the legislature or municipality should change those laws - BEFORE the NEXT election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1320 hrs
The exceptions are only for VOTERS and not CANDIDATES for office. I don’t see how this can possibly be overturned. The key phrase here is:
“and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election”
Seeing Rahm’s defense - he isn’t disputing the fact that he wasn’t residing - he’s just saying he paid taxes on property that he rented out - meaning he wasn’t living (residing) there. Seems pretty open and shut to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1342 hrs
Never mind, he’s back on the ballot.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 25, 2011 at 1412 hrs
9.“What is your actual opinion on the whole matter, or is it your life mission to monitor speech on the various blogs? “
Kettle, black.
Once again, I ask, what is your opinion on the situation?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2011 at 1553 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 45
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/19/2013 07:34 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).