Election Law to Rahm: No Mayor’s Race for You?

posted at 8:50 am on November 26, 2010 by Jimmie Bise, Jr

When Rahm Emanuel resigned as President Obama’s Chief of Staff, everyone and his brother assumed he did so to assume the Mayoralty of Chicago.

However, if a certain Chicago lawyer has his way, Emanuel’s climb into the driver’s seat of the Chicago political machine will end before it even begins.

Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (D) may face as many as 19 other contenders in the race to succeed retiring Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (D), according to candidate filings submitted Monday. But even before Emanuel contends with his rivals on the ballot, he’ll have to overcome another hurdle: a dispute over his residency.

Election law attorney Burt Odelson, who also has served as an adviser to several of Emanuel’s opponents in the race, is planning to file a legal challenge with the Chicago Board of Elections as early as tomorrow arguing that Emanuel does not meet Illinois’ residency requirement for candidates running for municipal office. In an interview with The Fix, Odelson said that he is representing a group of Chicago citizens and that no campaign is involved in the challenge.

According to Illinois’ municipal code, candidates have to be a resident of the state for a year prior to the election. Emanuel moved back to the state in October, a full seven months too late to qualify, if you follow the letter of the statute, so he should not be allowed to run. However, Emanuel does not plan to argue the letter of the law but the spirit. He claims that his intention was to remain a resident, since he voted an absentee ballot in Illinois, kept his vehicle registered there, and paid property taxes on the home he owns there.

That home will really be the central issue of the case. Odelson’s argument is that Emanuel didn’t have a home to which he could reside, since he rented it out. In fact, Emanuel can’t move into his house since he extended the agreement with the guy to whom he’s renting the house into 2011 and the renter, who is now a Mayoral candidate himself had refused to leave. On the other hand, Emanuel will likely argue that he doesn’t have to live in the house to be a resident since he’s legally cast absentee ballots, which he couldn’t do if he weren’t, even in Chicago.

I have no idea how this case will end, though I suspect Emanuel will win it because, well, we’re talking about Chicago and Rahm Emanuel here. I can’t imagine there’s a judge in the city who would stand in the way of a guy who will chase you down and accost you in a shower to get what he wants. However, it could slow Emanuel down long enough for a relatively popular icon of Chicago politics with US Senate experience and the Barack Obama stamp of approval to sneak in and beat him.

Now wouldn’t that be something to see?

(via memeorandum)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rules…who needs them stinkin’ rules.

Electrongod on November 26, 2010 at 8:53 AM

On the other hand, Emanuel will likely argue that he doesn’t have to live in the house to be a resident….

In California, you don’t have to be a US citizen to be a resident.
I have a postcard of Anaheim on my kitchen wall…that probably makes me a resident. I haven’t been there since 1983.

Electrongod on November 26, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Emanuel can’t move into his house since he extended the agreement with the guy to whom he’s renting the house into 2011 and the renter, who is now a Mayoral candidate himself had refused to leave

Now that’s funny!!!

jeanie on November 26, 2010 at 8:59 AM

it ain’t over yet………..

what if he is the write in winner…..

-stirs pot-

RealMc on November 26, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Does it really matter which POS, criminal Democrat scum becomes mayor…really??

Extrafishy on November 26, 2010 at 9:00 AM

“On the other hand, Emanuel will likely argue that he doesn’t have to live in the house to be a resident since he’s legally cast absentee ballots, which he couldn’t do if he weren’t, even in Chicago.”

Hah. All the more reason someone ought to file a complaint of election fraud against Rahm.

Dusty on November 26, 2010 at 9:03 AM

I think Rahm might be guilty of voter fraud if he voted from an address he is using as income property…

Fallon on November 26, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Since when does a rental property allow one to claim citizenship of a state? Sounds like he used an office or POB for his vehicle registration and voter registration. Isn’t that voter fraud? He’s going to argue spirit of the law? He’s been watching too much television!

Blake on November 26, 2010 at 9:03 AM

What??? They have laws in Ill?!?!?!?!?!?
Enforced?????????

OmahaConservative on November 26, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Well, they didn’t follow the letter of the law in Alaska, why do it here?

All that matters is intent and ‘spirit’, right?

Wouldn’t want to deprive ‘ol Rahm of his ‘rights’ now would we?

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 9:12 AM

The simple fact that this post must be taken seriously is in-itself very telling with regards to just how far outside of the law our politicians feel comfortable with these days.

Keemo on November 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM

It’s not so crazy as it might sound. I work overseas, and have run into similar disputes. I had a specific one over paying out-of-State vs. in-State tuition when I went back to school:

- I own property in this State;
- My bank accounts are in this State;
- I pay State income taxes for this State;
- I am registered to vote in this State;
- I vote absentee in this State;
- My car is licensed in this State;

The above is not true for any other State in the Union. If I am not a resident of this State, then where am I a resident?

ss396 on November 26, 2010 at 9:18 AM

So all this time Emanuel’s absentee ballot has been illegal?

Skandia Recluse on November 26, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Thats a guy we want to see in DWTS.

the_nile on November 26, 2010 at 9:19 AM

This is a great country. The entertainment is endless. After he is given the okay to run for mayor, someone will sue him for using campaign funds for the court battle to allow him to run for mayor.

Cindy Munford on November 26, 2010 at 9:22 AM

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_16703299?source=rss&nclick_check=1

Prius driven by incoming Mayor Jean Quan booted over unpaid tickets of over $1000. The incident is particularly embarrassing to an elected official, because Quan and her fellow council members targeted parking as a way to generate revenue in 2009

I would not hold you in suspense, yes, Quan is a Democrat. Rahm and Quan typify the Democrat pols idea that rules and laws do not apply to them.

bayview on November 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Keemo on November 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Come on…

As I alluded to in my previous comment, law doesn’t matter – ‘spirit’ and ‘intent’ do. Just look at what happened in Alaska (and has happened in many elections).

Don’t have the bubble on the ballot filled in as the law stipulates? No problem. Don’t have the write in candidates name spelled correctly as the law stipulates? No problem.

Many here said it didn’t matter, all that mattered was voter intent. Wouldn’t want to disenfranchise anyone after all. What no one could explain was that if the voter – the VOTER – didn’t comply with the law and follow directions how that was exactly disenfranchisement. Can a voter deny their own right to vote by being stupid?

Anyway, you’re right about how far pols are taking the ridiculous. They let Hilldog off in running for the New York Senate seat on some ephemeral residency justification didn’t they? She had never even lived in New York as I recall.

I’d be surprised if this went anywhere.

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Scum, the lot of them.

SurferDoc on November 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM

When it comes to absentee voting, I believe Illinois law (or regulations) gives a waiver to residents who leave the state to serve on behalf of the US government. However, that is a separate rule from the one about who can be Mayor. Attempts to conflate the two are legally suspect.

furytrader on November 26, 2010 at 9:30 AM

Attempts to conflate the two are legally suspect.

furytrader on November 26, 2010 at 9:30 AM

So it shall be done..

the_nile on November 26, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Military personnel and college students are largely exempted from the State residency issues. But there are many other people and professions who are absent for long periods of time from their primary residence: the construction industry is one; oil & gas industries are another. Folks in these industries even have to pay State income taxes where they are working (except for Al Franken!) Does this compromise their residency at their primary home? To where would you consign them?

ss396 on November 26, 2010 at 9:33 AM

The question is, has Teh Won taken over the Machine, or is he merely a nationalized imposter?

steveegg on November 26, 2010 at 9:34 AM

I don’t think Mr Odelson will have much time to deal wit dat silly lawsuit, sine he’s gonna have his hands full dealin’ wit dat unfortunate house fire which’ll be happenin’ this comin’ weekend, ya know?

eeyore on November 26, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Keep the sleeze in Chicago where his kind of people love him. Please don’t send him back to DC where he can wreck havoc on all of us.

Don L on November 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM

When you make reference to the “relatively popular icon of Chicago politics” , I am assuming you mean the well-known and totally hapless Roland “Tombstone” Burris.

He is known as “Tombstone” as he had a masoleum prematurely built a few years back to celebrate the wonder that is he, and on one of the walls, he has engraved the list of all his “accomplishments”, from state Attorney General to Senator.
Most people would question why someone would be planning ahead in advance of their own eventual demise just so as to remind people of their own greatness while they still walked the earth, but then again, we are talking Roland Burris here, a man with a self-inflated ego too large to fill even the lowly confines of Soldier’s Field.

It would therefore be of little surprise if Burris now wants to embellish the wall of that masoleum with the addition of the title “Mayor of Chicago”.

The only problem is that people in this state are now officially sick and tired of this cartoonish buffoon of a Chicago Machine Politician, some of which sincerely wish the man would soon assume room temperature so as to finally put that masoleum to the use it was originally intended for.

This is why I highly dount Burris would even make it past the primaries if he did go through with running for office. If anything, he could end up in a dead heat for last place, right next to another politician of equally ill repute, the very reprehensible Carol Moseley Braun.

I would still bet the bank of the Rahmfather becoming the next King of Chicago.

Notice I said, “King”, not “Mayor”.

Welcome to Chicago!

pilamaye on November 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM

As much as I dislike the guy, I do believe he should be able to run. As part of the military when you are deployed you don’t necessarily lose your residency. This should be the case for Rahm Emanuel as well. It would set a bad precedent to deny him.

Dannic on November 26, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Oops. Oh well. better luck next term

hawkman on November 26, 2010 at 9:54 AM

As much as I dislike the guy, I do believe he should be able to run. As part of the military when you are deployed you don’t necessarily lose your residency. This should be the case for Rahm Emanuel as well. It would set a bad precedent to deny him.

Dannic on November 26, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Very bad precedent. It would encourage blue states with Republican Representatives or Senators to pass similar legislation, which would essentially nullify their ability to run for re-election since they would disqualify themselves by being in Congress.

AngusMc on November 26, 2010 at 9:55 AM

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Can’t argue with any of that…

Keemo on November 26, 2010 at 9:56 AM

If he wanted to run, he should have established a residence in Chicago for at least a year. He did not.

Blake on November 26, 2010 at 10:22 AM

I don’t see how he can use voting in Chicago as a means to bolster his claim of residency. All it does is show that he voted improperly since he was not a resident there.

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 10:24 AM

It would encourage blue states with Republican Representatives or Senators to pass similar legislation, which would essentially nullify their ability to run for re-election since they would disqualify themselves by being in Congress.

AngusMc on November 26, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Not the same. Congresscritters return to their districts where they presumably have a residence, even if it’s a studio apartment, where they can sleep. Emmanuel did not have a place to lay his head. He was greedy — he wanted both a long-term leasee on his property and to be able to claim residency in Chicago. Too bad for him.

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Laws and rules are just for us common folk.

tommer74 on November 26, 2010 at 10:28 AM

professions who are absent for long periods of time from their primary residence: the construction industry is one; oil & gas industries are another. Folks in these industries even have to pay State income taxes where they are working (except for Al Franken!) Does this compromise their residency at their primary home? To where would you consign them?

ss396 on November 26, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Where do they keep their stuff? If they have an apartment with furniture or a house or whatever in the state in which they claim residency, and are able to return to that location to sleep there, no problem.

This isn’t complicated.

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 10:29 AM

If he wanted to run, he should have established a residence in Chicago for at least a year. He did not.

Blake

He did not realize that O’Bambi would fail so epically one year ago!

honsy on November 26, 2010 at 10:29 AM

The one time I voted absentee, I had to prove I was a resident by showing my residence on the application, it made no difference that I was already registered at that same address.

Mr. Grump on November 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM

I suspect that Rahm’s experience in the White House left him with the belief that standards of candidate eligibility are passe. Maybe he even thinks that he is black now.

slickwillie2001 on November 26, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Well, they didn’t follow the letter of the law in Alaska, why do it here?

All that matters is intent and ‘spirit’, right?

Wouldn’t want to deprive ‘ol Rahm of his ‘rights’ now would we?

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Interesting concept, extending ‘voter intent’ to ‘candidate intent’. He intended to be a resident, -why not simply consider him one?

slickwillie2001 on November 26, 2010 at 10:47 AM

He intended to be a resident, -why not simply consider him one?

slickwillie2001 on November 26, 2010

If he intended to be a resident, he should have maintained a residence there.

I’m curious if he owns any other property or had any long-term leases elsewhere.

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 10:49 AM

I’m pretty sure the law itself is illegal anyways. Granted, states may be different I suppose by here in CA we have similar laws on the books, but the courts have found them to be unconstitutional. All it takes to run for and win office is to be a resident of the area you plan to represent on election day.

jhspaybar on November 26, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Oh please . . . we all know that the law for the rest of the peons doesn’t apply to the elitist left. Don’t bother with this trivia Rahm, just declare yourself a resident and move on.

rplat on November 26, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Where does he store his ballerina outfits?

hip shot on November 26, 2010 at 10:56 AM

I’ve heard a story that Rahm was twice removed from the Chicago voter rolls since 2009. Don’t expect the Chicago MSM to dig very deep. Jay Levine and Charles Thomas are too busy lobbing softballs at Emanuel and intimidating those who try to get close enough to ask real questions.

southsideironworks on November 26, 2010 at 11:13 AM

I don’t know about this one…

I own three homes, in different states, and have gone through this with different taxing entities over the years. My understanding, as agreed to by Missouri, Nebraska and Florida revenue departments, is that residence is evidenced by where you’re registered vote, licensed to drive, and pay property tax (only one homestead exemption, please!)NOT on where you happen to be sleeping at the moment.

therealfranklin on November 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Nineteen candidates for Mayor of Chicago? Why do people want that job so badly? You’d think there’s real money to be made there or something! Boggles the mind!

factoid on November 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

In 1972 the very young Charles Ravenel was nominated by the Democrats to run for the governorship of South Carolina until someone looked at our constitution. He did not meet the residency requirements…………… he had to withdraw. The Republicans won the governorship for the first time since Reconstruction. South Carolina is not Chicago…..Rahm will be all allowed to run.

SC.Charlie on November 26, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Interesting concept, extending ‘voter intent’ to ‘candidate intent’. He intended to be a resident, -why not simply consider him one?

slickwillie2001 on November 26, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Which goes to show how firmly our culture has embraced anything having to do with intent. All that seems to matter in a lot of things is a persons (or societies or governments) intention. Consequences (in whatever form they may take) are irrelevant it seems

We must redistribute wealth. Yes it is devastating to the producers in this country, but our intentions are good. We must ban trans fat and salt and sugary drinks. We don’t mean to treat you like children, but our intentions are good. We must grope you before you get on an airplane. Yes its invasive and intrusive and totally ineffective, but our intentions are good.

“Hell isn’t merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them.” – Aldous Huxley

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 11:46 AM

I see a few judges and mayoral candidates in Chicago receiving dead fish in the mail in the very near future.

Dopenstrange on November 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM

As much as I dislike Rahm, if he paid Illinois income taxes and maintained a house there, then he is, by my lights, a resident and deserves the chance to run.

I know that if I went to Washington (as a Representative for example), I would have to rent my house, because I cannot afford to procure lodgings in Washington and maintain the mortgage on my home here in California without supporting income.

If we truly follow these kinds of laws to the letter (meaning that the person running for office has to be physically resident in the State at all times), then soldiers deployed overseas or Senators and Representatives serving in Washington cannot run for office in Illinois.

unclesmrgol on November 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM

There’s something entertaining about watching a fight for who gets to be the door keeper of hell.

Mojave Mark on November 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM

unclesmrgol on November 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Not to pick fly poop out of pepper with your comment, but soldiers serving cannot run for political office anywhere, not just Illinois.

I’m quite sure there are probably exemptions or addendum to the law addressing military personnel.

Also, if we aren’t going to follow the law – to the letter – then what’s the point? If it doesn’t work, fix it or get rid of it. But while it is the law, shouldn’t it be followed?

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I found some info on Illinois‘ definition of residency in a discussion of residency with regards to divorce cases. They cite several interpretations with respect to election law in Illinois. In each case, it seems that sleeping there matters.

Rahm didn’t sleep there. He can’t sleep there — he chose to enter into a long-term lease to rent out his house. He owns at least one other home (in Michigan) and may or may not maintain a lease on a property in D.C. So I’m thinking that this argument that he couldn’t afford to keep the Illinois property unrented – or at least rent it out at will or month to month – is moot.

The bar should be set pretty high for a guy to be able to claim residency and run for office to represent that location. It’s really not equivalent to the right to vote. And even there you have to make proactive steps to demonstrate that you are a resident of a district where you want to vote.

I don’t think you can use things like registering your car or voting, which are things you can do if you are a resident, to establish that you are a resident. That’s the cart before the horse.

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Excerpt from the article linked above:

Residency requirements in election cases can be persuasive authority of what constitutes residency in venue cases. In the 1907 Illinois Supreme Court case of Welch v. Shumway, 232 Ill.54, 83 N.E. 549, a voter was employed at a restaurant, occupying the upper part of the building, with his wife, as a residence. Prior to election, he rented a house in another ward, intending however to keep his old residence until after the election. He moved some things into the new residence leaving one bed at his old residence. While cleaning up the new place he and his wife slept there, and while there he was quarantined for smallpox. On the night before election, he slept at his old residence, where he voted on election day, and his wife slept at the new residence. The court held he was a legal voter in the ward of his old residence.

Stein v. County Board of School Trustees of DuPage County et. al., 85 Ill. App. 2d 251, 229 N.E.2d 165 (1967), stated: “Two elements are necessary to create a residence: (1) a physical presence in that place and (2) the intention of remaining there as a permanent home.” The Illinois Supreme Court case of Pope v. Board of Election Com’rs, 370 Ill. 196, 18 N.E.2d 214, speaks of being “lodged” at the residence and states: “Residence, for the purpose of registration and voting, means more than a mere technical domicile and does not permit registration and voting from an office or business location where the applicant has never lodged.”

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 12:14 PM

In “Rham’s world” residency is an “entitled established right”. Just ask fourteen million illegal immigrants.

Rovin on November 26, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I’m quite sure there are probably exemptions or addendum to the law addressing military personnel.

Also, if we aren’t going to follow the law – to the letter – then what’s the point? If it doesn’t work, fix it or get rid of it. But while it is the law, shouldn’t it be followed?

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Yes there are specific exemptions in state law for military personnel.

There are also specific requirements for establishing and maintaining residency. It appears that Rahm did not adhere to those rules to maintain residency in Chicago.

Saying this as someone “represented” by an absentee overlord — Gabriel Giffords who lives in Texas with her husband and “represents a quaint little district in Tucson in the off-season”. She has an apartment in her district that she uses to adhere to the residency requirement. My bet is that she couldn’t find it from the airport if her life depended upon it and has no recollection what it looks like. I’m kind of curious if it is even furnished.

AZfederalist on November 26, 2010 at 12:30 PM

How about following the intent of the law for a change? If the law is on the books, it means they require candidates to maintain a home there. Rahm didn’t. Next case.

pedestrian on November 26, 2010 at 12:44 PM

A puzzled Moocowski replied: “Can’t he buy a judge to fix the problem ?”

viking01 on November 26, 2010 at 12:46 PM

There’s the ‘letter of the law’ and there’s the ‘how’d you like me to break your face’. After all, this is Chicago.

Nothing to fear from those other candidates. I’m sure Rahm has all the dirt he needs on each of them to sink their candidacy. Just as Barry did.

GarandFan on November 26, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Not to pick fly poop out of pepper with your comment, but soldiers serving cannot run for political office anywhere, not just Illinois.

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM

The Law in Illinois appears to be Worded such that, if the Soldier is Discharged and Returns to Illinois, for the next year, said Soldier cannot Seek Publick Office.

That seems to be Unconstitutional. Hence, the Correct Method is for Rahm to Seek Publick Office, for another Citizen to Challenge Rahm in Court, and for the Constitutionality of the Law to be Determined thereby. Alternatively, Rahm may Challenge the wording of the Residency Requirement, but I think the Onus is On the Challenger to Begin the Process.

unclesmrgol on November 26, 2010 at 12:54 PM

The fix is in. The diminutive toe dancing ballet boy will be mayor no matter what it takes. BTW, other than a big mouth how did this wimp ever get a reputation as a tough guy?

Mason on November 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I don’t know about this one…

I own three homes, in different states, and have gone through this with different taxing entities over the years. My understanding, as agreed to by Missouri, Nebraska and Florida revenue departments, is that residence is evidenced by where you’re registered vote, licensed to drive, and pay property tax (only one homestead exemption, please!)NOT on where you happen to be sleeping at the moment.

therealfranklin on November 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM

One mitigating factor in Rahm’s case is that he rented out his house while he was in Washington – because of the lease agreement with his tenant, he could not live there even if he wanted to.

furytrader on November 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM

This will be ignored. Rahm will run despite the laws. Come on. It’s Chicago.

Warner Todd Huston on November 26, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Residency isn’t as simple as it seems. In addition to the voter registration and so on, if he took a job in DC that was temporary in nature, but intended to return to Chicago, then he’s probably still a Chicago resident.

acasilaco on November 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM

True enough furytrader! And in fact, you made me remember that if I were to rent out my Florida property I would no longer be eligible for the homestead exemption. It’ll be interesting…

It would be nice if it were settled on the law and not the “I’m a Democrat from Chicago” doctrine.

therealfranklin on November 26, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Oh please . . . we all know that the law for the rest of the peons doesn’t apply to the elitist left. Don’t bother with this trivia Rahm, just declare yourself a resident Mayor and move on. rplat on November 26, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Fixed

eeyore on November 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM

The glaring problem with his residency is that he surrendered his address of domicile to his tenant. He is a resident, of sorts, with no address and without the address he cannot prove his district. Should’ve got an apartment on S. Michigan Ave. say, 1/4 mile below Wacker.

Nuttin fun-E-er ‘n dat!

ericdijon on November 26, 2010 at 6:41 PM

It really pains me to say this but I have to take Rahm’s side on this one. I am an Illinois resident and when I was in the military, another form of government service, I was stationed in other states as well as other countries. I didn’t maintain a physical home in Illinois but maintained my driver’s license and my voter registration there. I also claimed Illinois as my state of residency for tax purposes. Another key factor was that I was an Illinois resident before I began that service. I don’t see a lot of difference in Dead Fish’s situation. But your mileage my vary.

Big John on November 26, 2010 at 6:57 PM

In Alaska our liberal system made up new rules for Lisa Murkowski, ignored old ones and re-interpreted laws just for her, and this is a RED state.
Watch the wind blow in Dead Fish favor…

Army Brat on November 26, 2010 at 7:02 PM

It really pains me to say this but I have to take Rahm’s side on this one. I am an Illinois resident and when I was in the military, another form of government service,

As others have pointed out, there are special rules covering active military members. Apples and oranges. And, even then, I bet you could not run for mayor of Chicago without having lived in Chicago for a year.

Also, I think Rahm’s job as a political hack for the president is hardly government service in the traditional sense. Certainly not equivalent to being in the military. Rahm signed up voluntarily and could quit whenever he chose. He apparently planned on being in the job longer – hence the problems with having someone leasing his house whom he can’t evict. If he wanted to run for mayor, he should have quit sooner and established residency — or at least tried to maintain residency by maintaining (and occupying, at least on weekends) a domicile there.

Most importantly, people seem to be conflating their own situations with Rahm’s in a way that’s not appropriate. We’re not talking about where you can vote in this case or where you register your car. We’re talking about a guy who intends to run for office to represent people in a city where he hasn’t lived for some time. The rules governing eligibility for running for office there are stricter than the rules for other types of activities that require residency. To run for office, the law makes a point of saying that the person has to be a resident for a year. Clearly, he was not residing in Chicago while working full-time in D.C. He needs to re-establish residency.

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Residency isn’t as simple as it seems. In addition to the voter registration and so on, if he took a job in DC that was temporary in nature, but intended to return to Chicago, then he’s probably still a Chicago resident.

In theory he could have been in that job for eight years. In fact, he intended to be in the job longer than he wound up staying which is why he gave his renter a lease that extended into 2011.

Why should the rules governing eligibility for running for office be bent because this guy is a poor planner?

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Most importantly, people seem to be conflating their own situations with Rahm’s in a way that’s not appropriate. We’re not talking about where you can vote in this case or where you register your car. We’re talking about a guy who intends to run for office to represent people in a city where he hasn’t lived for some time. The rules governing eligibility for running for office there are stricter than the rules for other types of activities that require residency.

Y-not on November 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

And my point was not confusing “residency” with “domicile”
Residency is evidenced by, but not limited to, where one votes, where one pays taxes, is licensed to drive and/or practice a profession.

I spend the summer months outside of Florida. That mearly changes my domicile, not my residency.

therealfranklin on November 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM

OK…actually I got that backwards.

therealfranklin on November 26, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Hm, if he was not a resident the court should also find him guilty of vote fraud. Pile it on, Bro! What else can you guys think of?

{^_^}

herself on November 27, 2010 at 3:16 AM

That’s a pretty big assumption…..

Just because he voted doesn’t mean he “Legally voted”

roflmao

donabernathy on November 27, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Hey, dems do not have to follow rules. Only people who are not evil. Which includes all dems.

proconstitution on November 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Somebody want to clue me in on the diff between career politicos and career criminals?

chirpin’ crickets!

AllosaursRus on November 29, 2010 at 12:59 AM