Breaking: Court boots Rahm off ballot

posted at 1:32 pm on January 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

With just four weeks to go and a commanding lead over his rivals on the ballot, Rahm Emanuel appeared to be coasting to a victory in Chicago’s mayoral race.  Today, though, an appellate court threw a monkey wrench into the works, overturning both the Chicago Board of Elections and a Cook County judge to order Emanuel off of the ballot:

Rahm Emanuel was thrown off the ballot for mayor of Chicago today by an appellate court panel, a stunning blow to the fund-raising leader in the race.

An appellate panel ruled 2-1 that Emanuel did not meet the residency standard to run for mayor.

Appellate judges Thomas Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall ruled against Emanuel. Justice Bertina Lampkin voted in favor of keeping President Obama’s former chief of staff on the Feb. 22 ballot.

Initial word was that the vote on the three-judge panel in Illinois was 237 to 126.  I kid, I kid …

This puts the Emanuel campaign in serious danger of disqualification.  They can appeal to the Supreme Court, but the election takes place four weeks from tomorrow.  Presumably the Supreme Court would expedite its review, and the success of that will hinge on the appellate court’s reasoning for overturning the ruling of Lampkin, the fact-finder at the district court level.  Emanuel’s team says it will use the dissenting opinion on this decision to craft its appeal.

Emanuel’s not the only one in limbo.  With just four weeks to go, the ballots are almost certainly printed and ready[see update II below], and one assumes that absentee voters already have theirs in hand.  Will Chicago voters, both above and below ground, press forward with the poll leader Emanuel and hope that the court won’t throw out an election result?  Or will they decide that they’d better start looking at their second choice candidates now?

Update: Decision and dissent can be found here.  The decision is fairly straightforward: moving out of the city to take a job elsewhere means your physical residence has changed, whether or not one rents out one’s house to someone else.  The dissenting jurist says physical presence isn’t the issue, but the intent to return at some point in time is what matters:

The Board’s ruling–that the candidate in 2009 and 2010 did not abandon his status as a resident of Chicago and, thus, remained a resident of Chicago even though he was largely absent from this city from January 2009 until October 1, 2010–was not clearly erroneous.  Intent is an issue of fact (Delk, 112 Ill. App. 3d at 738), and the majority acknowledges that the Board’s fact findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.  This acknowledgment should have ended this case, and resulted in this court affirming the circuit court’s judgment, which confirmed the Board’s ruling that the preponderance of the evidence established that the candidate never formed an intent to either change or terminate his residence in Chicago, or establish his residence in Washington, D.C., or any place other than Chicago.

Because the candidate had established his Chicago residency, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is shown, and the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there has been a change.

Er, okay, but the change was patently obvious.  Emanuel moved to Washington DC and stayed there for 21 months, only returning when Richard Daley announced he wouldn’t seek another term.  Under that definition, the statute becomes essentially meaningless; anyone who lived in Chicago for any period of time could return and run for office on the shortest of notice and dare anyone to prove that returning wasn’t the intent all along.  The majority ruled that the legislature intended this requirement to apply to physical residence — which makes sense, because one wants a mayor who’s actually familiar with the city’s issues.

Update II: The Sun-Times reports that the ballots have not yet been printed:

The Board of Elections has not yet printed up the ballot.

Odelson said Board of Elections attorney Jim Scanlon told him that as of this moment, Emanuel’s name would stay off the ballot.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This needs a Hitler video to do it justice.

Iblis on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

The SunTimes is reporting that even if this goes to the IL Supreme Court, they might be more inclined to be HARSHER on Rahm then the Appeals Court was. At this point, I would not consider it a forgone conclusion that Rahm gets back onto the ballot.

Indy82 on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Obama’s midas touch

Olympics – check
Gov. Corzine – check
Senator Coakly -check
Bears Super Bowl trip -check
Rahm’s mayor run – check

I see a trend.

2012 – CHECK MATE

JetBlast on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Or will they decide that they’d better start looking at their second choice candidates now?

Or perhaps they will just split their vote. One for the second-tier, and then subsequent votes for Rhambo. What do they get in Chicago, on average, four, maybe five votes?

iurockhead on January 24, 2011 at 1:59 PM

The dissenting jurist says physical presence isn’t the issue, but the intent to return at some point in time is what matters

here we go again…

you guys don’t know what rahmie was thinking, but I do

cmsinaz on January 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM

ninjapirate on January 24, 2011 at 1:43 PM

 
That sure does seem like something that would’ve been discussed in the ’08 elections, doesn’t it?

rogerb on January 24, 2011 at 2:01 PM

I wonder if there are any Chicagoans here, and how they feel right now. Because much as you hate Rahm, the alternative at this point appears to be Carol Moesley Braun.

YYZ on January 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Will he send the appellate court a dead fish wrapped in newspaper?

Opposite Day on January 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Obama’s midas touch

Olympics – check
Gov. Corzine – check
Senator Coakly -check
Bears Super Bowl trip -check
Rahm’s mayor run – check

I see a trend.

2012 – CHECK MATE

JetBlast on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

But you forgot the economy… or should I say the Obamany?

MeatHeadinCA on January 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Not as clear cut as some people think. You can indeed physically live outside the state and still be considered a resident. I went to college for four years in another state, but was still considered a resident of Florida for that period. When I was young, my father took a temporary (one year) federal government job in England, but was still considered a resident of Maryland.

AngusMc on January 24, 2011 at 2:03 PM

People will be upset but it still won’t stop the bangers from killing 15 or 20 this week.

docflash on January 24, 2011 at 2:03 PM

The dissenting jurist says physical presence isn’t the issue, but the intent to return at some point in time is what matters

Wow, this Activist Judge must have gone to the same law school as all those Democrat Justices on the 2000 Florida Supreme Court. You remember those guys, whose three “rulings” were rejected by SCOTUS by a combined vote of 21-6
(9-0, 7-2, 5-4)

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 2:03 PM

How did Emanuel vote? It seems like his residency status would hinge on whether or not he cast absentee ballots from Chicagoland during his absence.

Al-Ozarka on January 24, 2011 at 2:04 PM

As much as I’m enjoying the schadenfreude (and enjoying reminders of Obama’s dirty tricks getting his opponents off the ballot) I do think it’s wrong to kick Rahm off the ballot. It’s not as if he’s some carpetbagger moving in to town from Hawaii or something. He’s a lifelong Chicago resident, owns a house there, and (like him or not) has been serving the President, which surely should qualify as national service. If the voters want him they should be able to elect him, and not be deprived of that right due to a technicality.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 1:44 PM

What an odd position to take.

The court applied legal standards for the disqualification. The term technicality is usually reserved for obscure loopholes or the exploitation of ambiguities in codification and vagaries in interpretation etc.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Rules? I don’t need no freaking rules!

Opposite Day on January 24, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Maybe this loser
Can run for DC Mayor…
Oops! He moved away!

Haiku Guy on January 24, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Rahms election chickens are coming home….to roost.

Karma is such a bitch these days.

The dissenting jurist says physical presence isn’t the issue, but the intent to return at some point in time is what matters

If this is true, then there is no need for election laws at all. We’ll just have a small committee decide what the intent of the electorate is.

Why don’t we get this panel working the 2012 election right away. That way, we can save untold hours of boring political ads.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I wonder what his tax returns says….

Oil Can on January 24, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Let’s not forget this story: CBS Reporter Threatens To Punch Radio Host Questioning Rahm Emanuel’s Eligibility

There have been some extremely valid legal points made about Rahm Emanuel’s eligibility to run for mayor of Chicago. William Kelly, a radio host for WIND and potential candidate for Chicago city alderman, asked Emanuel some questions about his eligibility and for his troubles was threatened with a punch in the face.

Hilarity ensues.

scrubjay on January 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM

“I wonder if there are any Chicagoans here, and how they feel right now. Because much as you hate Rahm, the alternative at this point appears to be Carol Moesley Braun.”

I’m actually about 40 minutes outside of Chicago (within Cook County, though) and most of my family lives within Chicago itself.

The way I see it (and most of them) is that the city is beyond repair to begin with. Whether it be Rahm or Braun, the only difference between the two is how fast they will truly lead Chicago into the abyss once and for all.

With Rahm, you will continue to have the same slow bleed you have had with Daley for the last 2 decades.

With Braun, you have a deep hemmorhage in which you will bleed quicker.

End result is the same, but faster with one compared to the other.

Indy82 on January 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Obama’s midas touch

Olympics – check
Gov. Corzine – check
Senator Coakly -check
Bears Super Bowl trip -check
Rahm’s mayor run – check

I see a trend.

2012 – CHECK MATE

JetBlast on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

But you forgot the economy… or should I say the Obamany?

MeatHeadinCA on January 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Dupnik – check

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Did Emanuel
Pay his Chicago Taxes?
N0? Ha ha ha ha!

Haiku Guy on January 24, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I wonder if there are any Chicagoans here, and how they feel right now. Because much as you hate Rahm, the alternative at this point appears to be Carol Moesley Braun.

YYZ on January 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

As I said in the headline thread, don’t be worryin’. I hear she travels a lot.

a capella on January 24, 2011 at 2:09 PM

everyone check out Mayor Emanuel’s twitter feed, hilarious stuff, but NSFW

commodore on January 24, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Well, in my opinion (and believe me, I am no Rahm fan) these residency requirements should have an exemption for government service.

crosspatch on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Government service today is:

- milking the producers
- being impertinent
- making decisions contrary to what one ran on
- and a lot more annoyances to the wallets

Your idealism is nice but, er…

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2011 at 2:12 PM

The dissenting jurist says physical presence isn’t the issue, but the intent to return at some point in time is what matters

Based on this reasoning, I’ve nailed Angelina Jolie on multiple occasions.

lorien1973 on January 24, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Well, in my opinion (and believe me, I am no Rahm fan) these residency requirements should have an exemption for government service.

crosspatch on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

You call it “government service.” I call it leaving town for a high paying power position in Washington. Yes, by all means, let’s have special rules for our ruling elite. Can’t have them living by the same laws as the rest of us. That would be too much to ask. They’re specialllllllll.

Rational Thought on January 24, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Well, in my opinion (and believe me, I am no Rahm fan) these residency requirements should have an exemption for government service.

crosspatch on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Rahm was neither elected (a voluntary act) nor ordered to accept the government position. Also, WH CoS is not a career position in the government, nor are there any contractual time obligations, as in a military enlistment contract.

Rahm could have delined the position, or left at any time. The fact it was a presidential appointment has no bearing on the residency claim.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Looking ahead, if the IL SC accepts the case, it is significant that Madigan’s wife is on the bench. I have been hearing that Madigan doesn’t approve of Rahm’s candidacy. Could be true, or not. But Madigan is the real governor of Illinois and his daughter is the AG. Does Mike Madigan want Emanuel to rise in Illinois politics?

redneck hippie on January 24, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Under the “intent to return” rule, Jesus could run for Mayor of Jerusalem.

KW64 on January 24, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Based on this reasoning, I’ve nailed Angelina Jolie on multiple occasions.

lorien1973 on January 24, 2011 at 2:16 PM

If you don’t have proof of her consent, you’ve just admitted to rape, being that sex was your intent.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Must follow @mayoremanuel (fake twitter feed). Great stuff.

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM

commodore on January 24, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Darn it, too late! :)

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Well, in my opinion (and believe me, I am no Rahm fan) these residency requirements should have an exemption for government service.

crosspatch on January 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

You call it “government service.” I call it leaving town for a high paying power position in Washington. Yes, by all means, let’s have special rules for our ruling elite. Can’t have them living by the same laws as the rest of us. That would be too much to ask. They’re specialllllllll.

Rational Thought on January 24, 2011 at 2:16 PM

You really need to read the opinion — they’re very fair about just that question. There was an amendment in 2007 to allow for militart service — but that was a very specific addition.

The majority ruling was closely reasoned, clear, and eminently fair-minded. They looked for any reason within existing law to allow Emanuel to continue. They were unable to do so without destroying the intent of existing statute.

The dissent was a joke. Ignored major points in the majority opinion, and engaged in some unbecoming histrionics as well.

It’s worth reading the whole thing (41 pages) (!!) just to see the difference between real arbiters of law and judicial activism.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM

She was on my list of 10. How could she refuse? Really?

lorien1973 on January 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Illinois has an income tax. If Rahm is a resident and has not been paying that tax, it’s slammer time. But he can still be mayor as long as the prison is within city limits.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Oooh! A Crisis!

Hope it doesn’t go to waste!

Bruno Strozek on January 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Wow, first Olbermann on the unemployment line and now Rahm… This is a great week!

Kevin71 on January 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Heh. So the dude leaves the White House specifically to run for mayor and now he’s disqualified from the ballot? Did he have a backup plan?

Doughboy on January 24, 2011 at 1:38 PM

It’s called raising $10 million to run for Mayor, and not having to spend a dime of it…

phreshone on January 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Hey! Da FIX was in! Wha appen? Rahm gonna bust some kneecaps!

GarandFan on January 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM

If you don’t have proof of her consent, you’ve just admitted to rape, being that sex was your intent.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM

That has a government service exemption as well.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 2:24 PM

If Chicago is where he truly called home, then he would have periodically returned when possible.
Obama had lots of time for vacations.
What was Rahm doing during all those vacays?
Running the govt?
Whatever the reason, if there are rules & he violated them, then what is there to parse about?

Badger40 on January 24, 2011 at 2:25 PM

As I said in the headline thread, don’t be worryin’. I hear she travels a lot.

Then all is well!

YYZ on January 24, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Basics of Decision [ace]: Two statutes discuss residency, one for voter eligibility and one for candidate eligibility. Voter eligibility can be proven by “constructive” residency– that is, you’re not really residing in the area, but you maintain a home there and intend to return to it. This is a more lenient standard.

Another statute requires a candidate to “reside in” an area (Chicago, here) for a full year before seeking to be eligible to hold office there.

Rahm Emmanuel argues, basically, these statutes say the exact same thing and the test of whether or not he’s a candidate should be the exact same as the test for determining if he can cast a valid vote for a candidate.

The court finds that’s not right, because, in the test for candidate eligibility, it specifies first that the candidate must be eligible to cast a vote and, further, that he must “reside in” Chicago for a year before the election. The court finds it makes no sense if that Part 2 of the test simply means the exact same thing as the Part 1; it must mean something different, they figure, since the test consists of two separate parts.

So they find that second part requires genuine, bona fide residency and not mere “constructive” residence for voting purposes. And there they find Emmanuel fails the test, easily. He clears Part 1 of the test (he can vote there, because he has constructive residence there) but not Part 2, which requires, they say, actual residency. Or else, again, why have a Part 2 at all?

AOSHQ

Who knew there would be a couple of strict constructionists on the Illinois Court of Appeals?

Wethal on January 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM

So NOW legal residency is important in Chicago?!?!?!?!?

ToddonCapeCod on January 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM

redneck hippie on January 24, 2011 at 2:18 PM

You are thinking of Ann Burke, who is an IL SC justice and wife of Ed Burke, a powerful Chicago Alderman and the leader of the White opposition to Harold Washington back in the Council War days. Mike Madigan’s wife is head of the Illinois Arts Council which is a way for the state to piss away money supporting indigent artists because Illinois is so flush with cash.

Ted Torgerson on January 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Wethal on January 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM

thanks W

cmsinaz on January 24, 2011 at 2:33 PM

So NOW legal residency is important in Chicago?!?!?!?!?

ToddonCapeCod on January 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM

maybe them judges just like seafood…?/

ted c on January 24, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Who knew there would be a couple of strict constructionists on the Illinois Court of Appeals?

Wethal on January 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM

the hell you say….. *falls out of chair*…

ted c on January 24, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Can’t you just see the red, vein pulsed face of his? I mean, it’ll probably be like Arnold’s when he was kicked out in the the atmosphere of mars in Total Recall. What about the air being so think with vulgarities…. I’d love to be a fly on the wall….

CynicalOptimist on January 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM

CynicalOptimist on January 24, 2011 at 2:35 PM

everyone check out Mayor Emanuel’s twitter feed, hilarious stuff, but NSFW

commodore on January 24, 2011 at 2:10 PM

OK. Now that’s funny!

Haiku Guy on January 24, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Go ahead and be that way. The rest of us are having a great time. :)
txhsmom on January 24, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Hey, don’t let me stop you – I’m enjoying it too.

If Emanuel wanted to run for mayor he should not have rented out his house. The rules have to apply equally to everyone. He can re-establish residency and run next time.
Ted Torgerson on January 24, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Did he know Daley wasn’t going to run for re-election? .

The court applied legal standards for the disqualification. The term technicality is usually reserved for obscure loopholes or the exploitation of ambiguities in codification and vagaries in interpretation etc.
Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Okay fine, technically it’s not a “technicality”. It’s how they define terms like “national service”. If he hadn’t rented out his house but had kept it vacant would he have qualified then? Would you agree that the point of the law is to prevent people from riding into town who have no history there and running for Mayor? Or is it to prevent people who were born there, lived there their entire lives, owned a house there, and left to serve in the White House for 2 years?

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Rham/Obermann vs Palin/Bachmann Campaign 2012

You know you would so watch the debates.

Lily on January 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM

activist courts !eleventy!!!!!

TheVer on January 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Would you agree that the point of the law is to prevent people from riding into town who have no history there and running for Mayor? Or is it to prevent people who were born there, lived there their entire lives, owned a house there, and left to serve in the White House for 2 years?

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM

If you want to devine what the Legislature meant, read what they wrote. Sometimes laws have unintended consequences.

Surely they did not mean to exclude Rahm Emanuel, specifically, but the rules are there, in black and white.

There are millions of people in Chicago who are legally qualified to be Mayor. Surely at least one of them is up to the job.

Haiku Guy on January 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Does this mean Bill Daley is out as Chief of Staff?

Quid pro… woops!

Fallon on January 24, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Who cares? It’s this Chicago thug liberal or that one.

KeepOhioRed on January 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

ButterflyDragon on January 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM

BAHAHAHAHAHA

Dude probably raised all that money last week knowing full well that he couldn’t run. GO HOLLYWOOD!

jdoubleu on January 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM

SCHMUCK!

nimrod on January 24, 2011 at 2:57 PM

So can we expect events happening in gym bathrooms?

antisocial on January 24, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Ted Torgerson on January 24, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Thank you. I do hear that Ed Burke endorsed Gary Chico for Mayor.

redneck hippie on January 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Haiku Guy on January 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM

To run for mayor, a candidate must be a Chicago resident for at least one year before the Feb. 22, 2011, election. Generally, if a candidate leaves the state for work yet retains ownership of a city property, maintains his voter registration and continues to vote absentee, he should not have a problem, according to Jim Allen, a spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections.

“We don’t know what nature an objection might be so I don’t want to prejudge the facts that might be filed, but when someone maintains voter registration in Chicago we consider that person a resident,” Allen said. “It’s no different from someone (who is) in the military or travels a great deal on business.”

Anyone know – Did Rham vote as a D.C. resident our did he vote absentee?

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Does this mean Bill Daley is out as Chief of Staff?

Quid pro… woops!

Fallon on January 24, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Daley’s probably saying “tough luck Rahm, the music on this cake walk has already stopped and looks like you’re SOL, better luck next time buddy. maybe we’ll see you in the shower?”…

ted c on January 24, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM

All good questions…

Okay fine, technically it’s not a “technicality”. It’s how they define terms like “national service”. If he hadn’t rented out his house but had kept it vacant would he have qualified then?

No…You have to reside there 1 year.

Would you agree that the point of the law is to prevent people from riding into town who have no history there and running for Mayor?

Yes…Which is why you have to reside there 1 year; its an objective criterion.

Or is it to prevent people who were born there, lived there their entire lives, owned a house there, and left to serve in the White House for 2 years?

Yes…He didn’t reside there for 1 contiguous year. He left to serve in to white House.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 3:12 PM

“The appellate court is f&cking retarded.” /Rahm

ElectricPhase on January 24, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 3:12 PM

The elections supervisor had a different interpretation as I noted to Haiku Guy^^^. Since opinions differ it seems to be a subjective not objective interpretation:)

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Come on people, does anybody doubt that this guy will get what he wants. It’s Illinois for crime sakes.

Hummer53 on January 24, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM

If you are right the Ill Supremes will reverse the decision.

I favor a more stringent interpretation on the criteria to prevent politicians from jumping around residence to residence, state to state, obscuring where they ACTUALLY reside to seek opportunities for their personal gain when they happen to see fit at the drop of a hat.

I suppose that’s why time criteria was written into the Law.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Anyone know – Did Rham vote as a D.C. resident our did he vote absentee?

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM

I don’t have a link but believe it was D.C. Read it either here or at AOSHQ.

a capella on January 24, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Yep, its not at all obvious. Perhaps the Ill Supremes will over-rule. Its too darn subjective. We can’t put a GPS monitor on people to track where they actually reside. But there are fakers who keep houses and never live in them for political purposes.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I wonder if there are any Chicagoans here, and how they feel right now. Because much as you hate Rahm, the alternative at this point appears to be Carol Moesley Braun.

YYZ on January 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Gery Chico is my choice.

lansing quaker on January 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM

I favor a more stringent interpretation on the criteria to prevent politicians from jumping around residence to residence, state to state, obscuring where they ACTUALLY reside to seek opportunities for their personal gain when they happen to see fit at the drop of a hat.
Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Fine, but that’s not what he did. He didn’t sell his house, he pays property taxes there, and so forth. Also, working in the White House is always a temporary job. The most one can serve is 8 years.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:27 PM

“The appellate court is f&cking retarded.” /Rahm

ElectricPhase on January 24, 2011 at 3:12 PM

hehe

ted c on January 24, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Good info here (assuming it’s true).

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Considering we are speaking about Chicago politics, the most corrupt and sleazy candidate must be on the ballot. Rahm must not be that guy. Rahm must be booted of if the bigger scum sucking slimball is polling behind him.

Who are the other candidates?

csdeven on January 24, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Fine, but that’s not what he did.

I really didn’t say he did that. I said that I favor a more rigorous interpretation for everyone to prevent…

Where did he reside then? The court must think it not be in Ill for them to have rendered this decision.

He didn’t sell his house, he pays property taxes there, and so forth.

Property owners have to pay property taxes. It doesn’t mean he lived there. Anyway didn’t he rent it out? That suggests that he didn’t reside there.

Also, working in the White House is always a temporary job. The most one can serve is 8 years.

He temporarily moved out of state to work somewhere else and apparently didn’t fulfill enough of the obligations to be declared a resident—according to the ruling.

Who knows…the Ill supremes might just flip it. Are they the final arbiter? Or can it go all the way to the top? Also how soon will they rule? I would imagine very quickly.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 3:50 PM

This isn’t that tough to grasp. Assume the Emanuels were looking to qualify their Chicago property for the federal capitals gains tax exclusion on a primary residence. Does anyone truly believe that either H. or R. Block would let them count the time they lived in D.C. toward the two year requirement?

*trudges off, mutters Geithner*

Barnestormer on January 24, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Didn’t he left an old mattress and a few boxes of files in the basement somewhere?

How’s that not counting as residency?

/s

Sir Napsalot on January 24, 2011 at 3:52 PM

As much as I dislike Rahm, this is not right. The man represented Chicago in the US House of Representatives until he was asked to be the POTUS Chief of Staff.
But, being Chicago, he should’ve known.

lonestar1 on January 24, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Barack Obama is next.

Wait until the pending state laws forcing him to produce his birth certificate for joining Little League (I mean, run for president in 2012) make him forgo running in a state and abandon electoral votes because he decides to pick this battle and continue to hide it.

Time to build a popcorn factory.

In all seriousness, I have taken abuse from all and sundry because I know there is a massive unanswered constitutional question about the president’s eligibility. I was crying this at the top of my lungs before November ’08.

To be selfish here:

The personal sense of vindication in having been aware of the facts for 2 years that are going to totally paralyze America in the run-up to 2012 when they finally break loose of their own dead weight, is going to be very comforting repayment for the abuse I have taken for simply following the facts rationally and realizing that Obama has never been shown eligible for his office, and has taken drastic legal measures to hide his information, and has been aided and abetted by “anti-’birthers’” who have refused to honestly address Obama’s deception, will be undercut by the heartsick dread of the utter chaos that is going to erupt when it becomes evident that Obama is an illegal president and everything he signed is legally invalid.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Anyway Buy Danish; good chatting with you…I will check back later. Gots to go. We will see how this unfolds.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Good info here (assuming it’s true).

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 3:39 PM

It says he paid Illinois income tax. That’s enough to convince me, provided he did not pro-rate it for time spent living in DC.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Direct question to all “birthers” and “anti-’birthers’,” and to everyone else:

Does Barack Obama get a pass for 2012?

If a state passes a law that he has to show his long-form birth certificate, is he allowed to ignore it?

Is ha allowed to no comoete in that state(s).

If he does not compete, will that be an admission that his need to hide whatever is on his birth certificate trumps his need to be on the ballot in an ENTIRE STATE/ And, if so, do the citizens of that state have the right to sue the rest of the Union for re-electing a president who refuses to honor that state’s eligibility law?

Questions, questions.

Due to the hard-headed, derisive treatment of those who pointed out Obama’s refusal to provide proof of constitutional eligibility, and his executive order that sealed all records the day he was inaugurated, including those that likely show that he attended college on a foreign-student scholarship, we are in for a mess that will makes Clinton and the blue dress look like weak beanbag.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Let me rephrase:

Assuming that we give Obama a pass because the election of 2010 is over, and we do not want to remove a sitting president, who here believesfor the sake of national stability, that that pass should be extended to a second term, and that no presidential candidate should be vetted for constitutional eligibility until the 2016 campaign?

If you seriously believe that, just come out and say it.

One rationael would be that if Obama were to fail the 2012 vetting, well then you would have to overturn every single law he signed – instigating chaos in America.

Though this might be a good thing for those opposed to ObamaCare.

Please discuss.

We may as well, as this problem is NOT going away, and is a national hazard.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:10 PM

It says he paid Illinois income tax. That’s enough to convince me, provided he did not pro-rate it for time spent living in DC.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:00 PM

The D.C. income tax rate was 8.5% vs. IL’s rate of 3.0%. Still convinced?

Barnestormer on January 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Initial word was that the vote on the three-judge panel in Illinois was 237 to 126.

lol, very good!

American Elephant on January 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Excuse me; I meant Obama will get a pass because the election of 2008 is over.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM

I wonder if there are any Chicagoans here, and how they feel right now. Because much as you hate Rahm, the alternative at this point appears to be Carol Moesley Braun.

YYZ on January 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Good point, except that Gery Chico is an excellent alternative to Carol.

wbcoleman on January 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM

As much as I dislike Rahm, this is not right. The man represented Chicago in the US House of Representatives until he was asked to be the POTUS Chief of Staff.
But, being Chicago, he should’ve known.

lonestar1 on January 24, 2011 at 3:53 PM

See, that’s the thing. This is right — this is the correct and unambiguous interpretation of the law as stated. If the law is incorrect, the legislative branch changes it. Like they did for servicemen after someone came back from Iraq and was unable to run for office.

When the law is one way, changing it into something else based on the wishes of the judge is the antithesis of judicial restraint. This is not strict-constructionism (which is solely a Constitutional concept) — this is just plain old correct action.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 4:18 PM

First the Bears loose…

… now this.

BBBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on January 24, 2011 at 4:18 PM

The D.C. income tax rate was 8.5% vs. IL’s rate of 3.0%. Still convinced?

Barnestormer on January 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM

It seems to me he is obliged to pay DC income tax as well. If he paid both then he is fine.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:19 PM

And income tax/voting/property/papers/belongings have no relevance here. Read the opinion — the law becomes quite clear.

Not a question of fairness — a question of clearly stated law. If it needs to change, let it change — but it will have to be from here on out.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 4:19 PM

These thugs aren’t gonna let a little thing like the law get in their way. Wait for it.

hillbillyjim on January 24, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I earnestly believe that this problem with Emanuel is a foreshadowing of Obama’s problem coming to a head.

Ed, I sincerely am not being a troll or even trying to hijack a thread because I strongly believe something.

I believe that the issue of Rahm Emanuel’s residency and that of Obama are part of the same larger issue of political opportunism, and they do naturally coexist due to consanguinity.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:20 PM

The dissenting judge was correct in stating intent (to return to Chicago) is important. However, intent to return is only important in establishing one’s “domicile“.

For example, I was transferred to NYC for 18 months on a large international contract. While my “residence” during those 18 months was NYC, my domicile remained Northwest Indiana – since that was the place to which I intended to return (and did)

When establishing the legal requirements for mayoral candidacy, the Chicago City Council had every opportunity to require a candidate must be “domiciled” in Chicago. Instead, the Board passed a law that a candidate has to be a resident of Chicago for 1 year immediately preceding an election.

Thus, while Rahm obviously was at all times “domiciled” in Chicago (since that’s where he ultimately intended to return), I believe the IL Supreme court would be hard pressed to find he was a legal “resident” during 2009-2010.

However, we ARE talking Chicago politics here, folks, so who knows what drivel the IL SC can come up with.

alwyr on January 24, 2011 at 4:24 PM

and they do naturally coexist due to consanguinity.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Don’t worry, no troll would ever use words like that…

right2bright on January 24, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3