Rahm: I will kill any @#$!*% man who stands in my way

posted at 4:57 pm on January 24, 2011 by Allahpundit

I kid, I kid. He didn’t say that; that’s what he was thinking while droning through this very politic “we will prevail” statement. A few points to add to Ed’s post from a few hours ago. One: No, Rahm can’t run as a write-in. Being a non-resident means you’re not eligible to hold office, so in theory even if he went the Murkowski route (“R-A-H-M, not R-O-M”), he’d be sunk. Two: Yes, of course he’s appealing the decision, but the state supreme court will have to act very quickly. Early voting for mayor starts in just one week(!) and ballots need to be printed, so we should have some some sort of resolution in the next day or two. Three: Twitter was aflame for awhile after the decision first came down with reminders that the Illinois Supreme Court rarely overturns an appellate ruling. I’m sure that’s true, but if you think that rule of thumb applies in this case, you’re kidding yourself. There’s no way that they’re going to rubber-stamp a blockbuster lower court decision that’ll determine who runs one of America’s biggest economic engines for the next several years — especially when the candidate involved is a former White House chief of staff and happens to be the frontrunner in the polls. For cripes sake, the appellate decision wasn’t even unanimous. So yes, the Illinois Supremes will take this up and give it a very non-deferential look, and yes, the odds of a reversal are quite fair. Which isn’t to say today’s decision isn’t glorious — the Hammer hit the nail on the head as to why — just that its glory is likely to be sadly short-lived.

Thanks to RCP for the video. Exit question: Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place? If a lifelong New Yorker shows up in Chicago and decides he wants to run for mayor right away, why not leave it to voters to decide whether they want him or not? His opponents will end up destroying him over it in campaign ads (he’s a carpetbagger, he doesn’t know the city and its needs, etc), so it’s not like voters won’t know he’s from out of town by the time they go to the polls. In an age of mass media, there’s no good reason I can think of to impose a total statutory bar to office on this ground.


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

Mets, this is not a question of “residency” — it’s a question of statute. The statute requires that candidates “reside” (not “maintain resident/voting status”) in the area for the preceding year. This is made clear and distinct by the referenced statute.

So the argument has to be that at the same time he was a resident of Chicago, he did not reside in Chicago.

Isn’t that like claiming that someone was just a little bit pregnant?

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Now you’re trying to score points.

If you want a strict definition of the word residency, it comes down on the wrong side of the argument for you.

Definitions of residency differ for state and federal taxes. They differ for colleges and library cards. The definition, in this case, is clearly different for electors and candidates — and there is no way around it except to ignore the language of the law.

Sorry.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:25 PM

When gnats annoy the oxen it’s still schadenfreudig to the gnats.

To watch the goons/thugs be halted is quite the procession to see.

Chicago deserves them all.

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2011 at 6:26 PM

You must really love the Electoral College.

TexasDan on January 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM

As someone who loves politics and election night, I love the Electoral College because it makes things much more fun. I can’t really think of many good policy reasons for it, though.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Yes, they are correct that a legal distinction can be made, but no convincing argument is made that that distinction needs to be applied in this case. If ballot access is to be presumed for electors, then why not also for candidates?

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 6:20 PM

No argument was needed. Just a reading of the language.

You’d have to be unutterably dense not to see that, in fact, statue does indeed distinguish between elector and candidate ballot access. Doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do it — but it’s what’s on the books.

Wishful thinking doesn’t make things so.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM

If he is in fact ineligible according to Chicago law, (FWIW I don’t actually think he is but I don’t know the intricacies of local Chicago election law ), then no, he should not be on the ballot. The point that I’m making and that I think AP is making is that it’s just a dumb law, especially in this day and age. People should be able to vote for who they want.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Dumb or not, isn’t this precisely why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments? Barring something explicitly unconstitutional (which I don’t get as far as this specific campaign law), the states (and by implication, local municipalities) have every right to determine who can and can’t run for particular offices under their jurisdiction. I can’t see how it would be possible in a rational world for it to be unconstitutional to tell a carpetbagger to take a flying leap.

And yes, it might very well be possible that the Illinois State Supreme Court might find a legitimate reason, based on Illinois state law, to overturn today’s ruling. I have absolutely no knowledge of their legal system. But to assume that they will, or that there is something intrinsically wrong with today’s ruling, seems odd.

nukemhill on January 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Yeah. Electors. Not “candidates.”

Yeah, that’s the crux of the argument, which strikes me as being a little silly. So he’s a resident as an elector, but not as a candidate? Then how, pray tell, do they distinguish between which “residency” is required for a year? Sure they establish that you’re required to be a resident for a year and a qualified elector (meaning two separate standards), but the majority first states there’s one unambiguous definition of residency, and then dismisses another argument by claiming that in that law “residency” means something entirely different than…residency.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 6:29 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.

One statute can define a term one way, and another statute can define the term another way. A “person” can include a corporation in one statute and can only be a human being in another, for example.

Wethal on January 24, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place?

Yeah! Screw it! Why do we have any rules and regulations at all? I think we ought to be able to do anything we can get away with as long as it’s in our own interest. The heck with everyone else. Only the strong survive.

Power to the powerful! Right on!

Vince on January 24, 2011 at 6:29 PM

especially when the candidate involved is a former White House chief of staff

I suggest a better reason is that the Illinois supreme court is likely to be beholden to the Chicago machine as are most parts of Illinois government. After all Obama got his start and continues to receive support from the machine.

If a Kennedy or a Clinton arrives in New York as a carpetbbbagger, they usually make him senator.

burt on January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I’d have to check on this, but I don’t even think I can run for President because of my American citizenship. I was born in PR (American Territory/colony) got almost all the bells and whistles, except representation in DC.

Now that I am here I dunno, can I run? I am married Mr. PPF. I’ve heard conflicting information. Not that I would want to…I’d be palinized.

ProudPalinFan on January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

As someone who loves politics and election night, I love the Electoral College because it makes things much more fun. I can’t really think of many good policy reasons for it, though.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Candidates can’t just go for the big, populous states, and ignore the flyovers.

The smaller states votes, and voters, matter. The House is apportioned by population, the senate by strict equality, and the electoral college combines both, as does the Congress as a whole.

Wethal on January 24, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I can’t see how it would be possible in a rational world for it to be unconstitutional to tell a carpetbagger to take a flying leap.

It’s not unconstitutional. I just think it’s kind of a dumb requirement.

One of the things that annoys me about both modern liberals and conservatives is that they use the constitutionality of a law as a proxy for the debate regarding whether the law is a good idea or a bad idea. Good laws may be unconstitutional (line item vetoes come to mind), and bad laws may be constitutional (if PPACA gets affirmed, that will be a tremendous example of a constitutional law that also sucks).

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:33 PM

are you sure he didn’t say that?

his twitter feed would suggest otherwise…

commodore on January 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM

is that really rahmbo`s twitter feed? potty mouth indeed.

NY Conservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

burt on January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Why do you think the Chicago machine wants Rahm as mayor? Rahm’s a popular guy in Chicago, he’d have a lot of power running the city, which inherently means that that power isn’t in the hands of those already in power (the machine). I’m just hazarding a guess, but it would stand to reason they’d like someone who could be easily rolled by the City Council.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Yeah, that’s the crux of the argument, which strikes me as being a little silly. So he’s a resident as an elector, but not as a candidate? Then how, pray tell, do they distinguish between which “residency” is required for a year? Sure they establish that you’re required to be a resident for a year and a qualified elector (meaning two separate standards), but the majority first states there’s one unambiguous definition of residency, and then dismisses another argument by claiming that in that law “residency” means something entirely different than…residency.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 6:29 PM

I agree it’s dumb, but that’s what the law is in Illinois. Oh well.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Candidates can’t just go for the big, populous states, and ignore the flyovers.

Yeah, that’s why we’ll see Obama spending so much time campaigning in Wyoming and Utah, because he doesn’t want to ignore the flyovers. I submit that while the idea that a candidate should not ignore the smaller states or less populous regions is an admirable goal, the electoral college a) gives those voters a disproportionate amount of power, and b) because the states are generally pretty predictable at this point, the candidates end up doing what they did in 2004, zig-zagging back and forth from Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. If you can show me how that protects the small states – or any states other than the few swing states that are actually contested each election, I’m all ears.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Hahaha, law? In Illinois? Guaranteed, the Supreme Court’s decision on this is going to rest on whether Burke thinks Chico will beat Braun in a runoff.

I also think the decision is off. I can see where the majority is coming from here, but their argument about different standards for electors and candidates wasn’t particularly persuasive, considering there’s no actual law that they could point to to back it up.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM

0430 12 April 1861 The War of Northern Aggression began
May 10 1865 sorta ended open hostility, then the carpetbaggers came. 12 years of Southern Hell.President Hayes
ended the mess 1 May 1877.The South knows carpetbaggers and the legacy they left,glad to see history repeat itself in the North.
Detroit now looks about as bad as if that arsonists Sherman had been in town. The democrats just moved the plantation North and have no interest in really helping the folks trapped in the inner cities. Bribery for votes is all they the dems know.
Chicago deserves what it gets.

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM

I think it’s the ‘Man on a white horse’ principle that explains residency requirements. Imagine Obama running for President/mayor against an old, incompetent, RINO crank like McCain…. oh wait. See what I mean?

JimP on January 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Mayor Rahm. Just a stepping stone to Governor, then off to the White House. UGH UGH UGH!!!

capejasmine on January 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM

He didn’t say that; that’s what he was thinking

I’m sure Rahm has already sent out copies of the original IOU’s that he and Barry have collected over time.

GarandFan on January 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM

I also think the decision is off. I can see where the majority is coming from here, but their argument about different standards for electors and candidates wasn’t particularly persuasive, considering there’s no actual law that they could point to to back it up.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM

The court did show that there is no applicable law the goes against their conclusion, but they did not show a specific reason why they couldn’t have made the natural conclusion that the same discretion given for electors can also be applied to candidates. Logically it should be, because candidates then have to pass the additional hurdle of actually winning the election, and the presumption in a democracy is that it is the will of the voters that determines the outcome of an election.

If Emanuel had not rented out his house, there would be no disagreement that he is still a resident. The reason for a residence requirement is that the candidate have a nexus. Having a rentor does not reduce the candidates interest in the community, it actually increases it over having a vacant house. Of course have an absentee landlord is not the same, but that is not what Emanuel is while he is serving in national government and has no other residence apart from what is needed for that service.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Hmmmm……..

Lib “civility” prevails

bannedbyhuffpo on January 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM

(“R-A-H-M, not R-O-M”)

Really? You don’t think they’ll have more trouble with ‘Emanuel/Emmanuel/Emmanuelle/The Story of O?’

James on January 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM

PR you ? Again? LOL DS

CWforFreedom on January 24, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Hey Rahm,

Maybe you could have Philly abortionist Gosnell perform a few “retroactive” abortions for you. Just get him some scissors……..

bannedbyhuffpo on January 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM

You really tapped into the minds of the Kenites with that headline…

True_King on January 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM

I submit that while the idea that a candidate should not ignore the smaller states or less populous regions is an admirable goal, the electoral college a) gives those voters a disproportionate amount of power, and b) because the states are generally pretty predictable at this point, the candidates end up doing what they did in 2004, zig-zagging back and forth from Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. If you can show me how that protects the small states – or any states other than the few swing states that are actually contested each election, I’m all ears.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I could make a very convincing case that the true reason Algore lost the 2000 Presidential election was not because he lost the swing state of Florida, but because he was rejected by the voters of his own home state of Tennessee. Had he gotten TN’s electoral votes, he would not have needed to win Florida’s.

It would have also helped him to win West Virginia, which had until then voted Democrat since before Bobby Byrd was born, or he could have won his boss’ home state of Arkansas. He couldn’t even pull that off.

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Now that I am here I dunno, can I run? I am married Mr. PPF. I’ve heard conflicting information. Not that I would want to…I’d be palinized.

ProudPalinFan on January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Yup,you sure can.Unless you were born before 1899. Don’t tell Jenfidel,she thinks you are an iillegal alien

katy the mean old lady on January 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM

It’s not unconstitutional. I just think it’s kind of a dumb requirement.

One of the things that annoys me about both modern liberals and conservatives is that they use the constitutionality of a law as a proxy for the debate regarding whether the law is a good idea or a bad idea.
Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I agree that’s annoying but let’s not create a false sense of parity. It’s conservatives who do it 99% of the time.

Medicare? Unconstitutional. The SSA? Unconstitutional. Health care reform? Unconstitutional. Barack Obama’s presidency? Unconstitutional. Lame duck sessions? Unconstitutional. Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits? Unconstitutional.

crr6 on January 24, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I agree that’s annoying but let’s not create a false sense of parity. It’s conservatives who do it 99% of the time.

That’s probably true. I remember a lot of whining about the Patriot Act and Bush’s “illegal” war, though. That’s not to say there aren’t legitimate constitutional objections to those policies or any of the ones you mentioned, just that everyone does it. I agree that conservatives probably lean on that a little too heavily, although I suspect that’s due mostly to the nature of the respective ideologies.

Medicare? Unconstitutional. The SSA? Unconstitutional. Health care reform? Unconstitutional. Barack Obama’s presidency? Unconstitutional. Lame duck sessions? Unconstitutional. Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits? Unconstitutional.

crr6 on January 24, 2011 at 7:46 PM

SHOW ME WEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION IT ALLOWS HILLARY CLINTON TO WEAR A PANTSUIT!!!?!?!111

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM

SHOW ME WEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION IT ALLOWS HILLARY CLINTON TO WEAR A PANTSUIT!!!?!?!111

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM

You don’t want to see the penumbra of those emanations.

crr6 on January 24, 2011 at 7:46 PM

That’s only because GWB reversed the liberal SC.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 8:01 PM

As soon as I heard the news today I imagined Rahm placing a fish on the kitchen table, grabbing a bayonet and stabbing it repeatedly, while screaming, “They are DEAD to me! DEAD to me! DEAD to me……”

TugboatPhil on January 24, 2011 at 8:12 PM

That’s probably true. I remember a lot of whining about the Patriot Act and Bush’s “illegal” war, though.

True.

That’s not to say there aren’t legitimate constitutional objections to those policies or any of the ones you mentioned, just that everyone does it. I agree that conservatives probably lean on that a little too heavily, although I suspect that’s due mostly to the nature of the respective ideologies.

I think that’s probably right, especially because conservatives have the benefit of using the 10th amendment as a sort of catch-all justification for calling laws they don’t like unconstitutional. A few months ago someone here (I think it was MadisonConservative) said that the DOJ’s suit to enjoin the AZ immigration law was unconstitutional, because it violated the 10th amendment. I’m still not sure where he was going with that.

crr6 on January 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Emanuel like all prostitutes by law have to spend time in the Virgin Islands before they can attempt to reenter society.

If Rahm doesn’t press the reset button he may forever cling bitterly to that area beneath his ex bosses coattails.

In other words disengage before turning to leave.

Speakup on January 24, 2011 at 8:40 PM

How about just the fact that we are sick and F*ing tired of seeing slimey politicians rewarded for breaking rules and thumbing their noses at us if we speak up.
Can we hope is is declared inelligible just for that?

KZnextzone on January 24, 2011 at 8:42 PM

As someone who loves politics and election night, I love the Electoral College because it makes things much more fun. I can’t really think of many good policy reasons for it, though.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM

It protects small states. You’d need to merge about 25 states together without it and the senate.

scotash on January 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I get what you’re saying. My reasoning on it is that if you’re going to argue that the word “residency” in one part of the Chicago Code means something different than “residency” in a different part of the same code with nothing that lays it out explicitly the onus is on you to prove it and the bar has to be set pretty high. Their argument (that it’s implied that elector and candidate residency are different things by mentioning both being a qualified elector and being a resident as requirements for being a candidate) falls well short.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 8:49 PM

I thought the Rahm on the ballot thing was settled by giving Bill Dailey the WH job??? That’s a double-cross in my book.

n0doz on January 24, 2011 at 9:17 PM

n0doz on January 24, 2011 at 9:17 PM

It’s not a Daley thing, it’s a Burke thing.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place? If a lifelong New YorkerKenyan citizen shows up in Chicago and decides he wants to run for mayorCongressman and later President, why not leave it to voters to decide whether they want him or not?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Everyone is that excited to see Carol Moseley Braun as the next Mayor of Chicago?

There are worse things than Mayor Rahm Emanuel….huh I wonder who is behind making sure he can’t run. I don’t really wonder. Chicago Politics isn’t for the timid. Better wear a cup Ms Braun.

Dr Evil on January 24, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Everyone is that excited to see Carol Moseley Braun as the next Mayor of Chicago?

There are worse things than Mayor Rahm Emanuel….huh I wonder who is behind making sure he can’t run. I don’t really wonder. Chicago Politics isn’t for the timid. Better wear a cup Ms Braun.

Dr Evil on January 24, 2011 at 9:38 PM

The “Lakefront Liberals” (the closest to a conservative you get here; this term is actually meant as a pejorative here) sure as hell aren’t! No one was stoked about Rahm, but he was the safest bet out there to at least keep the Daley ship crawling toward disaster rather than charge full speed ahead into the iceberg.

Yet, even given that, NO ONE wants a south side mayor, period. Especially the north side property/business owners/middle income types. Davis dropped out since Carol is more charismatic and potentially appealing to the Lakefront Libs.

Property owners being against Braun is key, because keep in mind she listed her Hyde Park townhouse at an EXORBITANT sale price and it will probs go into foreclosure because she cannot pay for it (the listing is easily google-able). When the other candidates make hay about Braun’s tax returns, they. mean. it. Girl is broke and needs this badly.

It all depends on Chico and Valle, and how they come down at the voting booth. The south side is hoping for another Harold Washington-esque victory. Lakefront Libs are going to line up for Chico — mark it. It just depends on how the Hispanics and other working class groups come down on Chico vs. Valle.

lansing quaker on January 24, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Resident, resident.

Hell, we fight over this, but you can be an adult at 16, 17, 18 and 21. Even at 12 in the movie theaters (try buying a 13 year old a children’s ticket

john1schn on January 24, 2011 at 10:12 PM

It’s clear the Illinois Supreme Court will reverse this, but probably not in time for the printing of ballots. Which means another right in campaign.

How many people are their with a last name Ram in the city to register for a write-in campaign? Because it will be a two way race between Ram and “The Jew.”

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM

the “it’s not fair!” all-purpose exit clause.
alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Isn’t getting your opponent kicked off the ballot part of the “Chicago way”?

Karma is one mean Bi$#ch!

DSchoen on January 24, 2011 at 10:40 PM

The hope is that an actual resident will care about the city in which he lives. As we all know, anyone can say anything to be elected. Look at Bell, California to see what happens when people who don’t care about the city get themselves entrenched.

But…if residency isn’t required, why have any requirements? Why should someone have to get signatures to get on the ballot?

And next up: With the national importance of the make up of the Senate…why should we limit voting for Senators to one state?

MayBee on January 24, 2011 at 10:51 PM

I wondered today if Rahm has been filing Illinois state income tax? In video today, he said he owned a home and paid property tax. That would be the case for any out-of-state owner as well. But if Chicago was home, he would be paying whatever local or state income taxes were required. Any thoughts?

Sticky Notes on January 24, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Exit question:

Why have any requirements for anything? In the age of mass media, surely we can get past this xenophobic notion of we-ness, no?

Blarney times ten.

hillbillyjim on January 24, 2011 at 11:18 PM

If this sticks the irony would be beyond delicious. Those two judges are through though. They did the right thing by the law but no good deed ever goes unpunished.

Mojave Mark on January 25, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Exit question: Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place?

Because it’s the law. If people don’t like it they can change it, but it’s the standing law at present. Any other standing laws you think we should ignore because they’re “not fair”?

Hobbes on January 25, 2011 at 12:48 AM

DSchoen on January 24, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Isn’t getting your opponent kicked off the ballot the game everywhere? What kind of softball are you all playing?

galenrox on January 25, 2011 at 1:26 AM

I don’t get it, left or right, how can anyone vote for someone who represents everything that is ugly about politics?

Michelle Dubois on January 25, 2011 at 1:46 AM

I don’t get it, left or right, how can anyone vote for someone who represents everything that is ugly about politics?

Michelle Dubois on January 25, 2011 at 1:46 AM

It’s all about lack of alternatives and the best electoral choice sometimes. Just like HA is all about the nervous handwringing over Palin, so, too, are Chicagoans over the absence of Rahm since they don’t want total destruction (Carol) but are now left unsure.

There’s no silver bullet here. But in his absence of “more of the same” you’re going to see some SHARP lines drawn. In a tight environment like this, electorally, you’ll do what you can. Local politics are a very diffo dynamic.

lansing quaker on January 25, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Michelle Dubois on January 25, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Chicago ran a nearly $700 million deficit last year. They sold the parking meters for the next century and spent all of the proceeds already. They sold the toll rights to the Skyway for the next century and there’s not much left in that either. At a certain point paying the bills as they are will cease to be an option, regardless of how fiscally reckless the Dems want to be.
When that time comes, Chicago’s going to need someone with, pardon my french, balls. Teachers are going to strike, garbagemen are going to strike, and someone is going to have to find a way to get the essential services delivered in those situations. If you look at the other candidates, there’s no chance any of them could pull it off, even in a marginally successful manner.

Would it be better if Chicago would elect someone like Chris Christie or Giuliani? Obviously. Wouldn’t happen. Rahm, as much as it pains me to admit, was by far the best choice.

galenrox on January 25, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Chicago ran a nearly $700 million deficit last year. They sold the parking meters for the next century and spent all of the proceeds already. They sold the toll rights to the Skyway for the next century and there’s not much left in that either. At a certain point paying the bills as they are will cease to be an option, regardless of how fiscally reckless the Dems want to be.

galenrox on January 25, 2011 at 2:21 AM

They can do what the Romans did and sell the rights to tax the people directly. Hopefully the public employee unions will have money and so they will be the highest bidder. Otherwise we will be working on Chinese run labor camps.

pedestrian on January 25, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Maybe I am an idiot, but I have read most of page two of these comments, with everyone talking about residency requirements for voting, they are talking like those are Chicago’s residency requirements, they are not, they are Illinois’ requirements aren’t they? Or can you be eligible to vote in Chicago, but not Illinois?

I have read that the homeless in Chicago have to be somewhere in the city for one day to establish a residency, and be eligible to vote, is it the same thing for all?

My point is, if it is one day to be eligible to register and vote, then surely the residency for Voter and Candidate are different standards.

WoosterOh on January 25, 2011 at 2:34 AM

My point is, if it is one day to be eligible to register and vote, then surely the residency for Voter and Candidate are different standards.

WoosterOh on January 25, 2011 at 2:34 AM

A voter needs to be a resident, which means they have to pay a mortgage or something like that. A candidate has to be a resident for one year, where the court says this use the of word resident is different and means what they want when they want it.

pedestrian on January 25, 2011 at 2:41 AM

I should add, I think having residency 30 days prior to the next election applies in order to be eligible to register to vote in the Illinois. So, my guess that is the same for Chicago, so, a homeless can stay at the library for one day, and be eligible to vote as long as it is 30 days till the next.

So, I walk in election day, I want to vote, did you establish residency in Chicago 30 days prior to election day? Yes, I it is Wal-Mart on O’Hare Boulevard. Lady taking the registrations, “OK, good for me, as long as you pull the lever for D. On your way out, pick up your free beer and lunch. Thank you so much Rahm.”

WoosterOh on January 25, 2011 at 2:48 AM

And that day you and 10,000 others were stuck at Chicago O’Hare for the day, you were put on the voter rolls and will be voting in February for Rham and in Nov 2012 for straight D’s.

WoosterOh on January 25, 2011 at 3:12 AM

A voter needs to be a resident, which means they have to pay a mortgage or something like that. A candidate has to be a resident for one year, where the court says this use the of word resident is different and means what they want when they want it.

pedestrian on January 25, 2011 at 2:41 AM

There is a difference between proving residency and being resident.

If the requirements to prove residency for voting were considered sufficient for candidacy, the legislature would not have added the requirement to BE resident for one year into the statute.

Stop playing semantics games for points.

mnealtx on January 25, 2011 at 5:03 AM

His opponents will end up destroying him over it in campaign ads (he’s a carpetbagger, he doesn’t know the city and its needs, etc

Perhaps, but then there’s that hired piper fellow they just loved when all the mice followed his tune. I suspect Chicago could care less about where their…ahem…leaders come from as long as they fit the “lack of character” mold.

Don L on January 25, 2011 at 6:21 AM

If Obama doesn’t need to prove he is a citizen to be Prez, why should Rahm have to be a resident to be Mayor?

disa on January 25, 2011 at 6:48 AM

there’s no good reason I can think of to impose a total statutory bar to office on this ground.

Do you think anyone is surprised by that? Good gravy AP!

csdeven on January 25, 2011 at 6:54 AM

Being a non-resident means you’re not eligible to hold office,

Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place?

Why enforce a law, especially when enforcement is inconvenient? Why fight those who pervert the law? Why not just ignore the law as if it doesn’t apply, being old and hence, being irrelevant? (That describes Obama’s administration to a T.)

As if such consistent legalities matter to Allahpundit.

So this particular judged determined to uphold the law. Bravo!

Given his flair for consistent ambivalence, look where Allahp directs outrage regarding the illegitimate non-natural-born status of the candidate aka “I won!” That’s right — the outrage is misplaced, out of sheer convenience for comfort’s sake, directed against “ignorant birthers” for holding to the constitution as inconveniently written. /See what I did there?/

For progressives, inconvenience is of itself an outrage and a foolish requirement to uphold. That is an irresponsible and immature mindset.

As if inconvenience determines irrelevance of law enforcement. pff, don’t mimic the ignorant tag lines that “birthers” claim Obama has no birth certificate (specifics matter). Do recognize that Obama’s entire administration functions via disregard for constitutional law since the administration’s policy trumps law. (Regard that Bush created authoritarian bureaucracies facilitating policy trumping the Constitution.)

The only “ignorance” is the from the lack authentic evidence establishing fact, no such documents provided, leaving all Americans in a state of ignorance regardless of the public’s ideology and regardless of voters’ decisions based upon the stupor.

Facts are substantiated by documented evidence — oops, no presentation of authentic original documentation, whether birth, education or passport.

Empirical science v. Faith in myth. The jury is still out.

This comment does not say any more than legitimacy still matters. Hold all politicians, judges, governing officials and law enforcement to the rule of law standard.

Meanwhile, best wishes for safety and good health to every Judge with rule-of-law balls.

maverick muse on January 25, 2011 at 7:43 AM

What’s Obama’s record in elections now? Reverse Midas touch.

Osis on January 25, 2011 at 8:18 AM

It’s not unconstitutional. I just think it’s kind of a dumb requirement.

One of the things that annoys me about both modern liberals and conservatives is that they use the constitutionality of a law as a proxy for the debate regarding whether the law is a good idea or a bad idea. Good laws may be unconstitutional (line item vetoes come to mind), and bad laws may be constitutional (if PPACA gets affirmed, that will be a tremendous example of a constitutional law that also sucks).

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Laws like these don’t happen in darkness. Some where in the past they had a reason to create and pass it. Just like the amendment to limit the terms of a president there was a reason for its creation–FDR.

Dasher on January 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place?

Because there used to be enough Kennedy’s (and Kennedy inlaws) to fill the main electoral offices of all 50, oops, 57 states.

Sloan Morganstern on January 25, 2011 at 8:39 AM

I know the man has a rep for his foul mouth but I think posting a trumped up headline is really pretty lame. Imagine how we would respond if PuffingtonHost ran with something similar targeting a major Conservative?

I have to pay more attention to the byline. Fewer and fewer of AP’s post seem to have any content or analysis that interests me. Too much baiting.

OBQuiet on January 25, 2011 at 9:10 AM

I got a new toaster yesterday.

johnnyU on January 25, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Who Cares…. LOOK AT THE BALLOT…… MIGHT AS WELL BE LOOK’N AT AN

ELECTION

IN MOSCOW WHEN THE SOVIET UNION GAVE THE PEOPLE A CHOICE.

BwAHaHahAhA

roflmao

donabernathy on January 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM

I can’t really think of many good policy reasons for it, though.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM

It protects DE, NH, VT from being at the mercy of NY, CA, PA. If a few large states wanted to put all their votes behind a candidate who would favor them, they could control every election. The EC (and the Senate) limit their influence and actually make for a fairer election… nationally as well as within the state.

There wouldn’t be pressure within individual states to vote as a bloc to drown out the minority. CA gets 45, that’s it… even if the candidate is from CA and promises to push policies that benefit states with large urban centers, CA is limited to 45 votes.

So it matters not who wins the popular vote. Some states may be voting as a bloc which skewers the totals.

It’s genius.

mankai on January 25, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place? If a lifelong New Yorker shows up in Chicago and decides he wants to run for mayor right away, why not leave it to voters to decide whether they want him or not?

Allahpundit

Yeah, we should get rid of that pesky rule in the Constitution too. Ahnuld for President!

fossten on January 25, 2011 at 9:30 AM

In his heart, he was always in Chicago.

/crook

Ward Cleaver on January 25, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Can’t resist

TQM38a on January 25, 2011 at 10:09 AM

lansing quaker on January 25, 2011 at 2:21 AM
galenrox on January 25, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Maybe I’m too sensitive, but I find it extremely sad that Rahm is their best choice.

When that time comes, Chicago’s going to need someone with, pardon my french, balls. – galenrox

No excuses necessary, being half French I can assure you that your pronunciation of the word “testicles” is quite accurate.

Michelle Dubois on January 25, 2011 at 10:33 AM

“and anyone working in the White House”

Certainly NOT. Being an employee of the President – not a Cabinet Officerm not an ambassador or a meember of the Armed Forces, but an employee hired to organize an individuals office is most certainly NOT “serving the country”. He took a discretionary job no different than Valarie Jarret or Axelrod – would you say David Axelrod was “serving the country”? Bah.

For those outside the Land of (formerly) Lincoln, note that one of the IL SCT Justices is one Anne Burke – wife of powerful ward boss Ed Burke, who just happens to not be really thrilled by Rahm… don’t count this as an automatic win from Rahm. As was pointed out earlier, this is an internal D struggle too.

LTC John on January 25, 2011 at 11:34 AM

AP exit query:

Exit question: Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place? If a lifelong New Yorker shows up in Chicago and decides he wants to run for mayor right away, why not leave it to voters to decide whether they want him or not? His opponents will end up destroying him over it in campaign ads (he’s a carpetbagger, he doesn’t know the city and its needs, etc), so it’s not like voters won’t know he’s from out of town by the time they go to the polls. In an age of mass media, there’s no good reason I can think of to impose a total statutory bar to office on this ground.

Your example is really a strawman, easily knocked down. But the example really has no relevance at all to this case. Nice academic question, I suppose . . . but it is totally inapposite, both as to the constitutionality of the statute, and as to the expected outcome here.

Rahm, or someone on his behalf, could have quite some time ago sought a Declaratory Judgment by the Illinois State Supreme Court on the question, perhaps based on Article I, § 2 (the rights to equal protection and due process) of the Illinois State Constitution. Or, perhaps there are other constitutional provisions relevant to this question, on which he could have sought that form of judicial guidance. It appears clear that on the Illinois State level, such rulings are not subject to the same limitations they would be under federal “case in controversy” jurisdiction. Obviously it must have occurred to him a while back that the statute could and probably would present a serious potential roadblock. As such, he could have sought an answer earlier without the need, as now, to unduly disrupt the electoral process.

Any Illinois Supreme Court decision now that turns in Emanuel’s favor, would likely turn on some such State constitutional grounds, and not on the academic question of whether, in this day and age, such statutes or ordinances are needed.

What you seem to be suggesting is something along the lines of the Torricelli exception — whatever the judges feel like doing is okay, regardless of the contrary, plain language provisions of State law, perhaps because of some theoretical musings about the peoples’ right in having the broadest of candidate choices available to them.

Incidentally, the analogy to the Torricelli case fits rather neatly, because in both cases it necessarily involved a significant disruption of the electoral process. In this instance, getting sample ballots printed and distributed to the voters in a timely fashion is a serious issue, much as it did in Torricelli.

It is also akin to Torricelli because of the need for a highly expedited argument, having to be immediately scheduled before the State Supreme Court, in a case borne wholly of the political thicket. It literally screams out for the need to exercise judicial restraint, lest the public conclude once again that, in Illinois, “some pigs are more equal than others.”

Trochilus on January 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Allahpundit, that’s strike two. You do another post like that and I’m out of here.

Liberals use dishonest and libelous titles like that to get readership, not conservatives. Attributing a lie to an opponent makes us no better than they are. Those who did not read the story will now think Rahm actually said that. He is a bad man, but we cannot lie to try and make him worse.

scotash on January 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

So it matters not who wins the popular vote. Some states may be voting as a bloc which skewers the totals.

It’s genius.

mankai on January 25, 2011 at 9:27 AM

I find it amazing someone had to explain the reason for the electoral college.
Jesus God in heaven how effing pathetic.
People who want to get rid of this are basicly either ignorant or despots.
Bcs it’s despotic to think that WY is worth any less of a voice than CA.
We’re a Republic bcs we are trying to even things out for everybody so that minority groups are not at the mercy of majority groups, as in a Democracy.
And to you turds who keep whining & mocking how conservatives ‘whine’ about is a law or policy Const or UnConst. I have a great idea for you: go somewhere else if you do not like the ground rules that were set for the operation of the United States Of America.
Bcs that’s what you’ve got to work with.
And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with asking, hey! Is Obamacare Unconstitutional?
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with citizens demanding invocation of the 10th, via their States.
It is the RIGHT & DUTY of states to invoke the 10th when they deem it necessary, in order to preserve their SOVEREIGNTY.
These are NOT antiquated ideas!
They are the effing founding PRINCIPLES.
It is the right over everyone in this country who is a citizen to be able to question whether a law or policy or rule is constitutional.
Just bcs it gets in the way of what you want does not make those of us who question this wrong.
Every law that gets passed should be questioned in this way.
Every lawmaker, state or federal, needs to consider if their bill/law will be able to withstand a Constitutional challenge, at the state & US Const. levels.
Why in the hell do we have these Constitutions for each & every state, as well as the US Constitution if it is unnecessary to play by their rules?
It is effing insane how the media, liberals, & RINOS try & paint people who want to uphold the Const as irrational somehow.

Badger40 on January 26, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2