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

Question – Does Chicago have a ten-day waiting period on sending a dead fish to someone?

teke184 on January 24, 2011 at 4:59 PM

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

Hmmm… is this like the BC question?

upinak on January 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM

I take it they’re holding out to see his long-form residency certificate.

TexasDan on January 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM

are you sure he didn’t say that?

his twitter feed would suggest otherwise…

commodore on January 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM

The simple answer? Because you want someone who is a bona fide resident running for office and not a carpetbagger.

If you don’t do this, you get people like Hillary parachuting into a state to grab an easy Senate seat.

teke184 on January 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Go Away Commie

deedtrader on January 24, 2011 at 5:02 PM

It’s all pretty funny until you see who’s left on the ballot once he’s gone. Chicago’s new slogan: “Why should Detroit be the only major city allowed to collapse?”

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Hey, Minnesota got Al “I lived in Minnesota for two months when I was 4 but I’m a lifelong Minnesotan” Franken, Chicago should be able to have any carpet-bagging trash they want too.

Besides, what’s really the difference here, it’s not as if any of the potential winners of the Chicago mayoral race will be any less corrupt or ruinous than the next.

Bishop on January 24, 2011 at 5:02 PM

but if you think that rule of thumb applies in this case, you’re kidding yourself.

I can dream can’t I?

i know i know, this is chicago…

cmsinaz on January 24, 2011 at 5:03 PM

So, the State Supreme Court will in essence strike down the residency law as it has been accepted? If Rahm gets in, then Chicago will have to allow police and firefighters live outside the city as well. Imagine the lawsuits from people suing to get their jobs back, or lawsuits for wrongful termination. Chicago has been quite strict about that.

Queen0fCups on January 24, 2011 at 5:03 PM

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

Because people have the right to govern themselves. Carpetbagging is in contravention of that. Yes, he’d have to run just like any other shlub, but a $10 million warchest, White House backing, and corrupt backroom deals with the Daley family can produce the kind of lopsided election these laws were put in place to prevent.

As a resident of a state that elected two carpetbaggers to the Senate with national ambitions on the basis of their liberal orthodoxy and huge campaign warchest alone, I thought you’d appreciate that, Allah.

KingGold on January 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Does it matter why? We have laws and they are there to be followed. The opinion looked like garden-variety statutory construction to me, and ought to be tough to overturn without appealing to the “it’s not fair!” all-purpose exit clause.

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM

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

.
It would have been so much cooler had he actually said this, megalomaniacs are always fun to watch from afar, sadly libs always hide who they really are.

LincolntheHun on January 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Bwahahaha! That’s rich! The only ‘man’ he could kill would be the kind filled with straw and standing in a cornfield.

Dark-Star on January 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM

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.

Agreed, Allah but the fact is they have one. The language in the law is clear but who knows what may emanate from the penumbra surrounding the text.

Mason on January 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Rahm’s next gig — replacing Jay Cutler as quarterback of the Bears.

Mr. D on January 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

KingGold on January 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM

So the voters choices are limited because of democracy?

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

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

Do you agree with the 14 year US residency requirement in the Constitution for presidential eligibility?

Mark1971 on January 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Political Rules have changed.

There is a time reference we need to refer to:

BO = Before Obama
AO = After Obama

These residency rules mean nothing in the AO era.

portlandon on January 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Reversal is a cinch, and the path will be clear for the next corrupt POS in a long line of corrupt POSs in a corrupt city run into the ground by corrupt POSs.

rrpjr on January 24, 2011 at 5:07 PM

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

Because we don’t want a professional class of politicians, who run fiefdoms across the country (despite what you see from the Rockefeller family as one example).

Vashta.Nerada on January 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Residency requirements are largely the result of century-old decisions. That’s fine. If they need to be overturned, they are. In this case, however, the law was clear, and it’s probably too late to change it. They might be able to manage, however.

As things stand, Rahm cannot run. Judicial activism should not be able to change that. If it can, there’s a problem.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM

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

To prevent unfettered Hillary Clinton-esque elections. She probably couldn’t find NY on a map, but those wise old birds from NY thought this wacky lady from ARKANSAS was a good deal for New Yorkers.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM

portlandon on January 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM

+1

cmsinaz on January 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Aren’t there residency requirements to be President *cough..barry soetero..cough*?

SouthernGent on January 24, 2011 at 5:10 PM

There is a time reference we need to refer to:

BO = Before Obama
DO = During ObamaAO = After Obama

DO = The worst period in the history of the country.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 5:11 PM

The language in the law is clear but who knows what may emanate from the penumbra surrounding the text.

Mason on January 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

I just checked out the other candidates. I changed my mind. The law is actually not so, er, clear. Yeah that’s it. I guess I’m going with the emanating penumbra after all.

Mason on January 24, 2011 at 5:11 PM

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

“Da *&^&*$# judge will be be presiding over da %(*%# bottom of Lake Michigan.”

MaiDee on January 24, 2011 at 5:11 PM

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

Since politicians that hold office make laws, such a law protects those seeking higher office from outside assaults.

WashJeff on January 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM

So the voters choices are limited because of democracy?

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

I don’t know what state you hail from, but in New York, the penalties for electing a carpetbagger were very heavy. Hillary Clinton focused on nothing but liberal national issues, more focused on the White House than the state she was ostensibly representing. We were well rid of her.

Ditto Bobby Kennedy, who got elected to the Senate for little more than a resume item for his presidential campaign.

Carpetbagger victors don’t get elected to govern, and Rahm Emanuel has no intentions of governing in Chicago’s best interests.

KingGold on January 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM

These Ballet shoes just don’t fit that good anymore!

upinak on January 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM

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.

Surely you jest.

Campaign ads are a blunt instrument compared to what the mass media can do with their sharp honed tongues. We live in an age of mass media; an age where disinformation runs rampant over truth.

IMHO, this would be a recipe for disaster. Anyway its utterly hypothetical, right?

And I assume by residency requirements you don’t suggest we obliterate US residency requirements, do you? Just those nasty state boundaries. I like the state boundaries and the sovergnity of those state constitutions that operate inside those boundaries–thank you very much.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Whoever wins gets to preside over a landscape lttered with fleeing businesses, overwhelming debt that can never be overcome by further increasing taxes, and an enviorment controlled by corrupt unions/politicans. Put that way, I guess Rahm should be the man for the job. I guess someone has to pick the cadavor bones, but there can’t be much left. What a shame. I’ve alway loved Chicago.

a capella on January 24, 2011 at 5:14 PM

I’m goofing on the fact that he has to shell out more and more money of his done deal campaign.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2011 at 5:15 PM

This is going to be interesting to watch as developments unfold. Can’t imagine this man will take this decision lying down.

Keemo on January 24, 2011 at 5:15 PM

This is going to be interesting to watch as developments unfold. Can’t imagine this man will take this decision lying down.

Keemo on January 24, 2011 at 5:15 PM

he will be on Pointe`!

upinak on January 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM

This is going to be interesting to watch as developments unfold. Can’t imagine this man will take this decision lying down.

Keemo on January 24, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Hopefully he will have to take it bent over. Gnome sayin.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM

No matter what happens in the end, Emanuel has discovered that there is one Court of Appeals who doesn’t think he walks on water. They better hire additional body guards.

PhiKapMom on January 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM

I usually do not criticize the authors of the posts here at HotAir, but there is always a 1st time!

“Why do we have residency requirements for eligibility in the first place?;there’s no good reason I can think of to impose a total statutory bar to office on this ground”

The author then answers his own question:

“he doesn’t know the city and its needs, etc”

Opposite Day on January 24, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Who needs lawyers when he’s got all these neat gadgets to do his bidding?

The greatest of Space Knights will prevail!

rihar on January 24, 2011 at 5:19 PM

There is a time reference we need to refer to:

BO = Before Obama
DO = During ObamaAO = After Obama

DO = The worst period in the history of the country.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 5:11 PM

LOL.

In the future When scientist use tree cuts to look at the conditions of our time period, the rings during the DO (During Obama) era, will show great droughts and Unemployment.

portlandon on January 24, 2011 at 5:20 PM

“We don’ want nobody what nobody sent.”

mojo on January 24, 2011 at 5:21 PM

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

Because non Americans can run for office if we dont ?

William Amos on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

So, I’m not from Illinois, but my guess is the Illinois SC is Left leaning? If that is the case, and this being Chicago, does anyone really believe he won’t end up on the ballot?

jjjdad on January 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM

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?

Why not leave it to the voters to decide whether they want to have residency requirements?

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:25 PM

I can think of an entire tier of states that have not so fond memories of carpetbaggers. I’m just saying….

GnuBreed on January 24, 2011 at 5:25 PM

There is a time reference we need to refer to:

BO = Before Obama
DO = During ObamaAO = After Obama

DO = The worst period in the history of the country.

BobMbx on January 24, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Actuall it goes like this

BOO = Before Obama’s Occupancy.

DOO = During Obama’s Occupancy

William Amos on January 24, 2011 at 5:25 PM

“These judges are DEAD TO ME!”

-Daily Kos

Bishop on January 24, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Because non Americans can run for office if we dont ?

William Amos on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

That’s true! But I think AP’s point is that we apparently trust the voters to make 98% of the decision on their own, but all of a sudden, they’re not allowed to make that decision if the person is not technically a resident of Chicago? Chicago voters can’t elect who they choose?

I agree with AP here. Kind of a “let the market decide” situation. If you don’t want something, then don’t vote for it/buy it. That doesn’t mean you should be able to enforce your personal preferences on other people.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Oh, it will be overturned. Then the precedent will be set so that Barry can come back and imediately run for Senate or Gov. Besides, Axelrod & company need Rahm as mayor to run Barry’s re-election campaign from Chicago. Machine politics won’t be the same without Rahm!

TN Mom on January 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM

“These judges are DEAD TO ME!”

-Daily Kos

Bishop on January 24, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Winnah!!!!!!

TN Mom on January 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM

I hope the State Supreme Court takes its time.

tommer74 on January 24, 2011 at 5:30 PM

I agree with AP here. Kind of a “let the market decide” situation.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM

The market decided. The market wants a residency requirement.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

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

What a retarded question.

Badger40 on January 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

“we will prevail”

Why do politicians, especially crooked ones, always talk like they have a mouse in their pocket…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

I hope the State Supreme Court takes its time.

tommer74 on January 24, 2011 at 5:30 PM

If there was ever a time we needed an Elliott Ness.

Judge: Bailiff, I want you to switch the Juries.
District Attorney: [when the Judge announces the switch of jury] What did you tell him ?
Ness: I told him, his name is in that ledger.

portlandon on January 24, 2011 at 5:34 PM

AP that can’t be a serious Exit question. Your traffic-baiting is 3/4 the reason that you get smeared by RINO accusations. As many others have pointed out, we have serious yet very basic hurdles that must be cleared to hold elected office in this country.

You can’t honestly think that they should all be pushed aside because some guy landed a plum job in DC. All Rahm had to do, if he wanted to get elected, was quit his job and move back to Chicago 12 months before election day. He should get a pass simply because of how awesome he is?

Following your logic, a guy with money could buy a house in 2 or 3 or heck, why not all 50 states and run for governor in all of them simultaneously.

Mord on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

If Olbermann could run for Senate in Conn…..why not Rahman in Chicago?

PappyD61 on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

The market decided. The market wants a residency requirement.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Well, apparently not in Chicago, they don’t, since they really seem to want to elect Rahm Emanuel as their mayor.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Can we all just stop and think about Mayor Carol Mosley-Braun for just a little bit? I know it won’t happen but the entertainment value is worth considering for a few minutes.

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Well, apparently not in Chicago, they don’t, since they really seem to want to elect Rahm Emanuel as their mayor.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Apparently not, or they would have changed the residency requirement.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM

The voters made the decision to require residency restrictions when running for office. They voted for the people who put the laws in place.

If you are saying that laws which are unliked by a majority of voters should be repealed, I’ll jump on your bandwagon.

Mord on January 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:37 PM

According to polls, you mean.

/repeal Obamacare

Mord on January 24, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Following your logic, a guy with money could buy a house in 2 or 3 or heck, why not all 50 states and run for governor in all of them simultaneously.

Mord on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Interesting. So if the SC overturns and Rahm wins, a precedent will be set and Barry can run as Gov in ALL 50 states. Freak out time!

TN Mom on January 24, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Tiny dancer gets thrown a monkey wrench…wouldn’t that be a good ballet?

scalleywag on January 24, 2011 at 5:42 PM

I hate to point this out but wasn’t Alan Keys hastily imported into Illinois to run against The Won?

Cindy Munford on January 24, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Apparently not, or they would have changed the residency requirement.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Unless Chicago has a referendum system I’m not aware of, I don’t really see your point, unless you’d like to make the claim that Chicago voters are basing their decision on who they’d like to have in office on the basis of the “Will they repeal the residency requirement” issue. Would you like to make that claim? I’d love to see your data.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:44 PM

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….

If you don’t like a rule get it changed first then try to become Mayor. Don’t break the rule then call it unfair. People will start to call you an illegal immigrant I mean non-resident.

multiuseless on January 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM

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

Take that Birthers!

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:50 PM

I agree with AP here. Kind of a “let the market decide” situation. If you don’t want something, then don’t vote for it/buy it. That doesn’t mean you should be able to enforce your personal preferences on other people.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Then what are election laws for in the first place? Especially the residency requirement?

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Unless Chicago has a referendum system I’m not aware of, I don’t really see your point, unless you’d like to make the claim that Chicago voters are basing their decision on who they’d like to have in office on the basis of the “Will they repeal the residency requirement” issue. Would you like to make that claim? I’d love to see your data.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:44 PM

You’re absurd.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM

I have to disagree with the court in this decision.

Residency is an either/ or thing.
You’re either a resident, or you’re not.
There can’t be degrees to it.

And the law is pretty clear in the provision that “no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States.”

Serving is the White House as Chief of Staff to the President is unambiguously “on business of the United States.”

Arguing that Emanuel lost his residency in one respect, but not another requires some ridiculous mental gymnastics.

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

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

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.

Allah, you being a troll, again?

Sailfish on January 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Then what are election laws for in the first place? Especially the residency requirement?

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 5:51 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

Well, apparently not in Chicago, they don’t, since they really seem to want to elect Rahm Emanuel as their mayor.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Why bother even having an election? Let’s just anoint Emanuel mayor now. Polling data is just as valid as an actual election, and would save money. We all know what people want and that’s Rahmbo.

/

Elections are valid because they are carried out according to rules. Don’t like the rules? Campaign to change them.

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Serving is the White House as Chief of Staff to the President is unambiguously “on business of the United States.”

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

So, once you’re a resident somewhere, you’re always a resident there as long as you have a job in some city somewhere? I don’t think so.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:44 PM

C’mon you chicken, should polls over-ride written law or not? Easy question. I say polls should drive politicians to overturn written law, you seem to be saying that written law should be ignored in favor of polls.

Mord on January 24, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Elections are valid because they are carried out according to rules. Don’t like the rules? Campaign to change them.

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM

That’s a tremendous response to a point that I didn’t make, but thanks for your contribution anyway.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:55 PM

You’re absurd.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Have a great evening.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Arguing that Emanuel lost his residency in one respect, but not another requires some ridiculous mental gymnastics.

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

I thought the opinion was quite straightforward, actually. Garden variety statutory interpretation.

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 5:59 PM

he will be on Pointe`!

upinak on January 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Hopefully he will have to take it bent over. Gnome sayin.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Bad children,bad,bad.
(Giggle

katy the mean old lady on January 24, 2011 at 6:01 PM

So why bother having laws? The election laws in IL clearly state that residency must be established for a year prior to elections…but Rahm thinks he can be exempt from that law.

Liberals and legal positivism are a nasty combination. I hope that he’s smacked down every step of the way…

englishqueen01 on January 24, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Have a great evening.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Run with scissors.

Ronnie on January 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Arguing that Emanuel lost his residency in one respect, but not another requires some ridiculous mental gymnastics.

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

No, the point the majority made was that the “on the business of the United States” aspect only applies to whether a person can vote in the jurisdiction, not whether they can run in the jurisdiction. The law mentions electors, it does not mention candidates.

I’m not sure if that’s actually right but it seems pretty sound to me. I don’t think the dissent really addressed it although I just skimmed it so I may have missed it.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I thought the opinion was quite straightforward, actually. Garden variety statutory interpretation.

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 5:59 PM

It was dozens of pages of hairsplitting that ignored some precedents and not others.

Clearly a line needs to be drawn between residing and not residing. This panel of judges drew it in one place and not another, and for the time being that is the law of the land.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM

I have to disagree with the court in this decision.

Residency is an either/ or thing.
You’re either a resident, or you’re not.
There can’t be degrees to it.

And the law is pretty clear in the provision that “no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States.”

Serving is the White House as Chief of Staff to the President is unambiguously “on business of the United States.”

Arguing that Emanuel lost his residency in one respect, but not another requires some ridiculous mental gymnastics.

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

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 Rahm is indeed considered a “Chicago resident” for election and tax reasons. And this is not disputed. What he is clearly not considered is “residing” in the city for the majority of the year. Or the year before.

The statute has different standards for electors and candidates. And it’s by design. And it was examined and expanded in 2007 to extend to military deployments. And it will probably be expanded to cover worthy functions such as serving in the Cabinet or as a Chief of Staff, on the business of the United States in the near future. And that’s all fine.

What is not fine is ignoring inconvenient statutes where the interpretation is unambiguous.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM

What is not fine is ignoring inconvenient statutes where the interpretation is unambiguous.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM

It’s pretty rich to say it’s an unambiguous interpretation in a decision that wasn’t unanimous.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:13 PM

(“R-A-H-M, not R-O-M”)

heh, perfect AP..

ted c on January 24, 2011 at 6:13 PM

So, once you’re a resident somewhere, you’re always a resident there as long as you have a job in some city somewhere? I don’t think so.

Not quite. The law is explicit in saying that an elector can’t lost residency “by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States.”

That seems to unambiguously include certain groups of people, such as ambassadors, the military and anyone working in the White House. These are positions which require serving the entire nation, including Chicago.

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM

People talk about carpetbagging as if it’s a bad thing! Of course it can be, but if anywhere illustrates that it’s not always the worst thing it must be Chicago. Let’s see: a law to rule out even the possibility that a high-profile outsider could run as a new broom for Chicago, instead effectively reserving all high office for people who have had to play ball with the Chicago machine in order to progress their political careers? I think I can see how the machine can live with that.

Of course that’s not to deny that the residency law should be enforced properly for as long as it’s still in place. And I’m certainly not suggesting that Emmanuel is any kind of new broom: he’s just collateral damage.

anonymous irishman on January 24, 2011 at 6:15 PM

The dissent was unimpressive. It was mainly calling the majority a bunch of political hacks in polite terms (see p. 30), and based its arguments on trying to discredit the majority’s interpretation of precedent.

Even with those precedents firmly in place, there would still be substantial basis in the actual laws as written to overturn those precedents. The statute as it stands was updated in 2007 (as mentioned before) based on a similar case. That is the appropriate remedy if there was an oversight in the original language. In this case, it was done with foresight to allow an Iraq vet to run because he was deployed before his candidacy.

A similar thing can and should (IMHO) be done for the Business of the United States. But it is not done, yet.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:15 PM

That seems to unambiguously include certain groups of people, such as ambassadors, the military and anyone working in the White House. These are positions which require serving the entire nation, including Chicago.

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM

True. And if the law mentioned even a word of that (other than the military service portion), I think you’d have good reason to resent the reversal.

Fortunately, your opinion does not carry force of law here, or we’d be bowing to King Mets instead of arguing with Mister Mets.

I think your moral compass is working fine — but your legal readings need some work.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:17 PM

The statute as it stands was updated in 2007 (as mentioned before) based on a similar case. That is the appropriate remedy if there was an oversight in the original language. In this case, it was done with foresight to allow an Iraq vet to run because he was deployed before his candidacy.

A similar thing can and should (IMHO) be done for the Business of the United States. But it is not done, yet.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:15 PM

One instance where the majority is less than convincing is where they say that another court has ruled that decisions be made in favor of ballot access, and they say that applies only to electors and not to candidates. 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

KingGold on January 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Yeah, but the question isn’t whether he should be mayor, or would be a good mayor, the question is whether the people of Chicago should be able to make that decision for themselves.

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 6:20 PM

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

It was just a few short weeks ago that the leading (R)epublican was tossed off the ballot for Chicago Mayor without comment by the MainStreamMedia. The transparently false claims there were “paperwork”. Sure…

Now we have a guy that wants to be sElected without bothering with the rules?

Doesn’t Rahm have a Hawaiian birth certificate too?

DANEgerus on January 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM

People should be able to vote for who they want.

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

You must really love the Electoral College.

TexasDan on January 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:15 PM

As opposed to the majority that decided he wasn’t a resident because “residency” doesn’t actually mean residency? (page 22/23)

galenrox on January 24, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Not quite. The law is explicit in saying that an elector can’t lost residency “by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States.”

That seems to unambiguously include certain groups of people, such as ambassadors, the military and anyone working in the White House. These are positions which require serving the entire nation, including Chicago.

Mister Mets on January 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Yeah. Electors. Not “candidates.”

The dissent was unimpressive. It was mainly calling the majority a bunch of political hacks in polite terms (see p. 30), and based its arguments on trying to discredit the majority’s interpretation of precedent.

Trying to discredit the majority’s interpretation of the law is the purpose of writing a dissent.

Proud Rino on January 24, 2011 at 6:23 PM

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

Yeah…carpetbaggers are a great expression of representation.

Limerick on January 24, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2