Skip to main content

View Diary: Illinois Supreme Court puts Rahm Emanuel back on ballot (371 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That may well be the case (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JR, ogre, jayden, glassbeadgame, 57andFemale, Loge

    And I'm a fan of canons which defer to giving voters choices.  But first you have to decide that the text is sufficiently ambiguous to allow that policy conclusion.

    •  We define residency (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, 57andFemale

      pretty broadly in other areas of the law, so I think the idea that in this one area, it is to be defined very narrowly to be not very compelling.

      So to me, it's either ambiguous or it's broadly defined, but I see little evidence that it was intended to be more strictly defined than it is elsewhere in statute.

      •  But the appeals court held, (0+ / 0-)

        he met the residency requirements with respect to the standard that he be a qualified elector.  Here, there's additional langauge saying "resided in."  What is it doing there, if the statute is just codifying the common law of domicile?

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:05:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's the word "has," really. (0+ / 0-)

        The requirement of "has resided," to my ears, sounds like something which requires something actual and continuous.  If he owned a summer place in the Wisconsin Dells, you might say that he has residence there for certain months, but not that he has resided there for the year.

        •  Would he have been eligible to run (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          57andFemale

          as a member of Congress? How about state legislators who spend most of their time in Springfield?

          Any construction prohibiting that would be absurd.

          Ok, so I read the polls.

          by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:11:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes and "sure looks like it" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drmah

            For Congress, you only have to be an inhabitant of the state when elected.  For the Illinois General Assembly:

            To be eligible to serve as a member of the General Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or appointment a resident of the district which he is to represent.

        •  Does Illinois law not have the term "domiciled"? (0+ / 0-)

          I think "has resided" is better interpreted as meaning "has been a resident" than "has domiciled."

          ‎"Our greatest asset as advocates is a deep cognizance of our own ignorance, plus a willingness to do something about it." -Joseph Mitchell Kaye, 1966.

          by JR on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:32:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's how I came down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B

      I want Rahm on the ballot as a policy matter, but it looks like he messed up hard.  

      Here's an interesting counterfactual.  Rahm knows he's going to go back and run for mayor, but as Chief of Staff, he feels it necessary to move his family to Washington.  To solve this problem, he rents out his house but takes a studio apartment near Streeterville.  Over the course of the last year, he spends a total of 10 nights there.  Has he "resided in" Chicago?

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:03:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. It's not his primary residence. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:18:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  'Primary residence' isn't in the statute n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jayden, JeffW
          •  But that's how it will be interpreted... (0+ / 0-)

            ...say we take your original scenario, and instead of an apartment, Rahm has an agreement with his renter to allow him to use the guest room contingent upon his informing the renter that he will be in town. Then he is using his primary residence, and by that very technicality, he would probably be eligble in the eyes of the Appellate Court. I agree that it was a technicality that the majority ruled on.

            Or maybe not. I'm not second-guessing either them or the State Supremes. I just consider the requirement for City employees: you gotta live in the City to be one! And I don't like the idea of Rahm Emanuel being Mayor. Thank Ceiling Cat we will be moved out of here in 2 years!

            Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

            by JeffW on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:49:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  There's a famous case of a man in NJ (0+ / 0-)

      He was "homeless", and spent all day long hanging around in Morristown, NJ.  He was thrown out of the library, sued, and collected several hundred thousand dollars.

      With that money, he rented an apartment in a nearby town, but continud to spend all his time in Morristown.  

      He filed to vote in Morristown.  The state objected, saying he lived in the town where he had an apartment.  The court ruled in the man's favor, saying that he may have had an apartment in the neighboring town, but he was homeless in Morristown, and the court said homeless people have a right to vote.

      Now figure that one out !

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site