Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  only one of those three defn's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew C White

    IMO stands for the proposition of continuously dwelling in a place.

    And even then, I don't think anyone argues that a vacation means you did not "continuously dwell" there.

    The only fact that causes me any possible agreement with the majority is the fact that he rented the place out.

    We also know that "residency" for citizens can be maintained even as someone lives for some period of time somewhere else, so long as they intend to return and have some evidence of said intent.

    •  Sure. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew C White, wsexson, JeffW

      And a Congressman who was 50/50 between Chicago and DC would be a closer call as to continuity.  But Emanuel was barely there at all during the time in question, and never at a place he could call his own.

      •  no not never (0+ / 0-)

        just not recently.

        Seems to me this is the difference between a guy who's never been a chicago resident, who then comes in and wants to run right away, versus someone like Emanuel who has been almost his entire life, leaves for a period of time to serve the president and then comes back.

        I strongly suspect the intent of the statute is to bar only one of those two hypothetical people from running.

        •  But the statute focuses on the most recent year (0+ / 0-)

          They could have said "has resided in the city for a year within the past five years," etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site