Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah . . . I'll take the bet. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Chicago city ordinance is quite explicit =:

    §§ 3.1-10-5(a) City of ChicagoMunicipal Code: A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment.

    The appellate court ruled:

    [the Illinois supreme] court has explained unequivocally that "it is elemental that domicile and residence are not synonymous." Pope v. Board of Election Commissioners, 370 Ill. 196, 202, 18 N.E.2d 214 (1938).
    As the supreme court further explained in Pope, the legal concept of "residence" requires a permanent abode. Pope, 370 Ill. at 200.

    Accordingly, to the extent that Smith might establish that a voter or candidate could meet a residency requirement through intent alone, without any permanent abode, the supreme court has since abandoned Smith’s approach.

    In other words, finding in Rahm's favor will require the Illinois Supreme Court to reverse its own prior decisions and violate the legal principle of stare decisis, or stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed. This is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:11:33 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There were some issues of precedent.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....from the dissent as well.  So we'll see.  

      If they are basing their decision on the existing briefs and nothing else, I'm thinking this doesn't look as good for Rahm as it did an hour ago.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site