Skip to main content

Last month, if you'll recall, we all thought this was a silly dispute, that of course Rahm Emanuel was a Chicagoan who belonged on the ballot, and that even though he left to serve the President, of course he was planning to come back, and while we might not want to vote for him, Chicagoans should undoubtedly have that right.

Oops.

So let's take a look at the actual statute which governs this ballot requirement:

Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office.

(a) 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, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1‑20‑25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1‑25‑75, Section 5‑2‑2, or Section 5‑2‑11.

"And has resided in." Well, that's a bit different from "has a residence in," which I think was our assumption as to what the law required, and that's what today's Illinois Appellate Court ruling (PDF) focused on:

As noted, the operative language at issue requires that a potential candidate have "resided in" the municipality for one year next preceding the election. In its verb form, "reside" generally means, among other things, "to dwell permanently or continuously," or to "have a settled abode for a time." Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1931 (1993). The word is considered to be synonymous with "live, dwell, sojourn, lodge, stay, put (up), [and] stop," but it "may be the preferred term for expressing the idea that a person keeps or returns to a particular dwelling place as his fixed, settled, or legal abode." Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1931 (1993).

These definitions are not interchangeable for our purposes: our selection of the synonym "live" as a fair definition of "resided in" would defeat the candidate’s eligibility to run for office, because he most certainly "lived" outside Chicago for a large part of the statutory one-year period. On the other hand, our selection of a conception of "resided in" more akin to the idea of a permanent abode a person keeps or to which he plans to return-- the definition the Board seems to have employed--would lend much greater support to the candidate’s position. The question for us, then, becomes which of these definitions the legislature meant to invoke with its use of the phrase "reside in" in the Municipal Code....

As Ballhorn [a 1901 case] further explains, requirements that candidates "reside in" the area they would represent "can only be truly served by requiring such representatives to be and remain actual residents of the units which they represent, in contradistinction from constructive residents. A mere constructive resident has no better opportunities for knowing the wants and rightful demands of his constituents, than a non resident, and is as much beyond the wholesome influence of direct contact with them. *** In [the candidate residency statute] the language is not, shall be a resident, but it is, shall 'reside within' ***." Ballhorn, 100 Ill. App. at 573. Although nearly 200 years of technological advances since Illinois’ first candidate "reside in" requirements may have obviated much of their necessity, the legislature has not seen fit to alter the relevant language. We believe, therefore, that the initial purpose of the "reside in" requirement for candidates, and the failure of the legislature to alter that language in the current Municipal Code, strongly indicates that the phrase "resided in" as used in the Municipal Code requires actual, not constructive, residence.

(emphasis mine.) Emanuel didn't meet that test, but there's this statutory exception:

10 ILCS 5/3-2

No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.

The Court found this provision inapplicable as to Emanuel. Yes, they say, it means that he didn't lose his "residence" in Chicago to qualify as a registered voter, but it doesn't mean he "resided in" Chicago during the interim either.

That plain language limits the reach of the "business of the United States" exception to "elector[s]" or their spouses; it makes no mention of "candidates." Further, as we have noted, we must interpret statutes "as a whole, with each provision construed in connection with every other section." Section 3-2's "business of the United States" exception is housed not only in the Election Code, but in a portion of the Election Code dealing exclusively with voter qualification, in fact in an Article titled "Qualification of Voters."

In other words, "Rahm, you can vote for anyone you want in this election ... except you, because you can't be on the ballot."

Justice Lampkin's dissenting opinion echoes the points you'd expect -- that Emanuel proved that he never intended to leave Chicago, and that should end it:

The majority acknowledges that the candidate had established a residency in Chicago long before 2009 where he had both a physical presence here and the intent to remain. The majority failed, however, to move past the issue of establishing residency to the relevant analysis, which turns on whether the candidate’s residency, which he had indisputably held, was abandoned when he worked in Washington, D.C., and leased his Chicago home.

The Board’s ruling–that the candidate in 2009 and 2010 did not abandon his status as a resident of Chicago and, thus, remained a resident of Chicago even though he was largely absent from this city from January 2009 until October 1, 2010–was not clearly erroneous. Intent is an issue of fact, and the majority acknowledges that the Board’s fact findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This acknowledgment should have ended this case, and resulted in this court affirming the circuit court’s judgment, which confirmed the Board’s ruling that the preponderance of the evidence established that the candidate never formed an intent to either change or terminate his residence in Chicago, or establish his residence in Washington, D.C., or any place other than Chicago. Because the candidate had established his Chicago residency, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is shown, and the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there has been a change.

And Justice Lampkin asks what sounds like a fair question to me:

[T]he majority does not write a single sentence explaining how it defines “actually resided in.” It is patently clear that the majority fails to even attempt to define its newly discovered standard because it is a figment of the majority’s imagination.  

How many days may a person stay away from his home before the majority would decide he no longer “actually resides” in it?  Would the majority have us pick a number out of a hat?  A standard which cannot be defined cannot be applied.  If the majority had picked even an arbitrary number of days that voters need not sleep in their own beds before they violated this new arbitrary standard, then at least we would be able to apply this new standard.  Should a court consider just the number of days a voter or candidate is absent or are there other relevant factors under the new standard? Apparently, only the majority knows but, for some reason, fails to share it with those charged to abide by it if they want to be a candidate for municipal office.

Per fellow FPer Georgia Logothetis, Emanuel's primary foes are already scrambling to react to the news:

Chico has taken pains to steer clear of the residency challenge and publicly support Emanuel’s right to run for mayor. His campaign did the same after Monday’s ruling. Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for Chico, issused the following statement:

“From day one, Gery Chico’s campaign has been about putting Chicagoans back to work, making our neighborhoods safer and giving our children the education they deserve. Today’s news is a surprise but it will not impact how we run our campaign. Gery will continue to work for every vote and lay out his plans to take Chicago in a whole new direction.”

Del Valle, in a statement, brought up the $11.7 million that Emanuel has collected in just three months to bankroll a mayoral campaign that has now been thrust into legal limbo.

“It looked like money was going to decide this election,” del Valle said. “The voters now have a rare opportunity to shape this city’s future.”

Up next: the Illinois Supreme Court.  In the meantime, the calendar is a real issue:

Early voting starts a week from today on Jan. 31. An elections board spokesman said ballots have not been printed yet but are scheduled to be printed starting tonight.

Later, Langdon D. Neal, the elections board chairman, issued a statement: "We're going to press with one less candidate for mayor."

Elections board spokesman Jim Allen said ballots are being printed tonight.

“We’ve basically hit the go button,” Allen said. “We needed to do this on the 18th, we were waiting for this decision. We going to press now, we have to.”

“A candidate who is removed from the ballots by the court’s has until Feb. 15 to file as a write-in,” Allen said.

The election is February 22.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:30 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Are all of Chicago's reps in Congress... (20+ / 0-)

    ...similarly barred from standing for re-election?  I don't see how their situation differs at all.

    •  That would seem to be a rather effective (4+ / 0-)

      method to achieve term limitations!

      (and no, I'm not stalking you, at least no more than usual . . . .).

      •  Hah hah, Rahm (4+ / 0-)

        You R****d.

        (I hate the word, and would never use it - unlike one asshole who wants to be mayor of Chicago).

        Karma.

      •  That's the 10 ILCS 5/3-2 exception (8+ / 0-)

        That's covered by the "10 ILCS 5/3-2" exception because he'd be acting in service of the state.  

        It seems like Rahm should be able to be on the ballot and that it's keeping to the spirit of the law for him to be able to run.  The law is clearly intended to prevent carpet bagging, and I don't see that being what Rahm's doing.  

        Unfortunately for Ram the letter of the law seems pretty clearly against him here.  Had he maintained an actual residence in Chicago, he'd have a much better argument.  At no point since moving to take the job in DC has he maintained any dwelling he could return to as his home.  It's very difficult to argue that you're the resident of a city if you have to book a hotel room to visit it.

        •  I could imagine that a hotel room would count (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          if, for example, one's house were being fumigated, undergoing repair, etc.  And there's the interesting question of: "what if it had burned down?"  But to have said -- I don't have a better standard in mind than this -- "this is no longer where permanent mail to me outside of my temporary residence should be addressed" does seem to bring him outside of whatever is supposed to the the extra qualification for a candidate beyond being merely eligible to vote within the city.

          Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
          Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

          by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:13:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The IRS standards (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BOBAUBIN com

            If a taxpayer alternates between 2 properties, using each as a residence for successive periods of time, the property that the taxpayer uses a majority of the time during the year ordinarily will be considered the taxpayer’s principal residence.

            In addition to the taxpayer’s use of the property, relevant factors in determining a taxpayer’s principal residence, include, but are not limited to:

            (i) The taxpayer’s place of employment;
            (ii) The principal place of abode of the taxpayer’s family members;
            (iii) The address listed on the taxpayer’s federal and state tax returns, driver’s license, automobile registration, and voter registration card;
            (iv) The taxpayer’s mailing address for bills and correspondence;
            (v) The location of the taxpayer’s banks; and
            (vi) The location of religious organizations and recreational clubs with which the taxpayer is affiliated.

            Where was he Employed?  DC
            Where were his kids?  DC
            Where was he filing taxs? DC???
            Drivers License?  DC?
            Cars?
            Where was he getting correspondence?
            Synagogue?  
            FIght Club?

            George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

            by nathguy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:40:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's no question but that he remains (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChicDemago

              a Chicago resident.  The question is whether he satisfies the requirements for running for Mayor of Chicago, for which you must consult the statute.

              Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
              Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

              by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:58:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  not for IRS purposes. (0+ / 0-)

                look you may be some rahmbot, but,
                i think the guy screwed up.

                George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

                by nathguy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:44:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You brought up "IRS purposes," not me (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not even sure of what point you were making.

                  Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
                  Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

                  by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:35:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  that if he tried to deduct his house in DC (0+ / 0-)

                    as expenses because he was a Chicago Resident
                    on Federal business, the IRS would have laughed and
                    thrown the book at him.

                    I maintained 2 residences for 6 years, I know the law,
                    and i also only declared one my primary residence,
                    and I seriously did my taxes and voting in just one place.

                    Look chicago loses nothing by him running in 3 years.

                    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

                    by nathguy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:40:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Well that's a real shame (0+ / 0-)

          Definitely Chicago's loss, I suppose (assuming that out of 6 million people, no one else of Rahm's caliber can be found . . . ).

        •  But look (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pvlb, Scott Wood, littlebird33

          the only reason he is not residing in Chicago was "by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State."  I think that it is ignoring the plain meaning of the statute to say that, although he could not "lose his residence" in this way, because he was outside the city, he was not residing there.  I mean, that's nuts.  It makes the exception a nullity for anybody who can't afford two houses.  The court can't just read the exception out of the statute in that way.

          Also, the place where one resides is usually the place that one intends to make his home, and that's Chicago for Rahm.  The Court just decided that someone like Beau Biden, serving abroad, cannot get on the ballot in what is clearly his home.

          Nuts.

          •  Not quite... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tnproud2b

            By your logic if he went and ran for Senator of New York and served as Senator of New York for 6 years he'd still be in service to the country and therefore get the exemption.

            The point of the exemption is to cover people who, by the nature of their service, are required to live elsewhere.  So for example, a soldier, or a diplomat who is stationed overseas would get the exemption.  But in Rahm's case, he's just taking a job in DC.  Yeah it happens to be working for the President and that serves the country in some fashion, but that's not the same thing.

          •  Beau Biden (0+ / 0-)

            Beau Biden would get by on the exemption because his military service is what compelled him to not be a resident.  Service to the country...

            •  and COS is not service to the country? n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              littlebird33
              •  Correct (3+ / 0-)

                It's a subtle but important distinction.  A soldier signs up for the military and doesn't have control over their place of residence.  They are a soldier doing service for the country and are therefore exempt.

                A Senator or a Congressman is a resident of the state, and then they are elected to office by the state which then compells them to live in DC for extended periods of time.  They are therefore exempt.

                For the COS job, he's not being elected.  He's not being compelled in any way because of service he signed up for.  Instead he's just going to work in DC.  Yes that job happens to be for the government, but there's a lot of government jobs.  

                Service to the state or the country is a very particular situation, and just taking a government job, even as COS isn't the same thing.

                •  even the majority thought this obviously count. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Andrew C White

                  But that the exemption didn't apply to the full statute.

                  According to the candidate, he falls within this exception because his absence from Chicago was attributable to his service as the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.  We agree with the candidate that his service constituted "business of the United States" and thus that this exception applies to him.  We disagree, however, with his position that the exception saves his candidacy.

                •  There was a previous IL Supreme Court... (0+ / 0-)

                  case affirming your position that military service is the ONLY exception.  Fair or not, that's the letter of the law in this case.

                •  Not just a "government job". (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  littlebird33

                  There's a difference between making a career move that could be reasonably expected to keep someone in DC indefinitely, versus being selected for a position directly in service of the President, where that job is very unlikely to last when the President leaves office.

                  Is the line a bit fuzzy?  Yeah, but it ought to be drawn somewhere, and this doesn't seem to belong on the permanent relocation side.

                  And while Rahm could undoubtedly have afforded to not rent out his Chicago home while also paying for a home in DC, the precedent it sets is another blow  against the ability of someone of lesser means to fully participate in politics.

          •  No, it's all about about the Illinois MUNICIPAL (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson

            statute, about running for MUNICIPAL offices.  That, and previous rulings by the IL Supreme Court.

        •  Agree. Alan Keyes was a carpetbagger-- (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pvlb, littlebird33

          --Rahm Emmanuel is not.

          Whether he met the legal requirements to be a 'resident', I don't know, and this is an interesting twist, the ruling by the AC.

          But Emmanuel was born and raised in Chicago, owns a house here, and isn't a carpetbagger.

          My concern:  if he's not on the ballot, we're more likely to get Daley's lackey, Gery Chico.  I like Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins, but it doesn't look like she stands a chance.  :(
          http://www.patriciaforchicago.com/

          "It's not getting any smarter out there. You have to come to terms with stupidity, and make it work for you." (Frank Zappa)

          by cinnamondog on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:56:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Inapplicable (11+ / 0-)

      The Constitution sets the eligibility terms for Congress:

      No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

      State law doesn't supersede.

      But there's a question: is a sitting Congressperson who spends half his nights in DC and half in Chicago someone who "resides in" Chicago for purposes of a mayoral run?

      •  But can't a state set more stringent guidelines? (0+ / 0-)

        Wouldn't the Constitution be considered the minimum standard, with a state allowed to set tighter criteria for its own reps if it wanted?

      •  Sure. (0+ / 0-)

        I know lawyers try to make fake bright lines so that judges can be reduced to "judging machines" -- but really now, it's not that hard.

        If you have a base of operations in a place, where you sleep over big chunks of the year, then you live there. If you're gone the whole year except for Christmas and Thanksgiving -- then you clearly don't "live" there.

        •  But wouldn't that... (0+ / 0-)

          ...then exclude military members from Chicago (or Illinois) from voting in local and state elections.  Their base of operations is almost certainly out of state or even out of country?

          I, at some points, didn't set foot in the state that was my home of record for periods of 2-3 years, but I was always eligible to vote (granted I am not from Illinois).

          •  military is specifically excluded from this (0+ / 0-)

            requirement.

            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

            by agnostic on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:37:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Which is why some states have explicit exceptions (0+ / 0-)

            for that --- so obviously even in the rarified airs of politicians and lawyers, someone had a little sense left that maybe, just maybe, they have to throw a sop to the concept that residence somehow is linked with "where you live".

            I don't really see why military members should be given the vote in local elections when they're gone for years at a time -- but of course, they will be, given our cultural attitudes.

            Unfortunately, there's a secondary problem there where local eligibility is tied to federal eligibility and all federal voting is linked with having a residence in a location --- that we have an essentially 18th century electoral system, which is why it's so terribly easy for modern corporations to game elections. So of course you have to give soldier the right to vote in elections that they have no current connection to if they're going to have the right to have a voice in the federal government which they are particularly connected with.

          •  Does NOT exclude VOTERS, but excludes candidates (4+ / 0-)

            The Illinois law in question sets a higher standard for candidates than the traditional standard for "electors" (voters).

            As Adam so clearly pointed out, Rahm can VOTE in this election (under the same clause applying to all military personnel).  No one is questioning that.  The totally separate question is whether he can be a candidate.

            "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

            by Eman on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:40:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  and what about people in the military (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Treg

        Would a person who spent the last 2 years mainly in Afghanistan be considered ineligible to run for a state or local office?

        If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

        by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:06:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm really shocked to say this, but (10+ / 0-)

        based on what you've quoted, it looks like the majority has it right.  To put my cards on the table, I'm not a fan of Rahm, but I didn't think he should be taken off of the ballot, and I don't have a real problem with his becoming Mayor.  I'm looking at this simply as a matter of statutory analysis.  It's a stupid law -- but still a law.

        The key is that in interpreting a statute you assume that every word has meaning -- i.e., is not redundant.  So when it says:

        a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment

        the first italicized phrase carries with it all requirements of being a qualified elector -- which include Rahm's having maintained a residency there (even if rented out) to which he intended to return, since that's sufficient for him to vote there.  So the second italicized portion has to mean something more.

        What more can it mean?  Well, what's the difference between "having a residency" and "has resided"?  Actual presence is the only candidate that comes to mind.

        My guess is that everyone (including Rahm) has assumed that the exception that his non-presence has been due to his "absence on business of the United States" would apply to him.  However, that applies solely to the first italicized section.  It's still only enough for us to say that he's a qualified elector, which has to be something different than "resided in" for the latter not to be redundant (the technical word in statutory construction being "surplusage.")

        Lampkin's opinion seems like a reasonable lay analysis -- but wrong as a legal interpretation.  First of all, he's right that "intent" is a matter of fact, but he's wrong if he thinks that "intent" being what matters here is not a matter of law.  It's clearly a matter of law.  No deference is owed to the opinions of the lower court on the point.

        Most of his opinion (as included here) can be summarized as "this is a really stupid law, for example because it calls for arbitrary distinctions regarding presence."  Well, that may be so.  The question is: is the need for a court to make those arbitrary distinctions so absurd that it leads us to say that that could not have been the intent of the law?  (There's a canon of interpretation saying that an absurd result must be the wrong result.)  I don't think it rises to that level of absurdity.  Courts make judgments about what is "reasonable" given such a statute all the time.  It may be that his having rented out the house, so that it could not be where he returned when he went back to the district, would play a major role in that interpretation.

        The only way that I think the Supreme Court could get around this is to shoehorn Rahm into the exception regarding absence on state business.  The problem with its doing that -- and why, based solely on what Adam has written above, I think that they shouldn't and won't -- is that it's not clear to me how that could do something other than render those two italicized qualifications above redundant.

        Find out how those qualifications are non-redundant, if the exception applies to Rahm, and Rahm can win.  Fail to do so, and the IL Supreme Court can only let him win by deciding, based on some equitable power that I don't think should have a role here, to ignore the law.

        I don't want to arrive at this result and I am shocked that I do.  But everyone's (including me) thinking that this was frivolous was based on a lack of attention to the statutory language.  There's a lesson there for all of us (including Rahm.)

        Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
        Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

        by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:10:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is the correct answer, IMHO (8+ / 0-)

          The "exception" that Adam points out:

          10 ILCS 5/3-2

             No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.

          only helps Emmanuel establish the FIRST part of the two-pronged candidacy requirement.  Namely, that he is a qualified elector (voter) in the municipality.  However, the second part of the requirement, that he reside in the municipality, must be given statutory meaning.  THIS residency requirement CANNOT be the same as that for electors, since such an interpretation would render the second prong superfluous.  Simply meet the first prong (qualified voter) and you automatically meet the second, in other words.  

          That would violate a statutory norm of interpretation that all words in a statute have meaning.

          Looking at the text of the statute, this is the correct result.  What the Supreme Court will do is anybody's guess.  My guess is that they will try very hard to appeal to policy implications, and dig very deep to find some legislative history with which to override what they will likely claim to be "ambiguous" text.

          •  There's a good likelihood of that (3+ / 0-)

            In that case, though, they -- rather than this appellate panel majority -- will be the ones twisting the law to suit the ends of what they want to happen.  (By that I don't mean "they want Rahm to win"; they'd be serving the purpose of "doing what seems fair.")  But in any event, the suspicion that this majority was doing anything but doing their job excellently and properly should be jettisoned.  This is a subtle, but correct, analysis.

            Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
            Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

            by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:28:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It would help if he would have so much as rented (0+ / 0-)

            a small apartment to be his Chicago residence while he was in DC.

            It's silly, but it's not like this is a new requirement. Or even one that's only a hundred years old.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:34:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe, maybe not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dinotrac

              It would allow a further distinction, but I'm not sure that that distinction would make a difference.  Reading this opinion, I truly doubt that even Rep. Danny Davis, who let's assume has not rented out his house, was eligible to run for Mayor of Chicago due to lack of "presence" for a year (or a substantial part of a year?) before the election.

              Now, maybe that's an absurd result.  If so, it may be just the crowbar that Rahm needs to pull apart the majority's interpretation -- even if it does render the second requirement as surplusage.  But my guess is that the court would see regularly returning to one's home after what are in effect "extended business trips" as more likely within the scope of what the something extra that the second clause requires than whatever Rahm did.

              Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
              Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

              by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:39:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The Court's (0+ / 0-)

          application of the exception is totally semantic.  There's no point to the exception if it doesn't make someone like Rahm, who has been outside the jurisdiction on federal business, eligible for office.  To whom would the exception ever apply if not to someone like him?   The Court can't just make it meaningless.  That's ignoring the will of the legislature.  

        •  Canons of construction (0+ / 0-)

          Rick Hasen has pointed to a "democracy canon" which seems to guide courts on election law issues -- such as the Alaska voter intent stuff -- and which could offer guidance here.  It says, basically, "when in doubt, construe statutes in favor of the right to vote."  And here, it would say, "if you're not sure what 'resides in' means, let voters decide if he's been here enough."

          •  I'm off to read Hasen's article in Slate now, but (0+ / 0-)

            without having done so, I don't know that that canon would extend to the right to run for office, and the canon against construing statutory language as surplusage is pretty strong.

            Hindsight is 20/20, I know, but Rahm should have sought his own declaratory judgment motion as early as when he began considering this.  That it's coming to a head this close to the election is something he had the chance to influence.

            Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
            Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

            by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:09:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure. (0+ / 0-)

              ... since he knew he was going to be challenged, sure, why not play offense and file the dec action?  Always good to get the right of a reply brief.

              It's not the right to run that the canon would affect as much as the right of voters to decide his qualifications.

              •  The right of voters to decide his qualifications? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wsexson

                So tell me -- would that argue that Schwarzenegger (when he was popular) should have been able to run for President and let the voters decide whether the Constitution applied?  I've never heard of voters having the right to vote for candidates who don't qualify for the ballot.  I'd love to see a citation for that.

                Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
                Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

                by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:24:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree that it would be surplusage (0+ / 0-)

              It doesn't render the second part meaningless to interpret it as setting a minimum residency requirement for otherwise qualified electors. Indeed, it plainly states a second qualification: not only must the person be a "qualified elector of the municipality" (1), but s/he must also have been a resident for a year (2).  That still narrows the class of eligible candidates from "all qualified electors" to "all qualified electors who have been around for a certain length of time.

              That interpretation still gives meaning to the second prong, and doesn't require the courts to declare that residency is a different concept in different parts of elections law.  I think that's a far more sensible interpretation, and it's certainly doesn't reduce any part of the statute to a nullity.

              ‎"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 Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:03:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It doesn't say "a year" (0+ / 0-)

                It says "the next preceding year."  If it said "at least one preceding year," I'd agree.

                Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
                Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

                by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:37:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I'm guessing we'll know for sure... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...which one of us is interpreting it "correctly" by close-of-business tomorrow, maybe Thursday at the outside. :)

                  ‎"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 01:08:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's "Schroedinger's Clause" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JR

                    Its meaning isn't fixed until it is observed (in an opinion or order.)  But, as Judge Reinhardt is fond of saying, just because the Supreme Court reverses him does not mean he was wrong; it can just mean that they changed the interpretation of the law from what he had previously correctly understood.  (Love that man!)

                    Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
                    Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

                    by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:37:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  OK, done. I'm not used to Hasen being wrong, but (0+ / 0-)

            Hasen is wrong.  Embarrassingly so.  Here we go:

            The appellate court had to jump through a lot of hoops to reach this conclusion. First, the factual findings of an election board ordinarily are not reversed unless the board has made a "clearly erroneous" decision. The appellate court conceded that the election board might have been correct that Emanuel intended to return to Chicago, but said that the board wrongly interpreted what it means to "reside" in the municipality: Emanuel had to have a regular physical presence in Chicago rather than merely an intent to return.

            So Hasen points out that one should only in rare cases overturn the factual findings of a lower tribunal -- and then he says that their disagreement was not over the facts, but about the law.  What's the standard of review there, Prof. Hasen?  (Hint: de novo.  No deference.)

            That seems an overly stingy reading of a statute, if the purpose of a residency requirement is to make sure that candidates have had experience living in the city they want to lead.

            So is he really saying that a court should be exploring the amorphous purpose of the law rather than following normal statutory construction?  Hey, here's an alternative "purpose of the law": they didn't want someone merely to "have had experience living in the city" but to have done so recently -- which is why they put in the words "the next preceding" before "year".  This is a strong hint from the drafters as to their intent!

            Illinois law is clear that someone out of the state with an intention to return can still vote in state and local elections. On this point, the appellate court said that Emanuel was still enough of a resident that he would remain eligible to be a voter in Chicago, but not enough to be a candidate. But if Emanuel remained resident enough to vote, why shouldn't he also be able to run for office?

            Uhm, because voting and running for office are two different things, as evident in the later having a statutory requirement beyond that required for the former?

            Third, according to the dissent, earlier Illinois cases established that Emanuel was eligible to run, by setting a rule that once someone is a resident, he does not lose his residency by leaving the state for a while. And yet here, the appellate court tried to distinguish Emanuel's case from the earlier ones—which led the dissent to snort that the majority was basing its decision on "whim," not law.

            Maybe the dissent (and Hasen) has a point here; I'm not going to get that deeply into case analysis.  But given the rest of this dissent and this article, my money is on the majority.

            So that's two shocks for me today: (1) that the decision kicking Rahm off the ballot appears to be principled rather than tendentious, and (2) that Rick Hasen's immediate commentary on it is at least 2/3 hackwork.

            Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
            Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

            by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:22:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  actual residence 'might' be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          littlebird33

          the difference between the two clauses you cite.

          But note that the term of residency also changes.  So it's fairly easy to craft an argument that all the legislature was doing here was saying - you have to live here 30 days to vote, 1 year to run for office.  The difference between "residence" and "reside" being no difference at all, merely different grammatical reflexes of the same word.

          Thus, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out.

          Note that the dissenting opinion points to a decision signed by the author of the majority opinion in which "reside" and "have residence" are used interchangeably in a very comparable case about candidate residency that the majority opinion author failed to deal with, instead dismissing it with a waive of his hand as merely another appellate case, and hence not carrying the weight of a supreme court case - it was an appellate case in his district, that he signed!

          I'm not saying the majority was wrong.  Merely that there is some political contortion going on here.

          What some may not know is that there are powerful judicial interests opposed to Rahm's candidacy.  The man responsible for vetting most judicial candidacies in Cook County, Alderman Ed Burke, is rumored to be behind the challenge.  He issued a surprising set of hypothetical questions a month or two before the actual petition process in a city council hearing where the election board head was testifying, that seem to foreshadow the residency challenge,

          Again, not saying the majority was wrong or corrupt.  But there are many things to consider when thinking about how the majority reached their decision.  The dissent is strong, and some of her challenges might suggest the majority rushed to find a rationale for excluding Rahm.

          Vanity Fair: Have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to torture; FBI Dir. Mueller: I don't believe that has been the case.

          by ne plus ultra on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:24:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The difference between "reside" and "residence" (0+ / 0-)

            Does John McCain have "residences" in several different states?  Does he "reside" in each?  This case is, in a sense, all about the difference between a noun and a verb!

            I won't address the rest.  I think there is value on reading what's said without knowing the backstory, upon which the statutory interpretation itself doesn't depend.  If this was "rushing to find a rationale," then they did a pretty great "rush job."

            Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
            Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

            by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:30:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think the exception can apply... (0+ / 0-)

          ...without requiring especially absurd mental acrobatics.

          First of all, having the exception apply to both of your key phrases doesn't render the second one redundant.  The second phrase would still exclude potential candidates who retain a residence but have not "resided" there for the past year owing to reasons other than the business of the US or IL.

          The real stretch comes in applying the exception when qualifying candidates as well as electors.  But as long as the statute quoted at the top isn't missing some important context, that isn't too difficult.

          No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.

          "Residence" does not always simply mean the place in which one resides.  It can also mean (just pulling from dictionary.com here) "the act or fact of residing".  Interpreted that way, the exception means that Rahm cannot have lost his status of residing in Chicago due to his absence working for the US in Washington.

      •  Yes... and if Rahm had done that... (3+ / 0-)

        There are definitely grey areas here.  If somebody had lived part time in Chicago and part time in DC, then they could probably make a good case for being a resident.  For example, Obama, for all that he lives in DC right now, he has a residence in Chicago and he does go there periodically.  Rahm didn't have that, having rented out his residence in Chicago.  

        So while this rule could get complicated in a situation where somebody splits residences, that's not what Rahm did.  He didn't live in Chicago for the last two years.  There was no "home" for him to go to since he rented out his house.  

      •  Don't know why you're mixing federal and state (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eman

        law together. I know you know the difference a whole lot better than i do, so -- what gives?

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:29:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It could be why most of them live ni apartment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      majcmb1, JeffW

      in DC or VA and fly home weekends to see their family. That is what the President did when he was a Senator. He and Michelle in interviews have talked about his little, messy, run down apartment he had while US Senator.

    •  No, but they might be barred (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane, shenderson

      from running for any local office under this decision.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:02:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not if they keep residence in Chicago (2+ / 0-)

      I don't know if the law is the same for Reps, however the problem is that Rahm rented his home out.  So that means he wasn't a resident, just someone with a real estate investment in Chicago.  

      Donald Trump also owns a great deal of residential property in Chicago, but they don't want him in their mayoral elections either.

    •  hardly. because they all live in Chicago. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nathguy

      they have their own homes. Offices. Campaign offices. And most of their families go to school in Chicago, their spouses live in chicago, and they all vote in chicago.

      Hardly stuff that Rahm did. In fact, rahm did none of the above.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:35:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not barred from re-election, but (0+ / 0-)

      maybe ineligible to seek local office for a year after they return.  I'd think that someone who continued to have a residence there, to which they regularly returned and customarily stayed over the course of the prior year, would have a better case that they could run for Mayor than someone who didn't get mail there, had their possessions in storage, and came to town only occasionally and stayed in a hotel room.  You get down that far and you come real close, at a minimum, to eliminating this requirement.  (It should be eliminated, of course -- but by changing the law.)

      Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
      Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

      by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:31:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not the same thing. READ the diary.... (0+ / 0-)

      the justices addressed it in their ruling.

  •  Sounds like nit-picking to me (9+ / 0-)

    but I'm not unhappy about the results.  Chicago deserves better than a corporate-enabling Blue Dog.

    When did "Yes, We Can" become "No, We Really Can't"? Sue, West Allis, Wis.

    by Puddytat on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:34:40 PM PST

  •  Who cares? Hope he stays off the ballot (7+ / 0-)

    Maybe the "retard" would get some good out of being humbled for once.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:35:48 PM PST

  •  Thank you for your (8+ / 0-)

    consistently excellent legal analysis.  That being said, I can't waste another nano-second on supposed well-positioned politicians who are vying for a position in State or Federal government because they are calling in their chits after years of, well, positioning themselves.  

    The legal wranglings are consummately fascinating; the characters, not so much.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:36:48 PM PST

  •  does Rahn know the wants & rightful demands (6+ / 0-)
    that's the key, he's been gone for 2 years working 7 days a week in DC, so how could he know what Chicago wants or needs in 2011


    80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

    Christina Taylor Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

    by Churchill on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:37:15 PM PST

  •  One word.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, filby

    RAHMSFELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What chance do he really have? I haven't seen poll numbers on this race? Will he be a contender or just a spoiler? At some point the party should step in and tell him it ain't worth it.

    Or is his ego so large he won't listen to the party?

    I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:37:27 PM PST

  •  You'd have thought that Rahm made enough (8+ / 0-)

    money during his sojourn in the private sector that he didn't need the two years rent on his house.

    "Pancho needs your prayers it's true, but save a few for Lefty, too. Townes van Zandt"

    by DaNang65 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:37:35 PM PST

  •  I am not a fan of Rahm (14+ / 0-)

    and if I lived in Chicago I doubt I'd vote for him, but it seems like an unnecessary rule. Shouldn't the people have the opportunity to decide who's qualified to represent them? If he really has no idea about what is going on in Chicago surely the voters will be able to make a different choice.

    •  Heh... well... (1+ / 0-)

      I guess I'm not sure the origins of this particular statute -- but in the name of 'reform', this sort of nuisance legal lottery tickets is what we get.

      Ballot access challenges are par for the course - everyone buys them against everyone else - and most of the avenues were paved with reformer good intentions...

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:44:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because the legislature passed a statute (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mote Dai, AUBoy2007, majcmb1, JeffW

      And didn't want folks parachuting in to run for mayor.

      (At least, that's the argument.)

      •  I get the argument, but question it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        littlebird33

        This seems to me to be an unlikely scenario. If somebody really did "parachute in" and had no idea which end was up, I doubt they would win. But if they did win, well, that's democracy for you. The people get to decide. It sounds like the legislature has only a limited respect for that aspect of our government.

        •  Of course they don't -- they know how the system (0+ / 0-)

          actually works (and not the pretty words in high-school civics class).

          They clearly wanted that a group doesn't buy a local seat for an outsider -- that only locals will be hired to manage government.

          Seems reasonable enough to me -- assuming that democracy is purely formal, it should at least save seats for locals.

          •  Eh. Disagree. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't really see why people shouldn't be allowed to elect the person they want, regardless of whether they're "local enough" or not.

            Cities, for example, routinely do national searches to hire city managers, and I haven't heard that that practice is damaging to local government. Furthermore, to the extent that people have seats bought for them, I don't see how their being local is really much benefit to the local area if they are mainly beholden to a particular industry.

            But then I don't agree with the constitutional requirement that the president be born in the U.S. either. Let the people decide who's worthy of being elected.

            •  They don't "elect the person" they "want". (0+ / 0-)

              That's the point of my argument -- that it's a formal democracy, where most folks don't pay attention and aren't involved enough actively for vote-casting to be anything more than pro-forma.

              Then, it makes perfect sense for the folks who pick the tiny pool you get to choose from to agree, among themselves, to pick locals. Keep local money local -- the same principle could apply to city managers.

              The only reason it doesn't is because city mangers are a new institution relative to mayors and legislators. They are notionally civil servants and not politicians, so they are chosen by "merit" rather than by "connection". Of course, that's a fiction too -- but metaphors are powerful tools.

            •  OK, but then you're arguing about what sort (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shenderson

              of law they should pass, not what sort of law actually governs them now.

              The latter is what this case involves.

              Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
              Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

              by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:34:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Carpet bagging happens (3+ / 0-)

          and can be successful particularly for people with well established names already.

          ... says the resident of New York.

          "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:28:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Rahm who was born in Chicago and lived (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pvlb, littlebird33

        their his whole life, other than to serve 2 presidents, and who represented Il. 5 a Chicago dist. for many years as a Rep. in Congress, and who expressed on many occasions a desire to one day run for Mayor of Chicago, who owns a house in Chgo, who voted from Chgo---he's parachuting in?  Makes no sense.
         And if anyone can explain the current leasee in his home, who lied on his rental application because he was being sued by former landlord for nonpayment of rent, who refused to vacate when Daley announced his exit and Rahm came home, even with the $40,000 sweetener, then said he was approached by some "southside businessmen", also mentioned Ald. Burke, who asked him to run for mayor and who did throw his hat in the ring for a short time----what was that all about? Lots of weird stuff going on.

    •  You nailed it pat of butter (2+ / 0-)

      That is the key point. Let the voters decide if he's a carpetbagger not a couple of hacks on the court of appeals.

    •  It. Does. Not. Matter. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shenderson

      The issue is not whether it's a good rule, but whether it is a governing rule.

      This is exactly what people (on all sides of the ideological fence) complain about when discussing judicial activism.  The Court's not supposed to say "oh, we don't like that one, we think this is better, so we're making it the law."

      Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
      Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

      by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:37:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought I read a story where President Clinton (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vlajos, littlebird33, FiredUpInCA

    went out there this past week to campaign for Rahm.
    Who knows. Rahm is well enough known to have a write in campaign and perhaps win. Stranger things have happened..see Alaska Senate.  Of course, Murkowski was an incumbent. But still, I would not be surprised to see a major write in campaign getting underway ASAP. And it sure looks like a lot of key Democrats are supporting him who have the money and influence and are well know.  

    It could get interesting to see how this all shakes out.

  •  emmanuel is a demicrat and worked for a Kenyan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamar

    in the white house, that's the problem

    Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

    by certainot on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:40:37 PM PST

  •  rahm now has lots of time to meditate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shenderson, Mr Robert

    he should take a very very long trip to Tibet.

  •  I think the dissent has the better argument. (12+ / 0-)

    I looked through the opinion earlier, and my impression is that the dissent did a better job of explaining how it comported with prior cases and the facts of this case.

    One thing I really find curious, however, was a detail on page 30: who the hell gets a piano tuned that often?!!

    ‎"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 Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:40:52 PM PST

    •  could you explain this -- sounds fascinating (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JR

      especially since we're behind on our piano tuning.  What part did piano-tuning play in the decision?

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:12:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To show the Emanuels intended to return to... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B, Seneca Doane

        ...Chicago and, thus, never ended their period of legal residency in Chicago, the dissent cited the fact that they had left personal items, furniture, heirlooms, etc. at the house they then rented out.  One of the things the dissenting judge pointed to was that:

        The candidate's wife maintained contact with the lessees of the Chicago home in order to facilitate repairs within the home and to schedule three or four occasions for the piano of the candidate's family to be tuned in their absence.

        The lease began in 2009. Now, okay, tuning a piano every six months isn't that bad. In fact, I'd guess it's about standard. But it struck me as funny that piano tuning was so prominent an evidentiary point. (It is, of course, a very good point, but one I found funny nonetheless.)

        ‎"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 Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:24:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We're supposed to tune ours every 6 mos (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          littlebird33

          or even more often because it was in such bad shape to begin with, he can't get it in tune in one big session without damaging the strings.  
          But I do think it's a good point.  Why the hell would they care about tuning the piano if they weren't intending to live in the house again and enjoy playing and listening to it.

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:40:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because they intended to play the piano again (0+ / 0-)

            even if the piano were removed to a different location outside the city.

            A piano is heavy, but it's not a "fixture."  This case is so illuminating!  I love it!

            Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
            Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

            by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:39:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm just going by what Adam reported above (0+ / 0-)

      and the dissent seems to have much the worse end of it in what I've seen.  I don't see any argument against the notion that the second requirement must not be rendered as surplusage beyond "Gah!  That result seems so stupid!"  And that won't cut it!

      Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
      Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

      by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:41:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have not read the opinion, but (3+ / 0-)

    is there any reason to think it would have made a difference if he had not rented out his Chicago house, and maintained a place of residence for the duration of his time out of town?

    •  yes n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NevDem, JeffW

      Goldman Sachs was not elected.

      by bornadem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:46:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It might have, which points up absurdity. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treg, Inland, mon, 57andFemale, littlebird33

      Suppose he had not rented his house and had flown in three times to crash there. Is he now qualified according to the majority? Totally unclear to me.

      Suppose he went back three times to visit family, attend birthdays or bar Mitzvahs but because his house was rented out, he stayed with a neighbor down the street or at a hotel. Is he now qualified?

      Why should the answer to that question be different from the answer to the "fly back and sleep in own house" hypothetical?

      •  It also becomes a rich vs not rich issue (5+ / 0-)

        because the rich can afford to leave their houses vacant (afford both the expenses of the house in addition to the living expenses in their new place; and the security or live-in folks to keep it safe) while middle-class people like my family would absolutely have to rent out their house.  In fact, a family in our neighborhood will be in Jordan for the next 7 months -- there was no question that they had to rent their house out or they couldn't afford to live in Jordan.
        Seems to me that the fact he didn't sell his house shows he viewed himself as a Chicago resident.
        I'm not a big fan of Rahm (though there are a few things about him I admire), but this doesn't seem right.  

        If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

        by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:16:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is absurd: If you go away for a year (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        littlebird33

        with an intent to return, your a resident.  Unless you rent your house to coincide with the time your gone.  Then you aren't.

        Or, for that matter, if your house burns down while you are out of town for the day, and you make the mistake of staying at a hotel that's actually in Rosemont.  Gotcha!  No house...not a resident!

        Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

        by Inland on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:25:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  State of IL will not like this ruling (10+ / 0-)

    Domicile vs Residency is BIG money maker in the tax world.  So, that means Rahm, and all others similary employed in DC would not owe IL any taxes.

    Cool...I can see the IL tax board doing a friend brief for Emanuel.

    The only thing you get from sitting on the fence is splinters in your ass. My Granddaddy!

    by SallyCat on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:41:33 PM PST

  •  If this ruling was applied to someone else.... (21+ / 0-)

    ...kossacks would be screaming about the injustice.

    He's a resident of Chicago IMHO.

    "This in not what I thought I'd be when I grew up."

    by itzik shpitzik on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:42:00 PM PST

  •  Not buying it for a second... (16+ / 0-)
    Come on now people. You're telling me that I'm supposed to believe this dispute is really about the definition of "resided in"??

    PuhLEEZE.

    Politicians at this level don't get blindsided by stupid little minutia like this.

    Somebody powerful doesn't want him to be Mayor of Chicago and that's that. Hey may yet prove to be more powerful than whoever it is, but this is Chicago politics we're talking about here. Whichever way it goes, it's definitely NOT going to hinge on an interpretation of the word "reside".

  •  Rahm Emmanual win as a 'write-in' candidate? (2+ / 0-)


    80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

    Christina Taylor Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

    by Churchill on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:43:12 PM PST

    •  Problem isn't that he can't be on the ballot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Churchill, nathguy, JeffW

      He's not eligible to serve:

      Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office.

      (a) 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, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1‑20‑25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1‑25‑75, Section 5‑2‑2, or Section 5‑2‑11.

  •  It's rather obvious I am no fan of... (18+ / 0-)

    ...Rahm Emanuel. And I am glad he's out as White House chief of staff. I have no idea if he'd make a good mayor for a city I have never lived in. But, frankly, I'm with Judge Lampkin on this. Certainly, there is a good reason to keep carpetbaggers from dropping into local offices in communities they don't have a clue about. But whatever can be said about Emanuel, he is no carpetbagger. And whatever else happens, that law needs to be rewritten with some specific timeframes in it.

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:44:00 PM PST

    •  That makes sense, but it doesn't matter (4+ / 0-)

      I think that the majority would probably be with Judge Lampkin as well in determining what's fair, i.e., what are the "equities" of the situation.  This result stinks -- no matter what I think of Rahm.  But that's not what the judges are supposed to suss out.

      As I say above, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that second requirement for office has to involve something extra beyond the first requirement (that one be an eligible voter), and it's not clear what that something extra could be other than substantial physical presence within the preceding year.

      Yes, the law needs to be rewritten.  This isn't the intended result.  But you look to the language to the law before you look to the intent of those who wrote it and voted for it, and unless the result is clearly absurd, you live with it.

      I'm truly shocked by this, but the judges in the majority aren't just Daley Machine tools, as I suspected when I saw the story's headline.  They're using the tools of statutory analysis to reach the right result -- even if it's unfair.  My hat's off to them.

      Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
      Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

      by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:20:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I try never get into debates with... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane, littlebird33

        ...lawyers about the law. But from a layman's point of view, I don't see how Judge Lampkin avoided statutory analysis in reaching his dissent. Isn't one of the reasons we have panels of judges instead of just one so because not everybody comes to the same "right result" in their statutory analysis?

        Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:33:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes: more judges = more approaches to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, shenderson

          interpreting the same situation = more chances someone gets something non-obvious right.

          There's a rule (aka "canon") of interpretation that says that every word in a legal document -- constitution, statute, regulation, contract, will, etc. -- is supposed to be given meaning.  It is constrained by another canon that says that statutory interpretation is not supposed to yield an absurd result -- but the scale is weighted heavily against not calling a result absurd.

          The majority says: "There are two requirements here.  To give the second requirement meaning, we have to presume that it imposes a separate requirement than the first one.  That appears to be something like "presence," and Rahm doesn't meet it.  He meets the first requirement just fine, but that's not enough."

          Lampkin's statutory analysis is to say: "That's absurd!  If that were true, we'd have to look at all sorts of shades of gray regarding what 'presence in the previous year' means and set arbitrary distinctions!"

          And the answer to that is: that's what judges do.  They try to figure out what the law says, and having done so they figure out how to apply it reasonably.

          I'll give you an example from the same statute.  The exception says you're not disqualified as a voter if you're "absence on business of the United States, or of this State."  Does that seem like it leads to a crisp and self-evident distinction?  Nope -- in its application, it's going to lead to just the same sort of unclear rules from which Lampkin purports to recoil in horror.  Applying that rule to, say, Joe Wilson in Africa or a university professor visiting in New York is going to be the work of judges.

          I'm a teacher at heart, and seeing an example like this that really shows laypeople how statutory interpretation works -- and how it's often difficult and counterintuitive but not random or unprincipled -- just makes my heart sing.  I've totally fallen in love with this case now.

          Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
          Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

          by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:10:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Seneca (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pvlb, littlebird33

        One thing about the majority opinion that I find deeply troubling is that there isn't even the slightest nod to the impact of the decision in terms of disenfranchising voters. I am not so sure the majority agrees with the dissent on "fairness" but is just calling balls and strikes. The majority goes out of its way to dismiss or distinguish a series of decisions that are more lax about residency so as to enfranchise voters.

        The majority decision reeks of being "result oriented" rather than precedent-directed.

        •  I disagree about your last sentence (2+ / 0-)

          Putting Rahm back on the ballot would be "result oriented" -- again, not because it was trying to get him elected but because taking him off the ballot, while legally correct, seems so unfair.

          Voters are not being disenfranchised.  They get to vote for one of the eligible candidates.  If this stands, they can't vote for Rahm just like they can't vote for Danny Davis or for Obama or for Michael Bloomberg.  Whether the person whom we'd like to be eligible is eligible or not is not the business of the court.  What the law says is the court's business.  Your understandable suspicion in your last sentence has it exactly backwards.  They made a tough and probably unpopular decision here because that is what the law required.  It's startlingly impressive, actually.

          Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
          Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

          by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:15:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is startlingly unimpressive not to certify... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            littlebird33

            ...to higher court. It is rank arrogance on the part of the judges in the majority. I've read the opinion carefully and I happen to think it is poorly reasoned and runs roughshod over earlier cases that were closely on point. But at most, any judge with even the tiniest drop of humility would have to admit the case presented at least a close question that the state's highest court should get on its docket in an expedited fashion given how soon ballots will be mailed out.

            Separately, it absolutely does disenfranchise voters whose first choice is Emanuel not to have him even appear on the ballot when there is a possibility that a higher court might find him eligible.

            •  I wish I'd seen this last night so that I could (0+ / 0-)

              say that it was almost surely unnecessary because there would be an immediate appeal to address it on an expedited basis, but of course today there was an immediate appeal that will address it on an expedited basis (and, entirely property, without allowing new briefing.)  So I don't think that the omission was "startlingly unimpressive," or even consequential at all.

              Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
              Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

              by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:14:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Who's "Fucking Stupid" now... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paolo, Churchill, JeffW, willkath

    ..Rahm....

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:44:29 PM PST

  •  Does this same resident requirement apply to (8+ / 0-)

    members of the Armed Forces as well?

    A retired, deployed Nat'l Guard General who, up until his deployment, lived for years in Chicago would be barred from running for office?  Do I have this right?

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:44:31 PM PST

    •  Not Necessarily. (0+ / 0-)

      The question would be did the general physically live in Chicago for 12 months prior to the mayoral election.

      My back is spineless. My back is yellow. I am the American non-voter. -The Simpsons, Episode 2, Season 3, "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington"

      by Aspe4 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:48:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the ? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Treg, Tamar

        The point I am making is that many would take issue with denying a member of the Armed forces, a resident for years prior to recent deployment, and who was risking his life in Iraq or Afghanistan, being denied the opportunity to run for Mayor based on some technicality.

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:09:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From what I've read here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error

          That could very possibly be correct.  It looks to me that the legislative intent was for someone to be physically present in a district (by residing there) for at least a year before they could become a candidate for office.

          Having said that:  

          What part of the military, the Guard?  That's a state organization that is federalized for foreign service, I don't see a member of the Guard loosing residency during deployment (usually they maintain family ties to their families/residence).  

          Full time military:  Was he a resident of the area or 'stationed' there.  I would think that that depends on how the individual handles the situation, did they maintain their residence as the point of enlistment (assuming elsewhere), or did they take positive steps to establish residency versus Station during the term of residency?

          You need to look at the legislative intent.  It's an interesting discussion.

          It has no application to Rahm, he rented/leased out his house.  That act alone screwed him. It demonstrated intent not to have residency in Chicago.  IMO

          ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

          by NevDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:48:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  yes, if called to serve outside Chicago (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vlajos, Treg, glassbeadgame, littlebird33

      The majority interpretation makes no sense. Is it relying on Illinois Supreme Court authority? Or intermediate authority? If the latter, I bet this ruling will be quickly overturned. Either way, it should be overturned.

      •  It's not the opinion that should be overturned (0+ / 0-)

        but the law that they were interpreting.

        The opinion is legally sound, IMHO.  It is based on long-established rules of statutory interpretation.

        In interpreting what "the law" is, judges can only use the words that legislators give them, so to speak.  In reviewing a statute, or law, if judges engage in a careful analysis that conforms with the norms of statutory interpretation, and that analysis leads to an absurd result, then it is the law that is flawed, not the analysis.

        I think that's the case here.  Sound opinion, bad law.

    •  I brought that up earlier too -- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      littlebird33

      would be pretty disgusting if a vet couldn't run because he/she was out fighting one or all of Bush's wars.  

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:18:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, they're the one explicit exemption. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  The majority opinion would (9+ / 0-)

    also appear to exclude people as candidates who were not "residing" in Chicago during the previous year because they were military personnel on active duty, whether as part of the full-time forces or as reservists or members of the National Guard called to active duty. I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

    •  Exactly. (6+ / 0-)

      The law needs to be changed.

      When you leave your home to serve your country for a temporary period of time, the least your country can do for you is not take away any of your rights that you once held in your hometown.

      Hensarling: "Let's repeal it today, replace it tomorrow." Wimpy: "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"

      by gooderservice on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:53:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But if that's what the law says, (3+ / 0-)

        the Court is obligated to interpret it in that fashion, unless, (as I think is the case with military personnel), Federal law imposes specific requirements.

        The question before the Court was not "is the law just", but rather, "did Rahm Emmanuel comply with the law?"

        Different questions... different answers.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:14:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  what the law says is ambiguous (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treg, littlebird33

          hence the split decision.  The law says "reside in" instead of "resident of" and somehow the 2 judges felt they meant two fundamentally different things. The desicion needs to be overturned BEFORE the ballots are printed.  They need to get a temporary delay of ballot printing and an expedited SC ruling.

          •  "Needs to be overturned" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            is pretty strong language...

            Are you so sure that the Court's interpretation of the statute is factually incorrect?

            --Shannon

            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

            by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:31:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I was @ Chi Netroots in Aug, 07 for 3 days (1+ / 0-)

    and I can prove it,  Should I run for mayor?


    80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

    Christina Taylor Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

    by Churchill on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:44:36 PM PST

  •  corporate $ won't help Rahm buy the election now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy


    80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

    Christina Taylor Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

    by Churchill on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:45:41 PM PST

  •  Fails the laugh test (16+ / 0-)

    No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.

    The Court found this provision inapplicable as to Emanuel.

    How is serving as Chief of Staff to the President not the "business of the United States"?

    The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

    by Positronicus on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:46:25 PM PST

  •  You know what is really interesting? (10+ / 0-)

    One of the IL SCt justices that would presumably hear Rahm's appeal?

    Anne Burke, wife of Ed Burke... who hates Emanuel and is rumored to be helping bankroll this challenge.

    I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

    by zonk on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:47:40 PM PST

  •  Thanks for laying it out, Adam. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, bornadem, Seneca Doane, jpmassar

    I'm not crazy about it, but the majority at least provides an explaination for the second requirement.  The "qualified elector" bit covers residency.  The second requirement seemingly points to something else.

    One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!)

    by AUBoy2007 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:47:51 PM PST

  •  I'm no fan of Rahm... (11+ / 0-)

    ... but this seems like a ludicrous interpretation of the law.

    Follow Rex on Twitter as he follows Sarah Palin, conservatives and loony pundits!

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:48:19 PM PST

  •  No endorsement of Rahm or anyone else, BUT... (8+ / 0-)

    ... this truly is ludicrous. Suppose Rahm had been ill, or, God forbid, shot like Giffords and needed to leave the city for a period of time. Does that really disqualify him? It makes no sense.

    •  How would you write a law in such a way (0+ / 0-)

      that Rahm could run for mayor, but any person from any old place could swoop in a couple weeks before the election could not?

      Now where did I put my shot glass?

      by aztecraingod on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:10:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  we've talked about military (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      littlebird33

      what about a POW?  
      Is there no basis on which someone can be out of their district for some (unknown) period of time without losing their right to run for local/state office?

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:22:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's a good question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B

      I think the answer would be that Giffords's being out of the city would be negated because it's not a volitional act (except under extreme duress.)  There's a difference between not doing something because you can't and not doing something because you choose not to.

      The interesting question is: could Rep. Danny Davis have run?  Under this interpretation -- and let's assume that Davis didn't rent out his house -- the answer would be "no."

      If I'm Rahm, I argue that that is such an absurd result that the meaning must be something different.  But the result is not absurd as applied to Rahm himself.

      Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
      Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

      by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:24:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  let's assume ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        ... Davis was in Chicago for less than half the nights of the year.  It's a weird result if he can't run -- does it depend on how nice or temporary his DC dwelling appears to be, and where his wife/kids live?

        •  I'd leave that to judges to expound (0+ / 0-)

          That's their job.  I could theorize, but I have no special insight there.  I can't say where the line is or where it should be, but I can say that Davis would be a lott closer to the "yes, he could still be a candidate" side of it than Rahm is.

          Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
          Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

          by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:15:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What was the legislative intent? (0+ / 0-)

            Do the courts in Il. consider legislative intent.  Hopefully they keep records of the debate.  

            ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

            by NevDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:14:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  only if you don't rent out (0+ / 0-)

      your principle residence.  That's the kicker.

      ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

      by NevDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:11:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Any word on whether the calendar was gamed? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vlajos, dotster, littlebird33

    Did the decision come down this close to early voting to intentionally prevent a further appeal?  Were the proceedings delayed by a party hoping to prevent appeal?  Or was that just the way it shook out naturally?

    Makes me wonder though at the dissent's core question.  How much is too much?  Do you reside in Chicago if, during the preceding year, you go on vacation for 5 days and later spend a weekend with your parents for the holidays?  If you travel for business to St. Louis, and spend 15 nights there?  If you move into a townhouse outside the city for a month, while your home is renovated?  If you take a 2-month trip to Europe to celebrate your 50th anniversary?  If you spend 3 nights a week, every week, at your girlfriend's apartment in the suburbs?  If you spend 9 months living at your brother's across the state line in Wisconsin, commuting back to your job in the city, while your house is rebuilt after a fire destroyed it?  Is your eligibility to run for office affected if, following a car accident, you convalesce in a hospital in Springfield instead of one in Chicago?

    Do any of those disqualify you from running for office?  If so, which one?

    "...the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." RIP Senator. We miss you.

    by libdevil on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:51:08 PM PST

  •  The problem with Lampkin's question is that Rahm (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Send Rahm a Cheesecake, JeffW, dano2l

    did not maintain a residence while he was in DC.

    Whatever number might be the right number, one would wager that it isn't zero, or, more to the point, zero prospect.

    Rahm rented his house out, turning it into somebody else's residence.

    He couldn't go back home and throw his feet up on the coffee table, so to speak, because it wasn't his coffee table to use.

    Whether the appellate court's ruling is right or fair, Rahm did kind of screw this up.  Even if the Supreme Court comes down on his side, you have to wonder how somebody as sharp as Rahm (and he is) could leave something so important up in the air.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:54:41 PM PST

  •  Shouldn't Rahm (7+ / 0-)

    be filing an emergency appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court to stop the printing of ballots, and/or postpone the election date until this is settled?

  •  Utterly ridiclous (7+ / 0-)

    The man gets to vote there but can't run for office?

    My Sig line is bigger than yours.

    by GlowNZ on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:57:42 PM PST

  •  Will voters need to write-in "Rahm Emanuel" (17+ / 0-)

    correctly, or will a simple "Fuck You" suffice?

    :)

    Dear GOP: please practice some abstinence and stop f*cking the American people.

    by here4tehbeer on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:59:18 PM PST

  •  I feel bad for Rahm, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamar

    don't EVEN think of taking him back.

    People don't listen to propaganda because they think it's true. They listen because they wish it was true.

    by thenekkidtruth on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:00:35 PM PST

  •  I think that Rahm got screwed over. (8+ / 0-)

    Jim Manley: "Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

    by Drdemocrat on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:00:51 PM PST

    •  Remember 'Fucking Retards' (0+ / 0-)

      As far as I'm concerned, he got what he deserved.  He's not on the ballot.

      Under his leadership, this administration has taken great pains to marginalize, ignore and abuse the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, figuring they would vote Democratic, (he forgot the big IF they would vote) to the point of loosing control of the House of Representatives.

      The legal arguments are quite nice and interesting, but in the end...

      What goes around, comes around.  

      To me, this decision is his just reward.

      ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

      by NevDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:47:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't forget, when Rahm ran for Congress... (0+ / 0-)

      he was using the Machine guys to help beat his opponents, it's just ironic that the Machine's tactics may keep HIM off the ballot this time.

  •  Adam, does the language mean (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auron renouille

    that one must be a resident and reside in the city for the year (365.25 days) prior to the election, or simply that one must be a resident and have resided in the city for a year prior to the election?

    The distinction being whether the court's determination that Rahm's non-residential status until recently means anything, since he has been a resident for a year prior--just not all the immediately preceding year?

    Not that I'm a fan of his. But reading made me wonder;

    ... has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment...

    Though I'll admit I have no idea what "next" means in that. I only read, write, and edit the language for a living.

    "Be just and good." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

    by ogre on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:02:02 PM PST

    •  I think that "next preceding" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ogre, shenderson

      would probably be taken to mean "immediately preceding."

      Note that that doesn't necessarily mean (in fact, almost surely cannot mean) continuous presence in the city.  You can go to Evanston some days.

      Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
      Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

      by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:46:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting dialect (0+ / 0-)

        there in the land of the Illinoisianeseish, that "next preceding" would mean "immediately preceding."

        I've used the English language among English-speakers, in several countries where English is the/a national language, on four continents.

        Nowhere else have I seen or heard "next" used to mean either immediately or before.

        You may be entirely in the right. Also.

        But I suspect that the language means Rahm's got a good case for the IL Supremes, at least.

        To me--and again, Rahm's anything but one of my favorite political figures (though I could grant that he may be the best available, realistic option for Chicago's electorate (if he's finally deemed eligible...)). But I can see an argument that says that the word next is utterly meaningless gibberish in context and should be ignored. Which leaves language that precisely construed appears to say that one should be/have been a resident in the city for at least a year, sometime prior to the election.

        Should be interesting to watch. They play dirty in Illinois...

        "Be just and good." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

        by ogre on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:06:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Massachusetts uses the term too: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ogre, Seneca Doane

          Mass law:

          The legislative body shall assemble every year [on the last Wednesday in May, and at such other times as they shall judge necessary; and shall dissolve and be dissolved on the day next preceding the said last Wednesday in May;] and shall be stiled, The General Court of Massachusetts. [See Amendments, Arts. X, LXXII, and LXXV.]

          Article IV. [Every male person, being twenty-one years of age, and resident in any particular town in this commonwealth for the space of one year next preceding, having a freehold estate within the same town, of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds, shall have a right to vote in the choice of a representative, or representatives for the said town.] [See Amendments, Arts. III, XX, XXIII, XXVI, XXVIII, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XLV, LXXVI, XCIII, XCIV, XCV, and C.]

          Article I. There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be styled, The Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and whose title shall be -- His Excellency.

          Article II. The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.] [See Amendments, Arts. VII,XXXIV, LXIV and LXXX.]

          Must be old English leaglese.

          Mass Constitution

        •  OK, then we're left with "the preceding year" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ogre

          and that is the definite article!

          Soon on DK4: Chit Cheat and Undisputed Facts!
          Daily Kos has the same main ingredient as Soylent Green!

          by Seneca Doane on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:45:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I hope he wins (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy

    We have enough problems with Mark Penn(Third Way, B&M), Dascle Lobbying Inc, and fresh from JP Morgan Daley.

    If Rahm loses, he will join up with Third Way and work his hardest to sink Obama and the Dem Senate in 2012.

    But in the end, other than Penn, is their a bigger loser in our party.
    And I dont mean bank account loser, but their anti middle class ideas.

  •  I was 100% on Rahm's side until (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, JeffW

    I ran across that part about him leasing his home.  It's kind of hard to reside in a town when you can't actually reside there because you've temporarily assigned away your rights to live there.      

    That kind of defeats the argument that the majority's opinion is not valid because they didn't come up with a "number of days away" rule.  Seems to me that if Rahm didn't have an empty place to return to, then his ability to reside there is a big fat 0 days.

    On the other hand, if Rahm can show hotel receipts showing he made frequent trips "home," that might be a different matter...
     

    •  That's just what shouldn't count. (8+ / 0-)

      If Rahm's house had burnt down, would he have lost residency?  Nope.  If he had been foreclosed on?  Nope.  If he had sold his place and his new place not ready to move into?

      Besides, you've got it backwards: he temporarily assigns his house for the same reason he's temporarily in DC: he's gone but coming back.  Temporary.

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:16:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly. And I pointed out earlier that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inland, littlebird33, moonpal

        if renting out his home lost him his right to run, that improperly favors the wealthy who can afford to leave their homes cared-for but untenanted by paying residents while middle-class and lower income people can't.
        So back to the military -- a person in the Illinois State National Guard (or in the Reserves) who has lived in Chi for years is called up -- because he/she isn't high income, they rent out their residence.  They come back with the Medal of Honor but Whoops!  They can't run for Mayor because they rented out their home.

        If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

        by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:32:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The issue is not residency (0+ / 0-)

        He apparently owns property in Chicago and assuming it is his primary residence, makes him a resident of Chicago.

        The issue appears to be whether or not he resided in Chicago (which is different from being a resident.)  If he kept possesion of his house, he could claim that he "lived" in Chicago and kept an apartment in DC because he worked out of town and could not commute daily from DC to Chicago.  

        But he leased away his right to live in his house in Chicago.  Therefore he doesn't "live" in Chicago which means he doesn't "reside" in Chicago, (although still a legal resident.)  

        He could, I assume, appeal the decision stating that he leased out his primary residence for financial reasons, and made arrangements to have a place to crash in Chicago for his regular trips "home" (at a hotel, at a parent's house, etc.)  Then the courts would have to deside if he really resided in Chicago and simply worked out of town employing whatever metric they want to use (eg. spent two nights every other month in the area, or whatever.)

        You wrote:

        If Rahm's house had burnt down, would he have lost residency?  Nope.  If he had been foreclosed on?  Nope.  If he had sold his place and his new place not ready to move into?

        In these situations, he's still a resident, and likely still lives in Chicago (apartment, hotel, friend's place.)

        You wrote:

        Besides, you've got it backwards: he temporarily assigns his house for the same reason he's temporarily in DC: he's gone but coming back.  Temporary.

        Exactly my point.  He's gone.  He's still a legal resident of Chicago, but he doesn't live there (reside there). He lives (resides) in DC.

        •  That makes zero sense. (0+ / 0-)

          He's a resident of Chicago but doesn't reside in Chicago?  Because he's given up legal possession of his house for the period of time he wouldn't be able to be live in anyway?  And if he simply not owned a house in the first place, because it burned down or he was a renter or lived on his mom's couch, it would have been okay?  

          I know what everyone has to focus on the renting because it's a fact that distinguishes Rahm from every other person who runs for office.  But it makes no sense.

          He's gone.

          No, he's not.  No more "gone" than someone who takes a vacation in Oak Park.  Like anyone who leaves the city for a day..or their house for a day...he was coming back.  He's gone for two years, they are gone for a day.

          Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

          by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:00:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      littlebird33

      The majority notes that he went back to Chicago on a few occasions for family celebrations, presumably staying in hotels or with other relatives. Why on earth should that be different than if he had crashed in a house he had not leased?

      •  residence is a series of tests. (0+ / 0-)

        where was his family?

        What was his primary dwelling unit?

        where did he file taxes?

        Where was he registered to vote?

        In what zip code was he sleeping?

        Obama keeps his house in Hyde Park, and even so
        he does not reside in Chicago.  I doubt Obama
        passes the test.

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:25:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He coulda been like a college student (0+ / 0-)

      and kept his residency at his parent's house or at a friend's basement . . . then he would have been able to kick up his feet on the coffee table and had legal standing.   But who cares?  It wasn't like he was really a democrat . . .

  •  IANAL, but I do live in Chicago... (4+ / 0-)

    ...and am retired from the City's Dept. of Transportation. The domicile provision sounds a lot like what is required by the City for employment, so if he had not rented out his house, he may have qualified for the ballot. Why he decided to do so is anyone's guess, but I think that the spur of the moment tripped him up. Boy Mayor decided to retire and Rahmbo saw a chance to win. Personally, I don't like either him or Chico, as I consider them both insiders. I'm voting for del Valle. Any other Chicagoans, YMMV. Everyone else, enjoy your popcorn at our expense.

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

    by JeffW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:08:26 PM PST

    •  The majority's opinion is so crazy... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GlowNZ, littlebird33

      ...it does not even turn on the fact that Rahm rented his house.

      On the majority's logic, if he had kept it unleased but still moved his family out to DC for the duration of his stint with Obama, he'd have forfeited his ability to claime that he "resided in" Chicago for the last year.

      That's why the dissent has a field day with the opinion. It does not provide any clue as to the circumstances under which a resident who must leave the city for one reason or another (it could be an illness, it could be anything) loses his residency.

      If the person leaves for two days does he lose continuous residency? Two weeks? Six months? It's all very unclear.

      •  Don't know... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        ...that didn't happen. He'll have to try for the State Supreme Court, and then we'll see. I personally don't care, as I wouldn't vote for him for Mayor. Maybe he'll work on challenging Mark Kirk, and we could send him back to Washington!

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

        by JeffW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:03:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Don't care for Rahm. (0+ / 0-)
    And I don't know beans about election law in Illinois.  But I read these opinions and found the majority had to go a long way around a series of cases to reach this conclusion.    

    And what was that business about the majority refusing to certify the question to the Supreme Court which would result in expedited consideration?  That sounds bad, but I have no idea what it means.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Ms Johnson on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:16:55 PM PST

    •  It's very bad that they won't certify (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotster, littlebird33

      It's like they are trying to slow this down to maximize chaos as the election approaches and ballots must be printed.

      The two majority judges are not acting in a neutral way. Nothing in their opinion even nods toward the importance of giving the benefit of the doubt to a decision that will maximize the voters' free choice among candidates.

      I would think there should be at least a presumption against reading a statute to create disenfranchisement.

    •  it seemed fairly straightforward. (0+ / 0-)

      "Resided" is cited from Websters.

      The Municipal code and the State Election code
      are 2 separate bodies of law, with separate duties
      and responsibilities.

      Certainly Mr Emmannuel would retain his rights to vote,
      but, the city officers should be current on affairs.

      Imagine someone spent 20 years in an Afghan POW camp.
      Should they run for Mayor immediately?

      Seems unfair, but, the city can establish some minimum basis of office qualification.

      Would you be so unhappy if the Law specified the Mayor must be 45?

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:28:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, the majority opinion itself cites 2 websters (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        littlebird33

        definitions and chooses the more restrictive of the two. This case should not have been decided by reference to Webster's -- especially when there are two definitions and one would result in enfranchising more voters and giving them more choice. The majority opinion reads like a cheap parody of the kind of Scalia reasoning that drives most readers of this site crazy.

        I would bet a large sum that many of the Kossacks hailing this decision's adherence to wooden statutory construction devices with no acknowledgement of the larger point of eligibility requirements would be calling for the impeachment of these judges if someone they liked were on the losing side of the case.

        •  you don't know much about the law. (0+ / 0-)

          Many legal cases are based upon Websters
          and Blacks law dictionary.  

          and it's quite normal in civil law to pick the
          narrowest reading of any statute or definition.

          The term of art is "Narrowly construed".

          George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

          by nathguy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:46:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  absurd logic and decision (6+ / 0-)

    and I don't think I would have voted for Rahm if I lived in Chicago.

    After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

    by nevadadem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:17:34 PM PST

  •  Must be a No Assholes Clause (0+ / 0-)

    That would explain a lot.

    I'm an American Liberal. Blogging in between family, work and activism time.

    by AlphaLiberal on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:17:54 PM PST

  •  Very well done diary Adam B (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Liberal, Ms Johnson, mon

    I'm still scratching my head on this one, though.

  •  Elector (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    littlebird33

    As per Merriam Webster -one entitled to participate in an election. As Rahm is technically participating (he IS running) the courts are wrong. FYI I actually live on the outskirts of Chicago so like most of you all on DK I can't vote in the mayoral election. I do however, work in the city so the mayor race does affect me quite substantially. For example the parking in downtown Chicago is now .25 cents per 5 minutes.

    •  elector vs office holder. (0+ / 0-)

      electors get to vote, Rahm gets his vote.
      He can neither be elected mayor nor
      be appointed Sheriff.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:29:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rahm gets no sympathy from me. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, socal altvibe

    "Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, yet he's a better Democrat than most Democrats." -- Markos Moulitsas http://213.251.145.96

    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:23:54 PM PST

    •  Not a matter of sympathy -- I don't care about (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotster, GlowNZ, littlebird33, moonpal

      Rahm.  It's a matter of fairness.  

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:33:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure if it's fair or not (0+ / 0-)

        but, whatever the case may be, I just can't get worked up about his case. Karma is a bitch.

        "Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, yet he's a better Democrat than most Democrats." -- Markos Moulitsas http://213.251.145.96

        by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:40:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Have you ever been to court? (0+ / 0-)

        By which I mean, have you ever been involved in a legal proceeding that hinged on interpretation of statute to decide the outcome?  Because if you had, you'd know that where legal matters are concerned, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fairness.  Nothing.  It is all about interpreting the intent of the language, right down to what the meaning of "is" is.

        Many people have this idealized image of what happens in court.  They think that legal proceedings are all about justice and fairness, and that's just not the case.  It's all about language and the intent of that language.  Sometimes that language is from a couple of centuries ago, and wouldn't necessarily seem particularly fair to the way we like to do things in this day and age.  And there are times when those archaic legal bits don't come to the fore until something like this happens.  In order to change it you need a legislative action.

        And none of that will help Rahm at this point.

        "The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places." Ernest Hemingway

        by Got a Grip on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:26:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not talking about fairness in an abstract (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          littlebird33

          sense -- but in the way the majority of judges chose to interpret the provision.  I agree with what I read of the dissenting opinion.  My view is that they nitpicked about the meaning of residence, getting very detailed and particular, but then became suddenly vague on the details of how long the person had to be in what they determined was residence.
          I would agree that impartial judges look at the language and try to understand the intent.  But not all judges are impartial -- in fact, a good number don't even try to be.  And that is where fairness comes in.
          We have a family friend on the federal appeals court.  He told us that he had spent most of his years on the bench working very hard to be impartial, to look at the law and the meaning of the language no matter what his feelings about the issue were.  But in recent years (during the latter part of the Bush admin), his particular panel had become overwhelmed with highly political judges who have a very different view of how they're supposed make their legal decisions.  Impartiality is not of great importance to them.

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:31:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This Decision (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotster, GlowNZ, KimD, littlebird33, moonpal

    Makes no sense at all.  Emanual was a congressman for several years, and presumably "did not reside" in Chicago during that period.  I daresay the same goes for any congressman or senator.  So, what exactly are the requirements?  You have to keep a vacant house and can't rent it?  You have to shuttle back to your home state each weekend?  This is a muddled decision at best.

    •  fee, read the decision. My diary (0+ / 0-)

      has the cite.

      it makes perfect sense.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:38:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  adam, you are mistaken. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Seneca Doane

    there is different language used for the right to vote, compared to running for office. The court pointed that out.

    Also, in today's diary, I give a thumbnail sketch of the problems he faces on appeal. I truly think he is fucked, to use his language.

    Most importantly, THEY BEGAN PRINTING THE BALLOTS TODAY, WITHOUT RAHM'S NAME ON THEM.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:34:20 PM PST

    •  I smell a rat in the decision... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotster, pvlb, littlebird33

      ...The tell is not necessarily in the reasoning, which strikes me as very wooden and even disingenuous in distinguishing cases that seem to be favorable to Rahm.

      Rather, the tell is in the fact that, this close to an election, the court of appeals was willing not only to throw everything into disarray but was unwilling to certify to the Illinois Supreme Court the importance of the case to expedite review.

      That tells me the majority may willfully be trying to jam Rahm and make his prospects dimmer even if it turns out the Supreme Court overturns the court of appeals.

      It seems almost corrupt to me. I have no axe to grind on this. I am reading it as an outsider with no strong feelings for or against any candidate.

      •  Tom Hoffmann, whom I know, (3+ / 0-)

        is one of the most outstanding, brightest, and uncorruptable judges we have in the state.

        I make it a special effort to read his decisions when they are published, only because I always learn something.

        The only reason why this was so close to the election was because Rahm delayed in court, thinking that he had it in the bag, with the Board decision and the trial court decision.

        What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

        by agnostic on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:48:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even the best judges (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KimD, littlebird33

          are human and make mistakes.

          This was a HUGE mistake.

          Forget that its Rahm here... the judge is basically saying that if you serve the President you will be penalised for NOT living in your home state.  Never mind that its not fucking practical to fly every day from Chicago to Washington.

          My Sig line is bigger than yours.

          by GlowNZ on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:52:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sound decision, poor law. Not judge's fault nt (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slatsg, Tom Taaffe
          •  how was this a mistake? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slatsg, Got a Grip, Tom Taaffe

            I practice law here. I know the statutes in question. They were analyzed as necessary, fairly, and properly. The logic used by Hoffmann is well worth reading.

            No, if you keep a home here, and simply travel for work, you still reside in Illinois. If you change your domicile (look how they use that word) you have changed your residence for the purposes of running for office.

            The language used in the two parts is different, and for a reason. The legislature wanted to make domicile the key issue for running for office. As for voting, to keep the booths as accessible as possible, residency has a different meaning.

            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

            by agnostic on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:16:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  How could Rahm delay? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          littlebird33

          He is not the appellant. He won below. Please explain.

          If Hoffman is not being willful (and I do not know any of these judges' reputations), then I fear he is too enamored of the adulation he may have received for being "indepdent" and therefore subconsciously decided to try to make what should have been easy case a showcase for his ability to distinguish precedent and show off a bit.

          And under any view, why the hell not certify this to the Supreme Court? If Hoffman is smart and uncorruptable, he still should not be arrogant and try to jam an intermediate court of appeals decision down the throats of the people of Chicago when there is a higher court in the State. He should be facilitating review by the higher court.

          •  the trial court proceedings (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B, slatsg, Tom Taaffe

            took longer than necessary, BECAUSE of his team's tactics, and even then, a couple of legal observers predicted that the loser would run short of time for appeals, because of their litigation strategy. They were right.

            had he won, the tactics would have been their savior. But now it bites them in the ass.

            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

            by agnostic on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:13:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Except that Citizens for Legal Responsibility (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          littlebird33

          filed a complaint against Hoffmann and requested an investigation for "willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties.
           And the other judge was appointed by Repub Jim Thompson.

  •  Doesn't make sense... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotster, GlowNZ, littlebird33, Tom Taaffe

    You go to serve the President and you lose residency?
    Gee, didn't seem to hurt Mitt Romney. And he only "served" the 2002 Olympics. Then he decides to run for MA Governor. He didn't meet residency here in MA. As a matter of fact, he could have run in Utah or Michigan as well, since he has hoses in all three places (and one in NH now I think).
    People like Mitt just figure they will chose where they want to run and claim THAT place as their primary residence, all evidence to the contrary.
    Mitt's primary residence was NOT in MA. But then, well, IOKIYAR.

  •  So... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GlowNZ, littlebird33

    What if he was in Iraq for two years and just got back and left the military.  He can't run for office in Chicago because he didn't verb reside there?

    •  Yes, that's my understanding. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nathguy, littlebird33

      He could vote, but could not be voted for until he'd been back for a year.

      This doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me; local officers deal with local issues, and there is a case to be made that you are unlikely to be able to address those issues effectively unless you've been on the ground for a while.  (Not that this is necessarily a good law, but it seems reasonable that the legislature could have intended precisely this effect.)

  •  OK Rahm, you know what to do. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, socal altvibe

     title=

  •  Seems rather contrived... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shenderson, littlebird33

    ...to distinguish the use of the term "residence" in the way that the court did compared to its use in the context of voting, etc.

    In just about every legal context I have seen it, an individual can have maintain a "residence" or "residency" in a place even if they don't regularly live there, particularly if they are not there due to work related functions.  

    You can usually have multiple residences as well, though for some privileges, you may only chose to exercise them in one place (so one can be eligible to register to vote in more than one locale, but one can never actually register in more than one locale).

    In the end, each state can define it's own requirements to that extent.  So I can't say that Illinois' decision is, on its face, absurd.

    But it does seem to be counter to the logic and holdings that states regularly use to define residence, which is almost always done pretty liberally.

    If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

    by JPhurst on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:58:50 PM PST

    •  The problem is that the statute requires it twice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nathguy

      ... Under the normal canons of statutory construction, every word has add meaning.  So we have the residency requirement for voting, which is interpreted in the usual way.  But then we have this section that says a candidate must be a qualified voter there (and thus must be a resident) AND must have "resided" there for the preceding year.  So resided has to mean something besides "be a legal resident", because if it didn't then that additional requirement would be meaningless.  

      ... that's the argument, anyway. I'm wondering now why this couldn't be construed with an emphasis on the preceding-year part; I don't think voting requires a full year's residency, so maybe that is the additional requirement the leg had in mind -- that a candidate have been a legal resident for at least a year.  Dunno.

      •  That seems to me... (0+ / 0-)

        ....the most reasonable explanation.  You have to be a legal resident, and that residency has to have been for a year.

        That serves the apparent purpose of the law, which is to prevent carpetbagging.

        If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

        by JPhurst on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:20:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Reading "reside" the way the appellate court did (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auron renouille, littlebird33

    renders many of the exceptions meaningless.  And when a court interpreting a statute is charged with making sense of ALL provisions in a way to avoid rendering any part meaningless (which black letter Illinois law says courts must do), that court has shit all over itself.

    And that's what the appellate court did.  

    The Supreme Court of Illinois will take the decision, reverse it on grounds that the appellate court's interpretation of 'reside' improperly nullifies parts of the statute it interpreted, and Rahm's candidacy will be reinstated.  Then he'll prevent that clown Mosley Braun from coming anywhere near the mayor's office of the greatest city in the country.  

    Come a Willing Servant, Go an Able Culprit.

    by Bin Bin on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:59:15 PM PST

  •  CNN Video:Rahm Emmanuel NOT ELLIGIBLE (0+ / 0-)

    http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/...

    There are already 2 CNN vids out; 1 personal statement

  •  absentee voting already started on Jan 13 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MaikeH, littlebird33

    My cousin and uncle in the city already voted for Rahm, sending their ballot back in already.

    If he was to be thrown off the ballot, it should've happened before anyone was able to vote.

  •  The exception noted should be more than enough (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    littlebird33

    The exception  uses the word residence in a way that clearly synonymous with residency, "the fact of living in a place."  The exception does not specify that it only applies to voting status and so it would seem clear that Rahm should be considered to have lived in the place, the place being Chicago.  

  •  Dick Cheney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    littlebird33

    Back in 2000, they got a federal court (the Supreme Court?) to rule that he "lived" in Wyoming.  That because they Prez & VP candidates have to be from different states.  Cheney may have lived and worked in Houston as CEO of Halliburton, yet - somehow - he was a resident/citizen of Wyoming ?!?!?

    exmearden: Grab every minute of joy you can. 8/30/09

    by Land of Enchantment on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:43:18 PM PST

  •  Very interesting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, nathguy, Got a Grip

    there is actually more merit to this then I thought.

    If the idea of the residency provision is to ensure that a candidate is in touch with the concerns of the citizens of the city and it is determined that in order for that to be possible they must have "resided in" the city during the course of the last year then Rahm does not qualify.

    On the one hand this seems quite unfair to someone in Rahm's position. He serves his country in Washington and is thereby excluded from being able to follow one of his dreams which is to run for Mayor of the city.

    However, there can be little question that Rahm has been focused on his work in Washington and that he is highly unlikely to have had any time at all to stay up on the goings on back home in Chicago unless they intruded on the Presidents business. If the concern is that a candidate must have that 'in-touchness' then Rahm most certainly does not as he has been out of the city 2 years not 1 and in a job completely consuming in its nature.

    Whether the legislations definition is a good one or not is wide open for debate of course but if that is the definition and that is the clear purpose then he does not qualify.

    On the other hand, he had established his residency and has kept his residence in the city. I presume he has maintained his voter registration there and has voted absentee (if not... then end of story). This would clearly indicate, given the temporary nature of his job in Washington, that his intent is completely to remain a citizen of the city.

    Is he renting in Washington or did he buy a new home there? Did he file his taxes as a resident of Chicago or somewhere else?

    The fact that he rented out his Chicago home is interesting but not definitive in itself. But I gather he leased it out for a set amount of time presumably a standard year? This alone indicates that he has not 'resided in' the city for that period of time.

    Again, is it fair though?

    What if the court decides to override the statute? What doors does this open up? Can any absentee landlord living in Florida the last 15 years now claim to be a resident and thereby eligible to run for office despite having no clue what the current pulse of the city is?

    Could I, if I had kept and rented out the family home after we left in 1979, claim residency and run for office as a Chicago citizen despite not having lived there since shortly after the first Mayor Daley died?

    I love Chicago and know a lot about it but I can't claim to have a real sense of current issues there.

    The core idea of the law actually makes some sense whether the specifics of it do or not. It seems unfair to someone in Rahm's position but as the dissenting judge asks... how are you to determine what the proper amount of time since actually "residing in"? What if Rahm had stuck out 7 years with Obama before this opening occurred rather then 2? Would it seem less unreasonable then to say that he is not in touch with the needs of the voters? How long is too long? Is it 1 year? 2 years? 7 years? Or my 32 years?

    The legislature appears to have determined it is 1 year and never seen fit to change that.

    Peace,

    Andrew

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:09:47 PM PST

    •  I think that's a very good argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew C White

      Can someone who served as CoS until recently truly know what's going on in Chicago?  Well, he did also live there and serve as its Congressman until the end of 2008, so it's really a 1.5 year gap.  On the merits, I'd leave it up to voters to decided, but I just don't know that the statute as written allows for it.

      •  It doesn't appear to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nathguy

        In our modern age of communication (as opposed to the 1901 case which implies and even older writing of the law) 1 year seems too short. It IS possible to keep up with things half way across the country today in a manner it most assuredly was not in 1901 and earlier.

        But if the law says 1 year then the law says 1 year.

        The case raised about Davis or another Congressman can be seen very differently and here I go back to Rick Santorum. A Congressman presumably rents or perhaps even buys a second home in Washington but maintains their primary residence in their district. This is assumed. The charge against Santorum was that he left Pennsylvania and made Virginia his primary residence enrolling his kids in school there, paying taxes there, etc. Santorum I think crossed the line but having the second home or rental in DC by itself does not break any reasonable idea of residency. The congressman does not rent out his home back in Chicago to someone else though (presumably). And the nature of the job requires them to be back in the city and in touch with their constituents, etc. Rahm's job does not require any ties to Chicago at all. Doesn't mean they are gone but doesn't require them the way a Congressman's job does.

        If Rahm had done what Obama did and take his Christmas vacation back at his home in Chicago then one could reasonably claim the same thing. This is his primary home. But he couldn't have because someone else was living there. If his Christmas vacation (or whatever other days off) was at a home in Maryland or Virginia or DC then a reasonable assumption would be that that is his primary residency.

        All that gets very sticky though I think there are at least some clear lines of demarcation there.

        The other side of it being unfair to Rahm though is that everyone is faced with times in life when one opportunity precludes another and they have to make decisions about which of the two things they really want they are going to keep and which they are going to give up. He and any other public servant is no different. The law does not say he can't run for Mayor of Chicago. It just says he can't run for this year. That's really not all that unfair. it may not be the best crafted or up to date law but a fairness argument is tough to make even if there was room for such a thing in a court room.

        As for letting the voters decide... that is often the best thing but it is an argument that says "do away with ballot access laws" and while ballot access laws are more often then not used to close and squelch democracy rather then uphold and open it there are actually good reasons for having some minimum standards for how one qualifies for the ballot. There is no perfect way to do that but once you establish those you really do have to stick with them otherwise it opens the door for all sorts of abusive practices.

        Peace,

        Andrew

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:52:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  While I prefer more open electoral processes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy

    I can't help but laugh and crack a bottle of wine in celebration of this decision.

    My one regret is that creeps like Rahm deserve to be hammered at the polls. But alas - as we've seen from their reaction to last summer's 'shellacking' - even electoral defeat doesn't stop them or drive them toward political reality.

    They suck up all the oxygen in the room, deny anyone else the the chance to make a difference and sell us out to their banker buddies and their wall street chums. What a bunch of sleazy creeps.

    I toast my glass to the judge that denied Rahm his place on the ballot. Call it a 'realpolitik' moment. Bye bye rahm, you deserved worse.

  •  Life couldn't be complicated for a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dano2l

    nicer guy.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:39:03 PM PST

  •  So no incumbent could run for reelection either? (0+ / 0-)

    So does this mean no incumbent could run for reelection either? After all they also have been residing elsewhere for the past year - or 2, or 8.

    •  this is for mayor (0+ / 0-)

      House/Senate is controlled by the Constitution; just need to be an inhabitant of the state when elected.

      •  One wonders if.. (0+ / 0-)

        ....there are state laws that purport to impose residency restrictions on house candidates via ballot access provisions.  Under Thorton and the 2001 term limit case that followed it that should be unconstitutional (and almost certainly is) but without doing a basic search on it I don't know if there are such regulations or if they have been challenged.

        For there our captors demanded of us songs, And our tormentors mirth, saying, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion."

        by Alec82 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:21:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Next mayor may be viewed as illegitimate. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    littlebird33, Tom Taaffe

    I think the big danger here is that the next mayor of Chicago might be viewed as illegitimate by a majority of voters.

    People can slice and dice the statutes, but this was a decision made on a technicality and people don't think in technicalities.

    What happens the first time the new mayor tries to do something big and controversial and needs the support of voters, community leaders and lower-level city officials?

    Do they get behind the new mayor or sit on their hands?

    http://twitter.com/mikeingels

    by DingellDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:52:22 PM PST

  •  Rahm is a counselor to the President (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tom Taaffe

    Note that he is too proud to ask for advice on a simple matter such as "is he or is he not eligible to run for mayor of Chicago?"  Hubris.  Wonder how many other things that he has screwed up by not asking experts for advice.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site