Skip to main content

Less than twenty-four hours after an appellate court panel booted Rahm Emanuel off Chicago's mayoral ballot, the Illinois Supreme Court says not so fast:

The Illinois Supreme Court has ordered the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to put Rahm Emanuel’s name back on the mayoral ballot, attorneys for Emanuel said Tuesday.

The court has not decided whether to hear Emanuel’s appeal of Monday’s Illinois Appellate Court ruling that tossed him out of the race to replace Mayor Daley. The Supreme Court granted Emanuel’s motion for a stay of the ruling, Emanuel attorney Mike Kasper said Tuesday.  [...]

The appellate court decision came just as the Board of Election Commissioners was about to print ballots for the Feb. 22 election. Early voting begins Monday.

Stay tuned. If Emanuel loses his fight to stay in the race, his reaction could be epic.

Read the court's order here.

Update, via Adam B:  The Illinois Supreme Court has now announced that it will hear Emanuel's appeal and will decide this matter on the briefs already filed, without entertaining oral argument.  In other words, the Court recognizes the need to move quickly here.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM 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

  •  Would it Be Typical (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ogre, Churchill, jayden, DFutureIsNow

    For them to order the stay then declare they weren't going to hear the case?

    •  Since early voting is starting very soon, (6+ / 0-)

      Rahm is either irreparably harmed from the decision, or, if they don't now hear the case, anybody who votes for Rahm would be irreparably harmed.  So, I think now they have to take it and reach a decision this week.  

      I do not understand, therefore, ordering his name on the ballot but not reaching a decision on the expedited appeal.  Unless, and this would be epically cynical, they are going to wait to take the case, let the election happen, and deny the appeal as moot.  

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

      by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:49:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure it would be moot (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JR, Marcus Graly, output

        Wouldn't the plaintiffs have a good argument that they are still entitled to relief, that is, to having Rahm's election invalidated?  

        I do agree that it would be weird for them to decline to take the case.  But as they say, "Forget it Jake.  It's [Illinois]."

        •  They'd be entitled to relief, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drmah

          but not a remedy.  Any order invalidating the election would probably violate equal protection, since Rahm votes would be counted differently from votes for Chico, Braun, Ozzie Guillen, Jeff Tweedy, or whoever else is running. (I always knew Bush v. Gore would prove useful one day . . .) I guess city council could try to impeach him, using the decision as a basis.  If Chicago votes in Rahm, given the issues with his residency, provided he's on the ballot, it would be tantamount to overturning the ordinance.  This would be in the same fashion that Bloomberg's threelection tacitly overturned the prior ballot initiatives re term limits.

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

          by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:28:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's kind of a conundrum (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        delver rootnose

        If they let Rahm on the ballot and it turns out he's ineligible to be listed, his competitors are irreparably harmed; if they keep him off the ballot and decide later that he was eligible after all, he is irreparably harmed. The only way no harm is done is if Rahm is eligible after all and his name is on the ballot. Accordingly, I wonder if their current thinking is that Rahm is eligible and they expect that's how they would end up ruling.

        Thwarting conservatives since 1978.

        by wiscmass on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:01:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not really, thats why they acted so quick (0+ / 0-)

      Republican brand of HOPE: "I HOPE HE FAILS"... Country First Anyone?

      by DFutureIsNow on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:32:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good. That AC's reasoning was assinine. (23+ / 0-)

    Now let Rahm stand or fall on his own merits.

    One bitter fact is two bit hacks populate the third rate fourth estate who are truly the fifth columnists.

    by amk for obama on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:32:38 AM PST

    •  Maybe he was still unsure what is is? n/t (0+ / 0-)

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

      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:36:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Asinine (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Molly Weasley, chicagobleu

      And while it's not surprising, since slow eddie controls the Dem judicial slating process (and thus, you can't swing a gavel without hitting a Burke blessed judge) --

      lookee here, turns out the 2 votes in favor of removing Rahm were, you guessed it, slated by Ed Burke.

      Honestly, I was a lukewarm Chico supporter but Burke is one machinist I truly, truly don't like and the more his fingerprints show up all over this, the more I really start to hold Burke's support of Chico against him.  I'm moving ever closer back into toss-up territory.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:48:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's always del Valle. n/t (0+ / 0-)

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

        by JeffW on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:59:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In a vacuum (0+ / 0-)

          I'd probably be backing del Valle - I do regularly back 'reformer' alderman... but I just think that, as much as I can understand the 'you can't get a little bit pregnant' line of reasoning, you have to have a bit of juice to properly run the city.

          It's ugly and messy, but I think there's a balance to be struck with keeping everyone --- from everyday Chicagoans, to the powerful among ward bosses, to the big muni union chiefs, to everyone in between -- moving in the same direction.

          I spend all my morality at the federal level, for the most part -- when it comes to my hometown, I guess I'll take a bit of the bad (machines and all that comes with it) with keeping the trains running and streets plowed.  I know it's a pretty bad standard - the old "I know it when I see it" line of what's "too much" - but it's just where I sit when it comes to local elections.

          On that score, I guess I just really see only Chico and Rahm as fitting the bill.

          I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

          by zonk on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:44:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slatsg

            ...we have a farm 120 miles away from the "veil of tears" that we will be moving to within 2 years. If I didn't give a damn, I'd vote for either Emanuel or Chico, but having been a City employee for 27+ years, and having been born here, "juice" aside, I can't vote for either of them with a clean conscience. I worked for the City during Council Wars, and despite the rancor, the place ran, and everything looked up, especially after Washington won his second term. And then he died, and the bright future wasn't there any more. And then Boy Mayor got elected, and you know the rest of the story.

            A lot of the commenters here who don't live in Chicago seem to think if Rahmbo doesn't get elected he will go back to Washington. Probably, as a lobbyist or a think-tank wonk, but not back to the White House. That door is shut, period. I don't see why Chicago has to suffer to make everyone else feel good.

            He lost in the Appellate Court on a technicality. He has a shot with the State Supreme Court, and the printer is killing trees. Isn't that enough grief for us here in Chicago, people? That and the Cubs?

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

            by JeffW on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:00:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  He slated all 3 (0+ / 0-)

        Lamkin was slated at circuit level, then got bumped up;
        Look under "L"  
        http://cookcountydems.com/...

        Goldman Sachs was not elected.

        by bornadem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:06:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  his own merits? And Corporate $, don't forget tha (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, Deadicated Marxist, output

      that, it's more of who wants to buy it, not a real election.


      80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

      Christina Taylor Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

      by Churchill on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:56:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  get a bad politician out of politics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Arsenic

      manipulating the system

  •  This simply allows for a decision to come later, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo

    correct?

  •  ah good grief (13+ / 0-)

    let the people of Chicago decide.. not the courts.

    "We cannot have peace among men whose hearts find delight in killing any living creature." - Rachel Carson, American Author and Marine Biologist

    by GlowNZ on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:34:26 AM PST

    •  That's a curious argument (18+ / 0-)

      The people of Illinois decided to pass a law and keep it in place regarding the length of recent residence required of mayoral candidates.  So they already decided this; it's for the courts to enforce that law.

      Now, you can argue that if it's a close call, defer to voter choice, but you can't treat the 1-year requirement as nonexistent.

      •  hmm (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, twigg, chicagobleu

        so the fact that he is leading in  all the polls has no bearing on this?

        The fact remains that he has a house there (it was rented out but he OWNS it) and he votes there...

        and if serving the President doesn't exempt you from this requirement... then what the fuck does?

        "We cannot have peace among men whose hearts find delight in killing any living creature." - Rachel Carson, American Author and Marine Biologist

        by GlowNZ on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:38:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read the statute. (11+ / 0-)

          From my FP story yesterday:

          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.

          One can credibly argue that maintaining a residence in a place is not the same as "residing in" that place, especially when he had no legal right to stay there.

          •  How is "resident" defined? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chicagobleu

            Must it involve presence?  Or does one who works away from habitual residence lose residency?

            •  It's not (2+ / 0-)

              Hence they get to make up whatever gets Rahm elected their legal judgment indicates.

            •  That's the question, isn't it? (5+ / 0-)

              Here's what the majority asserted yesterday:

              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.

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

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

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

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

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

              •  Residence, however, can be determined... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JR

                by other indicia.  Once a person has residency, I think it takes an affirmative act to lose it.  Seems to me that presence, per se, does not necessarily make one more in touch with a constituency.  

                •  Residency. (0+ / 0-)

                  "Residency" gets interpreted all kinds of ways.

                  When I moved to California for graduate school, I was the only one of four incoming out-of-state graduate students in my department who passed the residency requirements on the first try.

                  In order to demonstrate residency, we had to:

                  1. Register to vote, and;
                  1. Actually vote in at least one election (and provide proof--in Cali, we have ballot stubs), and;
                  1. Have a mortgage or lease in our names, and;
                  1. Have a drivers license or state identification card for at least a year, and;
                  1. Have utilities (water and electricity) in our names, and;
                  1. Have a bank account established in-state, and;
                  1. Not leave the state for the period of one year.

                  There's more I'm sure I'm forgetting.  I kept those documents for over ten years, "just in case".  ;)

            •  That's the question. n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  It seems absurd to try to parse the difference (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            between "resident of" and "has resided in."

            Seems rather Scalia/Easterbrook in its devotion to extreme textualism.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:52:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you think these sentences are the same? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AUBoy2007, wsexson, drmah, chipmo

              I have had a residence in Chicago for the past year.

              I have resided in Chicago for the past year.

              •  how about adding a third (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geekesque, glassbeadgame

                I am a resident of Chicago.

                Do you think that must mean "I have resided in Chicago for the past year."

                Because I don't.

              •   Reside: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JeffW

                re·side  (r-zd)
                intr.v. re·sid·ed, re·sid·ing, re·sides
                1. To live in a place permanently or for an extended period.

                1. To be inherently present; exist: the potential energy that resides in flowing water.
                1. To be vested, as a power or right: the authority that resides in the Supreme Court.

                reside [rɪˈzaɪd]
                vb (intr) Formal

                1. to live permanently or for a considerable time (in a place); have one's home (in) he now resides in London
                1. (of things, qualities, etc.) to be inherently present (in); be vested (in) political power resides in military strength

                [from Latin residēre to sit back, from re- + sedēre to sit]

                reside
                verb
                1. (Formal) live, lodge, dwell, have your home, remain, stay, settle, abide, hang out (informal), sojourn She resides with her invalid mother.
                live visit, holiday in

                1. be present, lie, exist, consist, dwell, abide, rest with, be intrinsic to, inhere, be vested Happiness does not reside in money.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:00:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  By default, yes. (0+ / 0-)

                Unless there's clear precedent or statutory language saying otherwise.  

                Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

                by happymisanthropy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:03:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  By inserting a "a" you make it a house. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ogre, glassbeadgame

                "I have resided" and "I have had residence" are the same, unless someone can prove different.  Nounization of verbs is common.

                Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:05:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Ehhh. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                drmah, glassbeadgame

                It's established, legally, that Rahm's a resident of IL--and of Chicago. That's where he's legally able to vote.

                It's a legal definition of resident--not a common sense English one.

                But it does seem to strain even the legal language to say

                "He is a resident of Chicago" does not mean that "he has resided in Chicago for this past year." Legally speaking, that is. Reside is a verb form, and resided is the past tense.

                But I suspect there will be a decision revolving around the poles of legal definitions and what makes sense, legally, and the larger consequences--which is somewhat what a supreme court's supposed to do.

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

                by ogre on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:16:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  and then there are "the" residents of Chicago (0+ / 0-)

                Here lies W. C. Fields. I would rather be living in Philadelphia.

                Präsidentenelf-maßschach;Warning-Some Snark Above;Cascadia Lives

                by annieli on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:16:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  and then there's the passive-aggressive litigator (0+ / 0-)

                  First, the passive voice--which the student's sentence did not use--is not a grammatical mistake. It may not be the best stylistic choice, as it usually creates a wordier sentence whose subject is not identified, but it's not wrong.

                  Präsidentenelf-maßschach;Warning-Some Snark Above;Cascadia Lives

                  by annieli on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:43:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Use "I left my heart in San Fransico" arguement. (0+ / 0-)
            •  But then why is there a two-part test, at all? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AUBoy2007, wsexson

              If all that matters is "resident of," doesn't the "qualified elector" prong more or less cover it?  What this case shows is that one can be a qualified elector without having a permanent residence in the jurisdiction, as the appeals court so held w/r/t Rahm.  

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

              by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:00:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But Emmanuel does have a permanent residence (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hayden, Pozzo, 57andFemale, sulthernao

                in Chicago.

                Should doing a month-long home exchange cause someone to forfeit their residency?

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:01:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  This was more than a month. NT (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wsexson, JeffW
                  •  He still maintained his permanent (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    drmah

                    home there.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:22:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  If the law is going to held to this standard. (0+ / 0-)

                    then yes.  Every time you absent yourself from the state it can be construed as limiting the residency requirement for running for office.  

                    I think the final decision can go either way.  I could argue both sides.  

                    However, the little jerk who's leaving the Mayor's office only gave a matter of months.

                •  It was year long, not month long (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Adam B

                  month long, he falls within the statute.  Anyway, he didn't "reside in" his permanent residence during that year.  This is why I think the court was right to rely on this house to find that he had a sufficient intent to remain indefinitely in Chicago, but it doesn't tell us what the second half of the statute means.  Note that you used passive voice "have a permanent residence," and the statute uses active voice "has resided in."

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

                  by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:08:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And this gets us back into microparsing (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    glassbeadgame, 57andFemale

                    of terms and whether devotion to textualism is the proper mode of statutory interpretation.

                    Here, the meaning of the statute is unclear and its words admit of multiple interpretations.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:11:37 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Is this really "textualism"? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      wsexson

                      "Has resided in" is a phrase that most of us would ascribe an ordinary meaning to which would encompass some sense of regular physical presence, no?

                      •  The very fact (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Geekesque

                        that the agency and the court below thought otherwise pretty clearly shows that there is some ambiguity.

                        The right call would seem to me to be to defer to the agency. But I know nothing of Illinois law.

                        Ok, so I read the polls.

                        by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:19:24 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  No. Let us consult the Oxford dictionary. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        andgarden

                        http://oxforddictionaries.com/...

                        Pronunciation:/riˈzīd, rəˈzaɪd/
                        verb
                        [no object]

                           *
                             have one's permanent home in a particular place:people who work in the city actually reside in neighboring towns
                           *
                             be situated:the paintings now reside on the walls of a restaurant
                           *
                             (of power or a right ) belong by right to a person or body:legislative powers reside with the federal assembly
                           *
                             (of a quality) be present or inherent in something:the meaning of an utterance does not wholly reside in the semantic meaning

                        The primary conceit of textualism is that it pretends that there is always a right and wrong answer as to the meaning of a word.  This is a perfect example to demonstrate that "has resided" does not have a clear, unambiguous meaning.

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:21:20 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're paying fast and loose here. (0+ / 0-)

                          The question isn't only what "reside" means but the use of the present perfect tense in the statute -- if I "have VERBed that thing for a year," does that required that I actually VERBed it?

                          •  If by that you mean (0+ / 0-)

                            "for purposes of satisfying the statute," then yes.

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

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

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay, let's use the present perfect tense (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JR, andgarden

                            "has resided in Chicago" = "has had his/her permanent home in the city of Chicago."

                            I fail to see how changing the tense transforms "have a permanent residence in Chicago" to "be physically located in Chicago."

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:27:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But now we're playing dictionary games (0+ / 0-)

                            From the majority:

                            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).

                            Obviously, there are definitions which require the actual being-there, so yes, that's where we get into the question of when in doubt, provide voters more choice ... but I'm not sure that it is in doubt unless you're very careful with which dictionaries you choose.

                          •  How are "live" and "dwell" any more unambiguous (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andgarden, jayden

                            than "reside?"

                            Moreover, conflicting dictionary definitions only show that the statute's wording admits of multiple, competing interpretations, and thus is ambiguous and unclear on its face.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:38:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  find me a definition of either (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            chipmo

                            Which doesn't require physical presence.

                          •  You don't even need a dictionary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            I mean, a "dwelling" is a place where you live, but not necessarily the place where you spend all or most of your time. And "live" isn't any better than "reside" for these purposes.

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

                            by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:42:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

                            Oxford Dictionary definition of 'live'

                            Pronunciation:/liv, lɪv/
                            verb

                               *
                                 1 [no object] remain alive:the doctors said she had only six months to liveboth cats lived to a ripe age
                               *
                                 be alive at a specified time:he lived four centuries ago
                               *
                                 spend one's life in a particular way or under particular circumstances:people are living in fear in the wake of the shootings[with object] :he was living a life of luxury in Australia
                               *
                                 supply oneself with the means of subsistence:they live by hunting and fishing
                               *
                                 survive in someone's mind; be remembered:only the name lived on
                               *
                                 have an exciting or fulfilling life:he couldn't wait to get out of school and really start living
                               *
                                 2 [no object] make one's home in a particular place or with a particular person:I've lived in New England all my lifethey lived with his grandparents

                            Webster definition of 'live'

                            1live
                            verb \ˈliv\
                            livedliv·ing
                            Definition of LIVE
                            intransitive verb
                            1
                            : to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant
                            2
                            : to continue alive
                            3
                            : to maintain oneself : subsist <lived on rice and peas>
                            4
                            a : to occupy a home : dwell <living in a shabby room> <they had always lived in the country> b : to be located or stored <the silverware lives here>
                            5
                            : to attain eternal life <though he die, yet shall he live — John 11:25(Revised Standard Version)>
                            6
                            : to conduct or pass one's life <lived only for his work>
                            7
                            : to remain in human memory or record <the past lives in us all — W. R. Inge>
                            8
                            : to have a life rich in experience
                            9
                            : cohabit

                            Above-linked Webster definition of 'dwell'

                            dwelled\ˈdweld, ˈdwelt\ or dwelt\ˈdwelt\dwelling
                            Definition of DWELL
                            intransitive verb
                            1
                            : to remain for a time
                            2
                            a : to live as a resident b : exist, lie
                            3
                            a : to keep the attention directed —used with on or upon <tried not to dwell on my fears> b : to speak or write insistently —used with on or upon <reporters dwelling on the recent scandal>
                            — dwell·er noun
                            See dwell defined for English-language learners

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:50:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that's my point, isn't it? nt (0+ / 0-)
                          •  If your point is that one could look upon (0+ / 0-)

                            the crowd of potential interpretations and choose one's friend, sure.  

                            My point is that "resided" does not have a clear meaning, and thus must be interpreted as part of the larger statute.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:54:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How so? (0+ / 0-)

                            What does "live as a resident" mean without making both words redundant?

                          •  If "live as a resident" merely means "make (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Inland

                            one's home" then we've just talked ourselves in a circle.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:00:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But that wouldn't apply to Emanuel. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wsexson

                            His home was in DC during that period.

                          •  What do you mean "home?" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

                            by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:05:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now we're back to defining 'home.' (0+ / 0-)

                            He was staying in DC to perform his job duties, much as diplomats get stationed in Paris or troops get stationed in Germany.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:08:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And while he was in that country ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            chipmo

                            ... that's where he made his home.  

                            On the merits, wouldn't the 1-year requirement actually make sense for Emanuel, or a diplomat, or someone else who wasn't physically present and therefore wasn't as aware of what was happening in the town?

                            Imagine Bloomberg buys a condo in Chicago and announces "I'm going to make it my home just as soon as the renovations are done."  That takes a year, during which he's still in NYC.  At the end of that year, has he become a one-year resident of Chicago?

                          •  That's a tenable interpretation (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            but it's not obviously the right one, let alone the best.

                            I'm pretty comfortable that the language just means that you can't run if you are a newly registered voter in Chicago. But that's just my "plain reading."

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

                            by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:14:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bingo. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andgarden

                            I think this is obviously correct. The statue was not intended to distinguish "residency" from "reside in", it was to say your residency has to have been for at least a year, no matter if the election code allows you to vote sooner than that.

                          •  The legislative scheme seems pretty clear in its (0+ / 0-)

                            attempt to make sure that candidates for office have long-standing ties to the community and aren't carpetbagging.

                            Bloomberg never had a residence in Chicago before buying that condo in your hypothetical, correct?

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:19:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Correct for the hypo. (0+ / 0-)

                            And the statute says "has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment," which is different from "has resided in the municipality at least one year preceding the election or appointment."

                          •  That would seem to cut off past residency and (0+ / 0-)

                            instead merely mandates present-time residency dating back at least one year.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:43:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So. (0+ / 0-)

                            Under the statute, if Emanuel's a resident for the year, is hypoBloomberg too?  

                            (Leaving aside the "service to the United States" question.)

                          •  No, because hypoBloomberg (0+ / 0-)

                            never established a residence in the first place.  

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:55:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure he did. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wsexson

                            He bought a condo.  He said that he intended to make it his longterm residence.  What's the difference?

                          •  The difference between a declaration (0+ / 0-)

                            of intent and the act of actually establishing a residence, paying taxes, sending one's kids to school there etc?  

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:06:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Suppose ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... hypoBloomberg registered to vote in Illinois and paid taxes there, but like Emanuel he and his family lived elsewhere for the year.

                          •  If he registered to vote there and paid his taxes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            drmah

                            there, that certainly would support a finding of established  domicile and residency.  

                            There's a lot of facts that go into this kind of determination.

                            Is there case law on what constitutional limits there are as to eligibility for public office as compared to voting eligibility or eligibility for state benefits or marriage?

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:14:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What do you mean by "constitutional limits"? (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you talking about a floor or a ceiling?

                          •  Along the lines of the right to travel (0+ / 0-)

                            jurisprudence.  

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:43:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  not aware of them (0+ / 0-)

                            In other words, if Illinois law said "you must live in the town for the previous ten years to be an alderman, and by 'live in this town' we mean 350+ nights each year," is that constitutional?

                          •  yes, along those lines. eom (0+ / 0-)

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:05:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's the prob. with maj. opinion, IMO. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            Circular.

                            Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                            by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:08:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Live as a resident" would be two things: (0+ / 0-)
                            1. Be located somewhere, and
                            1. Be a resident of that locale (i.e. without an intent to return to another place).

                            But the statute doesn't say "live as a resident," of course: it simply says "resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election." Remaining a legal residency in the municipality for the year prior to the election seems like it meets this requirement.  I'm betting the state supreme court will agree.

                            ‎"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 01:27:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it contravenes your point (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

                            by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:54:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And what of permanence? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            drmah

                            Your residence for election law purposes is--uniformly, to my knowledge--the place to which you intend to return when away, whether that absence be for vacation, attending college, military deployment, or service in government.

                            My reading of the statute (and I'm willing to bet the reading that the Ill.Sup.Ct. will adopt in the next day or two) is that being a legal resident of Chicago for the year prior to the election--which Rahm was--is all that's really required.

                            ‎"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 01:24:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Geekesque

                          That is one of Scalia's most irritating--and least credible--conceits.

                          Ok, so I read the polls.

                          by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:24:38 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Pfft. Not in elections law, Adam. (0+ / 0-)

                        Residency is a term of art in campaign and elections law, as you--and any students going to college but voting absentee from their parents' house--well know!

                        ‎"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 01:20:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  One would think not (0+ / 0-)

                  but he leased out his home to another... presumably for the standard year long lease and the law states clearly he must have "resided in" the city the past year so the leasing out for that year would appear to exclude him unless he can show he "resided in" at some other location.

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

                  by Andrew C White on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:35:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  If they intended for the meaning (0+ / 0-)

                to be clearly distinct, why did they use the verb form of the same word?  Why use a word with an established definition if you intend a different meaning?

                Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

                by happymisanthropy on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:05:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  they only use "reside" once in the statute. (0+ / 0-)

                  having a residence (passive voice, as distinct from active voice "residing in") is just one part of being a qualified elector.  

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

                  by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:10:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  ANSWER: so that elector qualifications can (0+ / 0-)

                change without requiring a rewrite of who can be an office holder.

                It's basically a variable, not necessarily meant to add anything, depending on who can be an elector.  

                Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:08:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, that doesn't work (0+ / 0-)

                  The office holder requirements are in addition to elector qualifications.  One can change without the other already.

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

                  by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:33:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, it's like (0+ / 0-)

                    "to win must have a valid drivers' license and be sixteen years old".  Nobody cares what the requirements of a driver's license is, just that they have one.  That the requirements for drivers licenses is sixteen and therefore redundant is not surprising or a source of confusion.  

                    Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                    by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:57:14 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That could go either way, (0+ / 0-)

                      if the requirement for having a drivers' license goes to 15 years old, it's not redundant, if it's 18, it is.  If the "residency" requirement is more strict than the "qualified elector" prong, as the appeals court held, it's not redundant.  So, it's an interpretation that makes sense of this odd bifurcation.  And I actually like Rahm.

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

                      by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:10:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's redundant, but the redundancy (0+ / 0-)

                        isn't an aid to construction. Most times legislatures are presumed to avoid redundancy, but here, it doesn't seem right.  I don't they even looked at what one needs to be able to vote.  

                        Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                        by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:13:06 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Couldn't it just mean (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          drmah

                          that you are not allowed to be a newly registered voter in Chicago and run?

                          Ok, so I read the polls.

                          by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:15:05 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I thought of that, (0+ / 0-)

                            but it might have been drafted differently.  I don't see why they'd introduce the term "reside" if that's what they meant.  They would have just put a date limitation on the qualified elector prong without changing verbs.

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

                            by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:18:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think it's a good enough explanation (0+ / 0-)

                            to credibly say that the distinction isn't merely a redundancy. In fact, I am pretty confident that that's what it does mean.

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

                            by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:19:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think it's redundant, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wsexson

                            I think the "residency" is a more specific requirement, in addition to the "qualified elector" standard.  Keep in mind, as well, the shift from passive to active voice.

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

                            by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:25:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's a possible meaning (0+ / 0-)

                            but it is not how I would interpret that statute. And until the panel below, no other official body did either.

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

                            by andgarden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:26:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Why two parts? It's obvious. (0+ / 0-)

                One side says there is a two part test because although the first part allows one to be a "resident" of the jurisdiction for the purposes of voting, candidacy requires one to "reside" there for 1 year. In other words the whole purpose of the second part is to distinguish the word "reside" from however the election law  defines "residency." That seems ridiculous.

                To me, the obvious alternative is that the second part is there is set a minimum requirement on residency of 1 year, since the requirements for being a qualified elector may allow one to be a resident for a shorter period of time.

          •  one can also credibly argue the opposite (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jayden

            in such a situation, and where the legislature has ambiguously defined a critical term and hasn't really addressed one way or the other this kind of special case (service to the president) then one can use the canons of statutory construction to come down either way.

            Given that, I think you err on the side of inclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

                    Any construction prohibiting that would be absurd.

                    Ok, so I read the polls.

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

                      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

                Now figure that one out !

          •  I tend to agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drmah

            part of me thinks the issue must be in Rahm's favor, unless he wouldn't have run, but I can't otherwise make sense out of having a residency requirement in addition to the "qualified elector" language.  Having an intent to return, maintaining a drivers license and bank account, etc., is enough to make Rahm a citizen of Chicago and a qualified elector, as the Appellate Court noted, but I can't accept a definition of "has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election," unless it's a physical habitation requirement.  One could argue that it means you can't run if this is the first election in which you're eligible to vote, but  I think if that's what the legislature meant, they wouldn't have used "has resided," but something like "been a qualified elector at least one year next preceeding," or "been eligible to be a qualified elector."  Residence is but one part of domicile, and to single this out.  

            Saying Rahm met this would make for very interesting developments inlandlord/tenant law.

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

            by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:56:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think a clearer statement would be (0+ / 0-)

              adding the word physically before resided.

              I think at best this is ambiguous.

            •  Those are the only two possibilities: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jayden

              Physical habitation or residence as an intent to return.

              Since nobody actually physically inhabits their house in the city for a year, one of the possibilities is irrational.

              Plus, what's the point?  The goal is to prevent carpetbagging, not someone who's got a temp gig.

              Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

              by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:11:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you maintain a physical residence, (0+ / 0-)

                for at least a year, I think you'd be covered.  It's ok to leave the jurisdiction so long as you don't enter into a contract that physically bars you from entering your house without your counterparty's consent for the duration of a leashold.

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

                by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:13:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But you don't mean "physical residence". (0+ / 0-)

                  That's just a house, and not the same as "physical inhabitation".   THe former is merely evidence of an intent to return.  The latter is actually being there in that house.

                  And the entire question of intent can't turn on whether he had a lease of his house or not.  People who rent and live with relatives would never be residents.  If my house is in my wife's name, I'm out?  

                  Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                  by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:25:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dunno, does your wife let you inside? (0+ / 0-)

                    This case doesn't turn on intent. The standard of qualified elector does, which Rahm met.  "Has resided in" was interpreted as an objective standard, not a subjective one.

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

                    by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:30:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Intent isn't a subjective standard. (0+ / 0-)

                      Rahm's intent to return is an objective fact, determined after two weeks of testimony.

                      Dunno, does your wife let you inside?

                      I don't see her refusing to unchain the door for five minutes as a precondition to being mayor.  After that five minutes, I'm literally in the same boat as Rahm.  

                      The point of the dissent is accurate: the majority has no workable standard.

                      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                      by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:51:04 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Think of it like the requirements for Congress (0+ / 0-)

              Say you're a citizen who's 26 years old. You may or may not be eligible to run for Congress, depending on when you received your citizenship.  I read the statute in this case similarly: you may vote in Chicago after being a resident there for 30 days, but you cannot serve the city until you've been a resident for at least a year before the election.

              The second prong, the part that you're getting hung up on, reads to me simply as "has been a resident at least one year."  I think that's a fairer interpretation than assuming "resided" means the same thing as "domiciled." YMMV.

              ‎"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 01:39:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think same way. Determining residence for (0+ / 0-)

              military, those away on work assignment and those serving in and for Congress is tricky, for by ruling them unable to serve upon returing home seems like taking advantage of the very people willing to serve the nation.

          •  Isn't it an interesting question... (0+ / 0-)

            esp. in the post-Richard Cheney, resident of Montana (it was Montana, wasn't it?) era?

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

            by ogre on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:10:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It may be a credible argument but it (0+ / 0-)

            is even more credible that they were meant to be the same.

          •  Rahm claims he paid taxes on Chicago property and (0+ / 0-)

            voted using that residence as home address.

        •  None of it has a bearing on the decision (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drmah, glassbeadgame

          Adam appears to be making a narrow point about the law in Il.

          Particularly the bit about whether or not the candidate "abandoned" his residence under that law.

          The Court held that he had is all. They were, apparently quite wrong.

          The Dissent is funny.

          We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

          by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:49:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Based On? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW

            The Court held that he had is all. They were, apparently quite wrong.

            The Supreme Court hasn't even heard the case yet.

            •  Read the Dissent. nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glassbeadgame

              We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

              by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:36:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:41:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The dissent basically says (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BirthTax, wsexson

                actually residing in does not mean actually residing in, and posits the question:

                Q.

                How many days may a person stay away from his home before the majority would decide he no longer "actually resides" in it?

                A. Uh, I'd say if a person has signed a long term lease with someone to rent their home, while they move to Washington DC, they no longer actually reside.

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

                by bobdevo on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:26:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The law doesn't say that (0+ / 0-)

                  The law says that "an intent not to return" has to be demonstrated, and this is usually done by any numbe of features, none of which apply here.

                  Emmanuel never changed his Driver's License, he rented a property, his stuff was still stored in the Chicago house, he returned regularly, banked in Chicago. Voted in Chicago.

                  All indicators that he was away working temporarily.

                  The Bench appears to have changed the law, which is pretty much what the dissent says.

                  We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                  by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:27:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  He effectively abandoned it for the year (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobdevo, wsexson, twigg

            that he leased it to his tenant. He and his tenant can't inhabit the same house at the same time, and only one of them had a right to physical occupancy.

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

            by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:14:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Read the Dissent nt (0+ / 0-)

              We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

              by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:36:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:42:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  What makes you think I didn't? (0+ / 0-)

                Does the dissent announce itself as right and true, the way the Archangel Gabriel announced himself to the Virgin Mary?  It didn't have that effect on me.

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

                by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:43:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fine, whatever. (0+ / 0-)

                  We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                  by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:10:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I think you didn't (0+ / 0-)

                  because nowhere in the law has the residency been "abandoned" if there is a demonstrable intent to return ... There isn't a time qualifier.

                  Rahm very easily demonstrated his intent to return, and the decision was wrong.

                  There is a time qualifier for voting, and for being on the ballot, but the term "abandoned" is an absolute ... he "abandoned" his residency, or he didn't, there are no qualifiers.

                  In this case he quite clearly didn't, and everything presented supports that.

                  We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                  by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:38:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I never said he abandoned his "residency," (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Adam B, twigg

                    I said he "didn't reside" in Chicago during the time period.  The word is used in two distinct ways.

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

                    by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:20:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh .. I accept that (0+ / 0-)

                      However, he doesn't have to reside there in order to maintain "residence" ... That is why it will be overturned.

                      We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                      by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:37:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It might be, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        twigg

                        but I read the statute to require a separate, physical residence requirement.  There's qualified elector, which he meets, and then "has resided in," which has a different verb from "maintain residence."  The latter can be accomplished by having an intend to return and whatever else Rahm did.  The former, not so much.  

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

                        by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:55:12 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I think it's the other way round (0+ / 0-)

                          He has a long established residency in Chicago.

                          The question is whether or not he ever "abandoned" it, which he appears not to have.

                          We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                          by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 04:02:57 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  1. Polls have no bearing on a legal case (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg
          1. lots of landlords own homes in Chicago, rent them out and live their lives in Florida
          1. there is no exemption in the law for serving the President or anyone else. It may be a reasonable exemption but it is not one written into the law.

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

          by Andrew C White on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:16:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't the main issue (7+ / 0-)

        what constitutes "service" to the United States?

      •  Ah! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobdevo

        I didn't know there was a referendum on the residency requirements for mayoral elections!

        Thanks for clearing that up!

    •  I agree. The people not the courts (7+ / 0-)

      should decide.

      Rahm should be allowed to have his name on the ballot

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

      by Drdemocrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:36:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The legislature enacts rules (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, TooFolkGR, Loge

      The courts rule as to whether or not those rules are being followed.

      None of this is contrary to the idea that the people of Chicago are deciding who their mayor are, because the people in theory choose the rule makes and those who appoint the judges.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:47:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  agreed! because getting your (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah, 57andFemale

      opponent(s) disqualified is a cheap, underhanded, but above all undemocratic way to get elected. leave it to a corrupt sleazeball like ed burke to do something like this.

      "I'm all for pragmatism just as long as it's not just a slight pitstop on the road to hell." - TJ, 11.30.10

      by output on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:20:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because rules don't apply to Rahm??? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson

      Why have any laws at all, I guess, just let everyone do what they want . . .

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

      by bobdevo on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:14:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Countdown to (2+ / 0-)

    Eric Holder/Obama/UN/ACORN/George Soros conspiracy to begin in 3... 2... 1...

  •  I am not a Rahm fan but I think that (12+ / 0-)

    he should be in the ballot.

    If he wins he wins and if he loses he loses but he should have the right to run.

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

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:36:10 AM PST

    •  Never mind that it's against the law, right? n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, MixedContent
      •  ????? (9+ / 0-)

        against the law?

        If its against the law.. why has a stay been issued.. obviously its not as clear cut as your statment suggests

        "We cannot have peace among men whose hearts find delight in killing any living creature." - Rachel Carson, American Author and Marine Biologist

        by GlowNZ on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:39:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think "may be against the law" (5+ / 0-)

          is a better construction... but still irrelevant, as the justice of the law is not at issue, only its application to the case at hand.

          If the Court rules against Emmanuel in that sense, that the law precludes him from running for an office he's eligible to vote for, then "let the voters decide" might be a relevant argument. Or not, as governments are allowed wide latitude in defining qualifications for office, absent controlling language in the relevant constitutions.

          As of now, this is simply a statutory interpretation case.

          --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 Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:46:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Politics? n/t (0+ / 0-)

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

          by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:15:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  How do you define residency? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Embee, Treg, jayden, licorice114

        If a Marine who's been in Afghanistan for the past 2 years were to leave the military and return to Illinois to run for office, would you then tell him "Sorry, you haven't lived here" even though he was out of the state as part of his JOB?  Being WH CoS isn't exactly a job where you can telecommute.

        Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:41:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then it might be a dumb law. (5+ / 0-)

          But that's the law they passed: if you want to be a mayor, we want you to live in the town for the full year before you run -- presumably so you know what's going on there.

          •  When was this law passed? (0+ / 0-)

            And is there a record of the impetus for it?

            Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

            by jayden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:51:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not sure what year. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              expatjourno

              Here's what the majority said:

              Our research into legislative purpose reveals that candidate "reside in" qualifications of the type now at issue date to our State’s first constitution, which imposed upon candidates for the offices of state representative and senator the requirement that they have "resided" within the area  for 12 months (or one year) prior to their election and imposed upon lieutenant governor candidates the requirement that they have "resided" within the State for two years preceding their election.  See Ill. Const. 1818, art. II, §2, §6; Schedule §13.  Similar "reside in" qualifications have appeared, both in Illinois’ constitutions and in its statutes, since 1818.  See e.g., Ill. Const. 1848, art. III, §3, §4; 1861 Ill. Laws 267; 1917 Ill. Laws 258.  

              Although it lacks precedential force (see  Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill.2d 77, 95, 672 N.E.2d 1207 (1996)), the decision in People v. Ballhorn, 100 Ill. App. 571, 573 (1901), provides what we view as a reasonable interpretation of the purpose underlying such candidate "reside in" requirements. Ballhorn explains that those requirements ensure "that those who represent the local units of  government shall themselves be component parts of such units."  People v. Ballhorn, 100 Ill. App. 571, 573 (1901).  As Ballhorn 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.

              •  They contradict themselves at the end. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                57andFemale

                If technological advancements obviate the necessity to actually reside in the municipality then the initial purpose of the "reside in" requirement is met because of those very advancements.

                Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

                by jayden on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:12:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The dissent was clear (7+ / 0-)

            that that's an interpretation which ignores important, relevant legal precedent.

            That interpretation would have Rahm be a resident of no where at all which is not a reasonable position.

            look for my DK Greenroots diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

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

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm, yes and no. (0+ / 0-)

              You're exactly right that the whole point of legal residency is prevent people from facing statelessness.  Everyone's gotta get to vote somewhere.

              However, nobody is saying Rahm isn't a resident of Chicago. The majority is saying that "being a resident of Chicago" and "residing in Chicago" are two different things.

              I know. It gives me a headache, too.

              I'm pretty sure the Illinois Supreme Court is going to rule for Rahm on this one, and I think the dissent had the much better reading of the statute.

              ‎"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 01:45:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  My sense here it is only against the law for some (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drmah, FishOutofWater

        because it is RAHMMMMM!

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:42:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then the law is an ass. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marcus Graly

        The law is the law, true: but if Rahm isn't qualified to be Mayor, then the law is an ass.

        Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

        by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:58:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It seems to be common sense that... (14+ / 0-)

    if someone takes a job working for the President of the United States in the White House, they can keep residency wherever they are a resident.  President Obama voted in Illinois, not in Washington D.C.  The legal system doesn't always involve common sense, though.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:36:12 AM PST

    •  if WH chief of staff does not count as service (9+ / 0-)

      for the United States - what does? Silly really.

      •  An argument could be made that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, Loge

        the White House Chief of Staff serves the President, not the United States.

        To make the argument non-trivial, could a President explicitly require his CoS to be a practicing Christian?

        --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 Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:49:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, come on. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tari

          The President's CoS is serving the executive branch.  That's a real stretch.  

          •  we are not talking about the president of Kenia (0+ / 0-)

            or Indonesia

          •  Not really... (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not sure what the CoS's status is... is there statutory authority for that position, or is it something that Presidents have created on their own?

            i was considering what arguments an attorney could come up with in Emmanuel's case, and "the Chief of Staff is not 'in service of the Untied States'" was one of them.

            Then it occurred to me that the prohibition on "religious tests for any office or trust under the United States" would not apply if the position didn't fall under those categories, and that there is an analogy to the case in Illinois.

            I don't actually have an opinion... but the definition seems to me ambiguous.

            --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 Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:27:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Given his "service".... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Agent Orange, happymisanthropy

      ...He definitely earned the right to reside in the boardroom of Goldman Sachs should he ever need a place to crash.

      "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

      by Marshall on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:43:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Voting and running for office (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Loge, chicagobleu

      The two justices who said he didn't meet the requirement discussed, at some length, the difference between the part of the statute covering eligibility to vote and the part on eligibility to be a candidate.

      They agreed that Rahm Emanuel was qualified to vote, no problem there, and they agreed that he was on the business of the United States in his work. However, they said that was relevant to qualification to vote but not to being a candidate.

      I don't know if the analysis of those two justices was sound, or not, but they were trying to work with the language of the statute.

      That's what the Supreme Court is for--to settle this issue.

    •  He did (0+ / 0-)

      The appeals court ruled he meets all the requirements of being a "qualified elector."  The problem is, under the statute, "has resided in" is an additional, separate requirement for mayoral eligibility.

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

      by Loge on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:17:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  *&^%$#@ n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, GlowNZ, DavidW

    Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

    by boran2 on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:36:13 AM PST

  •  Decision by not deciding... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Loge

    By putting Rahm's name back on the ballot, and then not hearing his appeal on an expedited basis, the Supreme Court could allow him to stand for election, get voted in (or not) and then decide whether he was eligible or not.

    If they prefer the runner-up it would be a clever way of deciding the vote.

    On the other hand, this way they don't have to listen to the profanity if they rule against him.

    The Scout Law (trustworthy, loyal, helpful...) is a GREAT liberal manifesto.

    by DaytonMike on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:38:03 AM PST

  •  I believe this fits the definition... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    decembersue, FishOutofWater, JeffW, pvlb

    of a can of worms opened.

    What matters is...how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

    by wmtriallawyer on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:38:29 AM PST

  •  As I said yesterday, Shit happens. (8+ / 0-)

    Rahm will land on his feet...and he'll probably become mayor.  I've gotta say, I like that guy...he doesn't take shit from people.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:38:50 AM PST

  •  No way will the SCIL uphold the appellate court's (0+ / 0-)

    decision.

    I won't watch your M$NBC.

    by Walt starr on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:39:07 AM PST

    •  Don't bet on it. (0+ / 0-)

      THe CHicago ordinance regarding the qualifications to run for mayor are not at all the same as the State of Illinois' requirements for residency with respect to voting.

      The ordinance basically says:

      the Chicago ordinance requires a candidate to "reside in" the city for one year before being eligible to run, meaning the candidate must "live in" the city for that period of time.  An intention to return and leaving some belongings there doesn’t do it.  Resorting to some 200 years of history, the court felt that a candidate cannot "know the wants and demands of his constituency", unless he or she is actually present in the community for the required period of time.

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

      by bobdevo on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:50:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh I'd definitley bet on it (0+ / 0-)

        The appellate court overstepped its bounds and the two appellate judges who came up with the completely screwed up ruling have ties to Chico, which should just about end any hope of Chico becoming mayor.

        I won't watch your M$NBC.

        by Walt starr on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:45:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  will the JFK zombie voters find their ballots? nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, HopeNope

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach;Warning-Some Snark Above;Cascadia Lives

    by annieli on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:40:31 AM PST

  •  Rahm elated. Sends us good cheer. (12+ / 0-)

    Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:41:23 AM PST

  •  The Machine works! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy
  •  With arms outstretched to the one true God... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marshall, HopeNope

    ...Please give evidence of your divine wisdom and justice by kicking that worthless little bastard Rahm Emanuel off the ballot list.

    We humbly beseach thee.

    Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. Reinhold Niebuhr

    by patriot spear on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:42:36 AM PST

  •  Speaking of epic (0+ / 0-)

    Is anyone else here following the @MayorEmanuel twitter feed?

  •  Important principle for all politicians (10+ / 0-)

    Any politician in Washington needs to be on Rahm Emanuel's side in this case.

    The ruling against him on the face of it is ludicrous. It is obviously a narrow semantic and grammatical reading of one sentence.

    If you accept the ruling against Rahm at face value, then you accept that any politician that is elected and goes to Washington has given up residence in their home district.

    This is on its face ludicrous, and is in fact a situation clearly covered by language in the same law that the previous court chose to simply ignore, language put their to cover cases of individuals 'serving in the interest of the state and thus not present every bleeping day in the district'.

    Those wishing Schdenfreude on Rahm Emanuel, from whatever side of the political spectrum, need to really rethink the implications of the ruling against him in the above context.

    I will be appalled if the Illinois Supreme Court does not overturn the ruling, and tell the lower court what idiots they were in making it.

    "We must become the change we want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HeartlandLiberal on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:43:52 AM PST

    •  Rahm wasn't elected. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, JeffW

      He was appointed by President Obama. The elected officials maintain their home state residency. In fact, the best ones spend a lot of time in their home district talking to constituents.

      During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
      - George Orwell

      by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:48:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see what IL Supremes Say (9+ / 0-)

        I suspect they will apply the law to cover those who like Rahm Emanuel are serving elected officials in a clearly defined position.

        I do not think they will uphold the narrow interpretation of the lower court.

        Otherwise, any and all 'non-elected' persons working as staff for any and all of our members of Senate and Congress just lost their residency status in their home states. A status that most of them retain, even though they are working temporarily in Washington.

        I simply do not believe that is the intention of the law, nor do I think that is what we want in such a law.

        "We must become the change we want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HeartlandLiberal on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:52:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly. (3+ / 0-)

          talk about a way to discourage people from taking presidential appointments. The applicant pool would be limited to those who a) live within commute distance of washington or b) have no further aspirations to serve their own states.  Not sure that gives us the breadth of representation we'd like to see in a white house.

        •  I'm just sayin... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW

          Rahm wasn't elected; He was appointed.

          During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
          - George Orwell

          by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:00:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  they don't lose residency (0+ / 0-)

          but just their newly defined "reside in" status which apparently is considered by some to mean something different.

          The can of worms is just too big for the 2/3 ruling to stand. It points to a rewrite to clarify the statute at some point in future.

          This is striking me as similar to Joe Miller's complaint that the letter of the law was not being followed if a write in for Lisa Merkowsky was counted as a vote for Lisa Murkowski because the law said the name must be as it appears on the official candidate roll. But the DoE, who let's agree were trying to help Lisa out, and the State Supreme's argued that that standard was not in the best interest of the voters and suggested that the statute needed to be rewritten to be more specific.

      •  Rep. Danny Davis thought about running for Mayor. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge

        Suppose he spent 200 nights last year in DC and 165 in Chicago.  Is he still a Chicago resident?

    •  Well, it won't last to the next election. (0+ / 0-)

      After every candidate gets challenged for stepping into Niles by mistake, it'll be changed or overruled.

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:02:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  HL - for federal offices it is different (0+ / 0-)

      For Federal offices you must be a resident "when elected". However, various state and local rules can be different as noted by the Chicago example. Most have a military exception, but serving in DC in an executive branch post should also be a stated exception. It was also common in past decades for members of Congress to move their families to DC for the entire school year so historically it has not been an issue for members of Congress.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:50:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, to be a fly on the wall (0+ / 0-)

    if and when Rahm loses this case.

    For one thing, the word "poop" (in various forms) would be flung about so freely as to feed an entire family of flies for all eternity.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:45:41 AM PST

  •  He's on, he's off (0+ / 0-)

    he's on again ....

    Is it just me who is getting dizzy?

    I still loved the "smack" talk in that Dissenting Opinion.

    We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

    by twigg on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:45:42 AM PST

  •  Let the guy run (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, Via Chicago

    It's pretty clear he is from Chicago, and it should be the voters that decide his fate.

    •  Rule of Law (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, Loge

      I know this sounds weird, but there are laws about this sort of thing.  And courts don't generally settle legal matters on the "Oh well, he's from Chicago" theory.  The legal system is working the way it's supposed to.  Let it work.

      •  The rule of law is not made of iron... (0+ / 0-)

        and is tailored to the facts of the case.

        I was stating my opinion, and there is adequate legal justification for it in any event.

        •  Intent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glassbeadgame

          Like Rahm or not, I believe it's within the spirit of the law to allow him to run.  The word "reside" is the only reason there is even an argument, but it's clear that the law didn't take sitautions like Emanuel's into account.

          He had an employment assignment in DC and intended to return to Chicago someday.  I don't believe the purpose of the "reside" word was to diqualify people in these positions; I don't think this situation was even considered at all.  The closest they come was "people in service of their country" being exempt from the law.  I don't know if that applies here, but I don't think it's necessary for Emanuel to win the argument.

          The fact that his job was a temp position in another city is different from someone who up and moved their family for a full-time indefinite job in another city.

        •  No there isn't. The City ordinance is not the (0+ / 0-)

          same as the state voting rule, and requires a candidiate to LIVE in the city for one year prior to running.

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

          by bobdevo on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:51:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The printer is making out like a bandit. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HairyTrueMan, drmah, JeffW, amk for obama

    They started printing last night.

    It'd be fun to get both versions as collector items.

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

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:46:40 AM PST

  •  He made them an offer they couldn't refuse (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jwinIL14, happymisanthropy

  •  Fingers crossed it sticks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trinite

    The worst outcome would involve him denied a spot on the ballot and then the White House brings him back in some capacity...

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:47:05 AM PST

  •  residency laws (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GlowNZ

    Residency laws are foolish--if the voters want somebody, they should be able to vote for that person.  

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:51:07 AM PST

  •  Never a dull moment here in IL politics .... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Molly Weasley, jriches, GreenDog

    ... never.    *sigh*

    " It's shocking what Republicans will do to avoid being the 2012 presidential nominee."

    by jwinIL14 on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:54:15 AM PST

  •  The Wrath of Rahm (5+ / 0-)

    If Emanuel loses his fight to stay in the race, his reaction could be epic.

    I understand William Shatner is slated to shout "RAHM!" in the movie version.

  •  If I'm ever a political leader, elected or not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, annieli

    I promise not to swear, otherwise that's going to be the defining feature about me.

  •  Rahm bought election w/$$,$$$,$$$ from Corpocracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    this is real politics, not the fantasy islannd stuff people think.  Vote for which corporate candidate you want to.We don't have a democracy, we have a Corpracracy


    80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

    Christina Taylor Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

    by Churchill on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:59:03 AM PST

  •  Ill & Chi is broke, he Corprate-Man will fix it? (0+ / 0-)


    80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

    Christina Taylor Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

    by Churchill on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:00:07 AM PST

  •  Ah good old Chicago. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew C White, lilsky

    It never fails to deliver on a political side show.

    What are the core principles of the Democratic Party? Serious Question...

    by Beelzebud on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:01:13 AM PST

  •  This thing is a soap opera. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, lilsky, shenderson

    All it needs is a sighting of the ghost of Al Capone.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:10:21 AM PST

  •  That's fair (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    The case as presented in Adam's post last night makes a strong argument for his being excluded from the ballot.

    However, it is not an absolutely conclusive one and given the immediacy of the ballot printing it makes sense to issue the stay and allow his name on the ballot.

    That in turn however presents its own problems. What if in later review they determine he is in fact not eligible but in the meantime he has won the election? Does the court overrule the will of the people and invalidate the election? Seems highly unlikely even if at the moment it looks like he is ineligible as a candidate in this particular election cycle.

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

    by Andrew C White on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:11:53 AM PST

  •  "... his reaction could be epic." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden

    LOL! A lame ruling to begin with. I hope he gets to run.

  •  Rahmo (0+ / 0-)

    Of course this criminal will win. It's the Chicago way!

  •  Just In: IL Supreme Court will hear case. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David in NY, GlowNZ, 57andFemale

    To do everything I can to make sure our economy is growing, creating jobs, and strengthening our middle class. That's my resolution for the coming year.

    by BarackStarObama on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:26:57 AM PST

  •  He's gonna be allowed to run (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DFutureIsNow

    And you can take that to the bank.

    Anybody like to place a bet on that?

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    by jkay on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:27:29 AM PST

    •  I would have lost the bet on app. court ruling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B

      so, no.

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:10:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

      The Chicago city ordinance is quite explicit =:

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

      The appellate court ruled:

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

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

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

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

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

      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

    •  Not so sure now..... (0+ / 0-)

      .....no additional briefs or oral arguments, just the case as presented to the Appeals court.  

      So I'm not so sure Rahm is going to win this.  If allowed to argue the merits of the decision, I think he could have possibly won.  Now I'm not sure.  

      •  He is allowed to argue the merits, (0+ / 0-)

        that is, the briefs he filed below, as well as his petition to the Supreme Court, argue them, and the court will consider those arguments.  So, unless he failed to argue the "merits" in the Court of Appeals, his arguments will be before the Supreme Court.  Given that ballots have to be printed by next Monday, this is about the only way it could be done.

        I don't think the procedure here has much to do with the outcome.

  •  This order actually makes some sense . . . (0+ / 0-)

    his name will be printed on the ballot, but the Court may be able to rule before voting . . .

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

    by bobdevo on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:46:56 AM PST

  •  Guys: Actually READ the opinion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tantris, slatsg

    Not to be snarky, but honestly, there are 358 comments and this could be easily 60 if people would read the opinion.

    1. How can being WHCOS not count as serving your country ???? How could the court ignore that????

    Answer: They DIDNT! The court addresses it and concludes it WAS serving your country, but it doesn't relate to CANDIDATE qualification. It relates to VOTER qualification.

    1. How could the majority ignore "decades of strong judicial precedent"?

    Answer: Umm, because they didn't and you're parroting the very sloppy and angry dissent which cited inappropriate and inapplicable case law as precedent.

    1. How could the majority conclude he didn't live there? Now congresspeople wont be able to maintain their candidacies. Now president Obama wont qualify.

    Answer: (a) Because he DIDNT live there. (b) Congressional qualifications are not set in the Municipal Code and nearly all maintain a residence in their home state or district. Rahm did not. (c) No one is living exclusively in President Obama's house. When he returns to Chicago, he can sleep there or do whatever he likes. Plus, he's President. Not an office governed by the Municipal Code.

    As Mary Mitchell in the Sun-Times correctly pointed out the surprise is not that Rahm got thrown off the ballot, it is that he ever got on in the first place.

    Whether you like the decision or think the IL law is good public policy, this was NOT at all a close call for the Appellate court. This was an easy case. Judge Hoffman is a VERY highly respected judge. His opinion is very carefully and thoroughly crafted.

    This doesn't mean for a second that the IL Supreme Court won't come down the other way, but this was not at all a tough case.

    And seriously, before we hit 600 comments, please, actually bother to read the opinion. It would have stopped more than 2/3rds of these comments.

    Cleverly enough, actually READ the case

    In re: ideological purity-- We can't govern if we don't win-Toby Ziegler

    by ChicagoCillen on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:51:01 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site