January 24, 2011

An Illinois appellate court says Rahm Emanuel isn't a Chicago resident and can't run for mayor.

There's still the Illinois Supreme Court. He has another level of appeal, but the election is less than a month away.

First the Bears, and now this. Life is hard in Chicago.

124 comments:

Famous Original Mike said...

The judges that made that ruling had better get some extra security for their families. Rahm isn't going to take this like a fucking fuck and fucking lie the fuck down and just fuck off.

TWM said...

---Baby circle dance---

So, Professor, what is the Illinois Supreme court like? Left, right, in-between?

PaulV said...

Someone else copies Obama and get opponent kick off ballot

WV: stellibo
a stellibo to Rahmbo's heart

Scott M said...

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, let his royal naked shower finger pointer sally forth into the dust bin.

Jay said...

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

AJ Lynch said...

Too bad this won't hold up when it goes to the IL Supremes who I suspect are beholden to the liberal, schmuck Dems of IL.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Mr. Emanuel will get this reversed, or he won't. Either way, Chicago will elect him or a similar Democrat. Then they'll get similar government to what they've historically gotten.

The only real significance this story has for me is that Mr. Emanuel has approached the office with a certain sense of entitlement, and I always like to see a sense of entitlement thwarted. But aside from that, I don't see much here that will change anything in Chicago.

The Drill SGT said...

without focusing on Rahm specifically, isn't this tactic one for Chi Pols?

Get your opponent's petition tossed?

Get your opponent disqualified?

Obama did it a couple of times

Coketown said...

But if Rahm can't run, a Republican might be elected! Oh wait. Is a Republican even running? Maybe some of those 9% undecideds will get confused and accidentally vote Republican. That'll be a fluke of the same magnitude as when St. Olaf elected Old Brisker, the horse, water commissioner.

Florida said...

"So, Professor, what is the Illinois Supreme court like? Left, right, in-between?"

Because we know this won't be decided according to the law.

It will be decided according to the political leanings of each hand-picked judge, since we're no long a nation of laws.

But of men.

And I'm quite certain that Rahm has the ability to "reach out and touch" this court.

He'll be mayor shortly.

Original Mike said...

"First the Bears, and now this. Life is hard in Chicago."

Nah, this is a ray of sunshine for the residents of Mudville.

TWM said...

"Because we know this won't be decided according to the law."

There's a far greater chance of that happening if there are more liberal judges on the court than conservative.

That's just a fact . . .

Deirdre Mundy said...

Ugh-- does this mean Carol Mosely Braun is the next mayor of Chicago?

Well, on the bright side, that should be really GOOD....for Northwestern Indiana, which will pick up all the fleeing business/residents.

I hope the Museums stay nice, at least. They're a real treat for the kiddies! And if you take the skyway, it doesn't take any MORE time to reach them than it does from parts of Chicago proper....

Revenant said...

Residency requirements for elections seem pretty ridiculous to me. If the majority of people want the guy to represent them, who cares where he lives? I can think of hundreds of people I'd like to have as Governor of California or Mayor of San Diego who, tragically, don't actually live here.

That being said, the law's the law.

AJ Lynch said...

"the law's the law".

Rev- that is the cruz to me as well. It burns me up when the connected skirt it.

AllenS said...

Oh, come on. It's not like he was born in Kenya.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Carol Mosely Braun, just what Chicago deserves.

Phil 3:14 said...

Apropos this,the next post, and recent weather in Chicago:

It will be a cold day in hell when...

Chris said...

Maybe this is good news for Chicago, though.

Mary Martha said...

The Supreme Court will likely reverse this. However, it's nice to see that at least 2 judges in Illinois can read the law and are not beholden to political party.

When Rahm gets elected he will have a dickens of a time convincing my friends who are Chicago cops that they MUST live in Chicago (as they are required to do). Why can't they just rent out their homes and move their families to the suburbs? After all, he has set that precedent... having a rental unit in the city = residency.

The Crack Emcee said...

"First the Bears, and now this. Life is hard in Chicago."

And?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Martin L. Shoemaker,

Mr. Emanuel will get this reversed, or he won't. Either way, Chicago will elect him or a similar Democrat. Then they'll get similar government to what they've historically gotten.

No. They haven't got a "similar Democrat." They have a bunch of other Democrats who are obviously not Rahm-level, or they'd be in a Chicago-centered Obama Administration as he was. I ought not to judge by the fact that the only one with national name recognition (as they insist on calling it) is Carol Moseley Braun, but between him and her, honestly, who'd you rather run your life?

I vacillate between thinking some aspects of government honestly ought to be left to people who can possibly understand them, and sticking resolutely to the Bill Buckley "Cambridge phone directory" formulary.

There's the added problem that Rahm is likely to be as competent as you get in Chicago politics, but Carol would be much more entertaining. If you don't think people think about this all the time re states they don't actually live in, recall the campaigns of Jesse Ventura and Al Franken.


wv: essig!

Andre said...

Rev,

The law is the law, but almost all election residency requirements allow for you to reside somewhere other than your residency. For example if a student from Illinois goes to Harvard, they can continue to call them selves a resident of Illinois (admittedly MA state law complicates this a bit, but the principle holds). The question, which actually seems to me to be a legitimate place for court adjudication is, does taking a job like White House Chief of Staff supplant your residency? Clearly serving in Congress doesn't, does taking a short term contract position at the White House? I'm personally inclined to say it doesn't, but I'm certainly open to being wrong on this point. (and I say that as someone who would laugh at Emmanuel getting some Comeupance)

Florida said...

"The Supreme Court will likely reverse this."

On what grounds?

The law says that a candidate must live in Chicago for 1 year prior to the election.

It's clear as a bell. There's nothing to "interpret" except the plain English language meaning of those words.

Rahm Emmanuel is not qualified to be the mayor because he did not "reside in" Chicago.

Doesn't say "maintain a residence."

Law says all candidates must "reside in" Chicago. It deliberately says that to keep people like Rahm Emmnauel from being able to run.

The law's wording is precisely to prevent a person from doing what Rahm Emmanuel is attempting to do ... swoop in from the outside ... outside the reach of the voters ... and run for mayor.

So, on what grounds would the Supreme Court reverse, excepting court corruption?

Florida said...

" ... almost all election residency requirements allow for you to reside somewhere other than your residency. "

Except this is not a "residency requirement."

If it were, the law sould say that all candidates must "maintain a residence in Chicago." Then it would be a residency requirement.

This law deliberately doesn't say that. It deliberately says that the candidate himself must "reside in" Chicago. Not own a house ... not visit from time to time ... but to "reside in" Chicago.

The law means what it says and does not mean what it does not say.

Simple as that.

Only corrupt judges would argue otherwise.

traditionalguy said...

Residency is anywhere you spend the night and evidence the intention of staying there for a time. Therefore you may establish another residence without ending the first residence. BUT evidence of ending the first residence is possible...such as in this case where he moved out all of his stuff and rented possession of the place to others. Think marriage to one wife, and add a second and a third like a Moslem who keeps them all. But divorcing the first wife can also be shown.

former law student said...

Decision at
http://www.state.il.us/court/
opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/
1stDistrict/January/1110033.pdf

I found Lampkin's dissent persuasive, especially when he chides the opinion writer for going against previous decisions he had signed onto.

If residence is not domicile, then both Mayor Daleys were ineligible to run because they had residences in Grand Beach, Michigan as well as Chicago.

traditionalguy said...

Also there is an exception for persons in the military who make No Choice, but are ordered to go somewhere else. The military folks can later chose to change residency from the State they enlisted in but it stays that home state if no declaration of choice of a change is made...thus allowing absentee ballots in elections.

former law student said...

The law says that a candidate must live in Chicago for 1 year prior to the election.


Emanuel lived in Chicago for several years prior to the election. He was considered to be resident in Chicago even though he slept every night in DC -- as a congressman

edutcher said...

Forget the whole dead fish thing.

Considering Tippytoes' connections, every one of the judges on that panel better set up a Predator watch.

former law student said...

The best remaining candidate appears to be Gery Chico, a lawyer and law graduate of Loyola.

Anne B. said...

My guess is that the ballots are already printed up and ready to go. Rahm the Thug, Mosley Braun the Moron, and a couple of also-rans with Hispanic surnames.

I think people will vote for him anyway, even if he's ruled ineligible. What happens after that, I don't know.

madawaskan said...

Jeebus I love that rational....

"Well if the Daleys did it-it must be legal!"

Florida said...

"If residence is not domicile ..."

What do you mean "if." Of course they are not the same.

Domicile is the place where you have your permanent home or principal establishment and to where, whenever you are absent, you intend to return.

Residency is the the act of dwelling in a place.

"Domicile" is an adjective.

"Residency" is a verb.

Emmanuel kept a domicile in Chicago, but he did not "reside in" Chicago.

The law plainly states that all candidates for mayor must "reside in" Chicago - not merely maintain a domicile there.

former law student said...

The law plainly states that all candidates for mayor must "reside in" Chicago - not merely maintain a domicile there.


Then the Daleys were ineligible by virtue of the time they spent at their summer residences.

MadisonMan said...

I think Emanuel would be a lousy mayor.

I agree with Revenant. This seems like a silly law too. Hasn't he lived in Chicago for most of his life? Yet because he serves the Fed Govt he loses his Residency? That seems odd.

Why not let the people decide, rather than a judge?

Florida said...

"Then the Daleys were ineligible by virtue of the time they spent at their summer residences."

Why yes. Yes they were.

But past wrongs do not make a right today now do they?

the wolf said...

First the Bears, and now this. Life is hard in Chicago.

Given that Carol Moseley Braun is a viable candidate we were already screwed.

Big Mike said...

Waht happened to "da Bears" was bad for Chicago, but ruling Rahm that Rahm is not a Chicago resident, as he clearly was not, gives Chicago a teeny, tiny chance at avoiding bankruptcy.

Florida said...

"Yet because he serves the Fed Govt he loses his Residency? That seems odd."

It seems odd because that's not what happened. The law is not a "residency requirement."

The law states ... in plain English ... that all candiates for mayor must "reside in Chicago" for the 12 months preceeding the election. (Not keep a domicile, not own a house, not intend to return ... but actually "reside in
Chicago.")

It is a perfectly reasonable law written and worded in such a way as to prevent precisely what Rahm Emmanuel is trying to do.

If it is a bad law, the citizens of the city of Chicago can change their laws.

But Rahm Emmanuel can't.

Seven Machos said...

What most of you people are missing is that Chicago needs a mayor and will almost certainly elect a Democrat. If not Emmanuel, who? Did you know that Carolyn Mosely Braun is on this ballot? No one is more corrupt. Emmanuel is a saint compared to her.

This is one where it's be careful what you wish for. I myself will be writing in Richard Daley. Haven't decided which one.

Florida said...

"Given that Carol Moseley Braun is a viable candidate we were already screwed."

She'd be a great mayor.

She could make Chicago the Detroit of Illinois.

AJ Lynch said...

What do they need a mayor for anyway?

Lamar63 said...

Here is the statute in question:

3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal 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 ***." 65 ILCS
5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008).

The statute talks to two sepearte requirements. The first requirement is to be an eligible voter and the second requirement is to have resided in the city for one year prior. Clearly one can be an eligible voter but not an eligible candidate.

former law student said...

"Well if the Daleys did it-it must be legal!"


If a certain provision of law was interpreted one way for six decades, is it fair to interpret it another way against a person not named Daley?

Seven Machos said...

Mayor Daley has been absolutely great for this city. The renaissance here is unparalleled. The next mayor is going to suck in comparison just because that's the way it goes. The next mayor is going to really, really suck if it's Moseley Braun. But I don't think she has a chance.

Florida said...

"What do they need a mayor for anyway?"

To hold the doors open for the mob.

Why? Who holds the doors open in your city?

Seven Machos said...

Florida -- You obviously don't live in Chicago. You should visit. It's the greatest American city.

Florida said...

"If a certain provision of law was interpreted one way for six decades, is it fair to interpret it another way against a person not named Daley?"

Yes, if the law was interpreted corruptly in the past, and now, we've decided not to intepret it corruptly.

former law student said...

Chicago. ... is the greatest American city.

Not so much this time of year. Say, does that lucha libre mask work like a balaclava?

Seven Machos said...

It is cold and depressing right now, definitely. I swear it hasn't been sunny for three weeks. These facts do not dampen my love for my city, though.

madawaskan said...

Dude I just think it's funny as hell.

I dunno-

if Mr. "X" has never been caught for doing wrong hell give everyone a pass!

Maybe it's never been questioned before...

So I question your assertion that "it" has been interpreted.

How about that?

And, I just wouldn't trot that formulation out in front of a judge with the public watching-

"well the Daleys did it so...."

Ha! That should get me bitch slapped, no?

Revenant said...

What do they need a mayor for anyway?

It makes it easier to figure out who to indict next.

madawaskan said...

Say, does that lucha libre mask work like a balaclava?

Only when he's debatin' himself.

traditionalguy said...

Let me try this again. Having more than one residence simultaneously is easy. A summer Home or a mountain cottage can be a simultaneous extra residence to your house in the city...no problem. BUT, a man cannot move all of his effects out of a summer home or a mountain cabin and rent it out to another without ending his extra residency residency there.

Scott M said...

What do they need a mayor for anyway?

It makes it easier to figure out who to indict next.


No, that's the governor's office.

Michele said...

FLS, the dissenting justice, Lampkin, is a woman.

former law student said...

tradguy: The precedent of having multiple residences in and out of Chicago during a single year helps Rahm. Rahm physically resided in Chicago for part of 2009 and part of 2010. His family with all the furniture, etc. stayed in Chicago till the school year was out in June, 2009. Rahm has been physically present in Chicago since October 2010. He's only been away from Chicago for 16 months in the past decade.

Methadras said...

In Chigacoland, this is all nothing more than a hurdle to be jumped. Let the palm greasing and deal making commence.

former law student said...

Michele, the decision is free from any indications of gender other than that of the presiding judge.

traditionalguy said...

FLS...I hear you, but being a ChiTown residence a part of a year prior to the election is not the issue. The issue is being a ChiTown resident an entire year prior to the election. Oops, no cigar.

Ralph L said...

"Domicile" is an adjective.
"Residency" is a verb.
In what language?

former law student said...

Tradguy: temporary absences don't affect residency unless intent to abandon residency is shown. The leading Ill. Supreme Court case is Smith v. People ex rel. Frisbie, 44 Ill. 16, from 1867. (Elected judge had lived in Tennesee for seven months during the five year residency required to be candidate.)

Phil 3:14 said...

Now if he were buried in Chicago, that would have been a different story altogether.

Ask Richard Nixon.

Michele said...

So what FLS? Don't ass-u-me that justices are men. 5 seconds on Google and you're statement could have been correct. In this case, two of the three justices were women. You're welcome.

madawaskan said...

Actually Carol Mosleey Braun as mayor of Chicago makes it look like the Cloward Priven Strategy for Chicago is on it's way.

Seven Machos said...

I'm a feminist, babe.

traditionalguy said...

FLS...We are in agreement now. Intent to abandon residency must be shown. And the court said that it was shown. Courts must find evidence somewhere of a mental act of intent. So they as courts must they looked to his conduct which abandoned his former residence , not to his secret thoughts.

former law student said...

Michele, if Illinois' judiciary thinks the gender of its judges is irrelevant to its decisions, who am I to disagree?

Alex Ignatiev said...

That's an interesting review of the decision of an administrative agency. I've read it twice, and I find I'm more persuaded by the dissent than the majority opinion. Also, the refusal of the majority to certify the question of law to the Supreme Court is surprising, to say the least. If Judge Lampkin is right, this is a case of first impression and so it ought to be certified.

former law student said...

tradguy: he rented his house out while he took a temp job in DC for the President. I see no intent to abandon residency in any of that.

Not even the most looney leftist would see the position of Obama's chief of staff as anything but temporary.

PaulV said...

fls. how much time did the Daley spend out of Chicago and how much in Chicago?
Did the Daleys sign a tenant to a long term lease and were they absentee landlords like Emanuel was?

WV: coussest
Isn't Rahmbo the coussest?

PaulV said...

If Rahmbo intended to return why did he sign tenant to long term lease which tenant forced him to honor?

Seven Machos said...

Well, as someone who had this exact same shit happen to them -- moving to D.C., working for the federal government, renting a home I owned in Chicago, just not the part about running for mayor -- I come down against Emmanuel. Running for mayor is different than voting or paying taxes. The man knew the risks and knew or should have known the law. He should have made a better attempt to follow it.

There's always next time, Rahm. Chicago will still be here.

Ralph L said...

I see no intent to abandon residency in any of that.
Well, no, except for renting his house to someone else. Did he rent it "furnished?"

Seven Machos said...

I rented my house to someone else here in Chicago and moved to Washington, New York, and the former Yugoslavia. I had no intent to abandon my house.

PaulV said...

Seven, no one said Rahmbo abandoned his house. He bacame absentee landlord, failed to pay local taxes and lost his residency. He filed amended returns only after he decided to run for mayor.

former law student said...

moving to D.C., working for the federal government

Were you a political appointee or part of the civil service? Big difference in expectations and outcomes.

Florida said...

"I see no intent to abandon residency in any of that."

Residency is not the issue.

Candidates must "reside in" Chicago. Not merely maintain residency in Chicago.

There is a difference.

Rahm did maintain a domicile in Chicago that was his legal residency, but he did not "reside in" Chicago for the requisite time period.

Merely maintaining a legal residency is not enough.

He must reside in it.

This is not a difficult concept, even for a former law student.

former law student said...

failed to pay local taxes

What local taxes did he fail to pay?

I have a friend who lives in Illinois but who has work assignments in Ohio. He pays income tax to both states, proportionate to the amount of income he receives for working in both states.

former law student said...

but he did not "reside in" Chicago for the requisite time period.

That's what the Ill. Supreme Ct. will decide.

Whether "reside in" means "put your head on a pillow every night in" or whether the requirement is somewhat less.

Florida said...

"That's what the Ill. Supreme Ct. will decide."

No, they won't.

The Supreme Court cannot decide its own facts.

The plain fact is that Rahm Emmanual did not reside in Chicago. He and his family resided in Washington, D.C. This fact was not in dispute and was stipulated by both the parties, as the appellate court stated on page 1 of its opinion if you'd care to read it.

Residency is not the issue. The definition of residency is not the issue.

Everyone stipulates that Rahm Emmanual had legal residency in Illinois. He can vote, thus, he had legal residency.

But he did not reside there.

He resided in Washington, D.C. and thus is not qualified to be on the ballot for mayor.

To be on the ballot, maintaining legal residency in Chicago is not enough. You must actually live there.

gadfly said...

If this ruling holds, this is good news for "Chicano" Gery Chico who might have the smarts to run the city, whereas Moseley-Braun's success comes only from name recognition, black skin, gender and political successes handed to her by the Machine. She is definitely a few french fries short of a Happy Meal.

Robin said...

What's hilarious is that the whole reason that this is an issue is that Rahm did not want to take the hit of the cost of leaving his house in Chicago empty while he was in the White House.

Ah, rulez, dey's for the little people.

rhhardin said...

"The law is the law" isn't a tautology.

The first law is taken broadly enough to cover the case at hand and the second is taken narrowly enough to pick out the features you want to claim for the first law.

The second law carries a typifying pregnancy.

Florida said...

"Ah, rulez, dey's for the little people."

This is so true.

But the Illinois Supreme Court, in order to somehow rule in Rahm's favor, needs an out.

He didn't give them one.

So, it will be extremely difficult for them to be corrupt without it being blatantly obvious that they are corrupt (which they are, but the want the veneer of respectability.)

Rahm may have to be sacrificed on the alter of the veneer of respectibility.

At any rate, if Rahm can't run, then the next mayor can be bribed to resign at the appropriate moment (which will be when Rahm meets the eligibility requirements).

The bribe will come in the form of an Obama appointment to some ambassadorship or other highly paid post.

Then Rahm can be mayor.

There's 9 ways to rig this from Sunday and they will rig it. Because they're as corrupt as the day is long.

former law student said...

whole reason that this is an issue is that Rahm did not want to take the hit of the cost of leaving his house in Chicago empty

Leaving his house empty would not meet the "head on pillow every night" criterion. But it would leave it open to vandalism, squatting, frozen pipes, etc.

Unlived in houses deteriorate rapidly.

Florida said...

"Unlived in houses deteriorate rapidly."

Almost as rapidly as political ambitions.

former law student said...

What happened to the professor's house while she lived in Brooklyn? Did she lose Wisconsin residency?

Kirby Olson said...

Yes we can!

PaulV said...

fls,
going away to school in another state is temporary. Prof does not get NY residence or lose Wisconsin's.
Why did Rahmbo only file his IL and Chicago returns late after he decided to run. Mere coincidence?

Chris said...

I don't get it. I thought Rahm was supposed to be this super-scary, ultra-formidable shark because he yells at people.

PaulV said...

FLS,
"Burt Odelson, a lawyer representing some of objectors to the candidacy, has cited Emanuel's 2009 Illinois tax return, which the former presidential aide amended from part-time to full-year resident only after challenges to his campaign were filed."
Why would he have done that?

former law student said...

The professor worked a temp job in Brooklyn for a year, if I recall correctly. She did not "go to school"

Like many people, Rahm earned income from working in two states. He needed to pay income tax to Ill and to DC. What was the proper form to use? He picked the part year resident one.

Chicago has no income tax, so I don't know what you're talking about

Florida said...

"Why would he have done that?"

His intention was to be the Chief of Staff for the entirety of Carter's term of office.

Events ... alas ...

Florida said...

"Chicago has no income tax, so I don't know what you're talking about ..."

Illinois has an income tax ... which Democrats just increased by 66% (causing people and jobs to leave Illinois).

Maybe Rahm was trying to avoid that like any person residing in Washington, DC would seek to do.

Why pay taxes in a place you do not reside in and have no intention of residing in?

former law student said...

Maybe Rahm was trying to avoid that like any person residing in Washington, DC would seek to do.

Sure, why pay a flat rate of 3% to Illinois, when you could pay a marginal rate of 8.5% to DC?

Why pay taxes in a place you do not reside in and have no intention of residing in?

You have to pay taxes to the source of your income, if you are present there when you earn it.


Individual Income Tax The taxable income of an individual who is domiciled in the District at any time during the tax year, or who maintains an abode in the District for 183 or more days during the year.

DC Code Citation: Title 47, Chapter 18. First $10,000 = 4.0%
$10,000 < $40,000 = $400 + 6.0% of excess above $10,000

More than $40,000 = $2,200 + 8.5% of excess above $40,000

traditionalguy said...

FLS...The Professor went to Brooklyn adding a residence there. She retained her residence in Wisconsin if she left stuff in an un-rented house in Wisconsin evidencing that she had not abandoned her Wisconsin residency. Had the Professor removed her stuff from her Wisconsin house and granted full possession to a tenant, then she would have evidenced her abandonment of the Wisconsin residence. Courts have to use an evidence standard to find intent. Double dog swearing that the evidence is not what the intent really was cannot replace the evidence standard.

former law student said...

tradguy: even if our professor didn't, professors on sabbaticals rent out their homes all the time

Revenant said...

Unlived in houses deteriorate rapidly.

And?

Florida said...

"You have to pay taxes to the source of your income, if you are present there when you earn it."

What is your point FLS?

Rahm Emmanuel doesn't meet the plainly stated requirements to run for the office of mayor of the city of Chicago.

He did not reside in Chicago for the last 12 months, regardless of where or two whom he decided to donate tax money to.

I don't get it. Why can't you just admit that Rahm Emmanuel isn't qualified to run for mayor, as the court ruled today?

You agree that he did not reside in Chicago ... right?

former law student said...

Wanting to preserve one's home by installing tenants argues against abandonment.

former law student said...

You agree that he did not reside in Chicago

That's the question for courts to decide. If a nine-month's absence to Tennessee did not interrupt residence a century ago, I don't see how it would affect Rahm today.

Revenant said...

Wanting to preserve one's home by installing tenants argues against abandonment.

There's nothing in the law about "abandonment". The law refers to residing there.

So, yes, if you own a house and you aren't residing in it, it'll degrade. Renting it out helps with the degradation... but it doesn't automagically mean that YOU now qualify as residing there. :)

PETER V. BELLA said...

This is not as cut and dried as it appears. Residency is defined in the Board of Election ordinances and State law. There are discrepancies in the two definitions.

Rahm rented out his home. He no longer could claim to live or reside there. It was no longer his address- even though he claimed it. Technically, he could not even vote from there. Just like you cannot register to vote from a vacant lot or vacant building (yes people do this).

Rahm could have changed his address to a relative's home- which would have been legitimate. He failed to do this.

There is no telling what the Supreme Court will do. There are too many variables at play- especially the definition of residency as it applies to candidates.

BTW, FLS- Lampkin is female.

To those looking for Republicans, Chicago elections have been non-partisan since 1999 to keep the one party system in power.

Florida said...

"That's the question for courts to decide."

Courts do not decide facts. Courts apply the facts to the law and the law to the facts.

Facts are self-evident.

Florida said...

"Residency is defined in the Board of Election ordinances and State law."

Residency is not at issue.

Both sides stipulate that Rahm Emmanuel maintained a legal residence in the city of Chicago. That, however, is not enough.

He did not live in his legal residency or anywhere else in Chicago for that matter (and both sides also stipulate this fact, which is not subject to debate or court alteration).

Mere residency is not enough to be eligible to be mayor of Chicago. You must reside IN Chicago. You cannot maintain residency in Chicago but reside in Washington. That disqualifies you.

You must be reside in Chicago for 1 year prior to the date of the election. Not merely maintain legal residency. To vote, all you need do is maintain legal residency ... but to actually hold office, you can't be a fucking carpetbagger douchebag.

Florida said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

Florida -- You sure seem to know a lot about Chicago election law. Either that, or you are full of shit.

The fact is, this is a close-run thing that could go either way.

Also, why do you have such an interest in seeing Rahm Emmanuel not become mayor of Chicago when he is probably the best Democratic candidate? What's it to you?

traditionalguy said...

FLS...Offering the house to a guest as a sitter or keeper is no problem. But a grant away every possessory rights in a written covenant of quiet enjoyment is an abandonment of that residence...until something changes it back at a later date.

Florida said...

" ... when he is probably the best Democratic candidate?"

Carol Mosley Braun is clearly the best qualified candidate.

She'll bring to Chicago what only Kwame Kilpatrick could bring to Detroit.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=detroit+deterioration

Florida said...

"You sure seem to

a) know a lot about Chicago election law. Either that, or

b) you are full of shit."


The correct answer is A.

Fred4Pres said...

Illinois is in constant competition with Louisiana and New Jersey for most corrupt state in the union. These states are serious. If they were footballs teams, they all play far better than the Bears, Saints, and Giants (and or Jets) respectively.

Seven Machos said...

Florida -- I highly doubt it. My sense is that you are one of those people who insists on inserting themselves into every disagreement. Not for nothing have you been accused here on numerous occasions of being a Moby.

I bet you live nowhere near here. I bet you've never lived here. You just don't like Obama, so anything that could be perceived as bad for him is what you root for.

I don't like Obama, either, but this is just city politics.

Florida said...

"If a nine-month's absence to Tennessee did not interrupt residence a century ago, I don't see how it would affect Rahm today.

You are arguing a moot point. It is not Mr. Emmanual's "residence" which is at issue.

Both sides stipulate that Rahm Emmanuel maintained a residence, and maintained legal residency, in Chicago.

THAT. IS. NOT. ENOUGH.

He must reside in Chicago. (IN is the operative word).

He did not. He resided IN Washington.

Therefore, he is not qualified.

This is elementary and not in dispute as both sides have stipulated the relevant facts.

Will said...

I love how they let Rahm blow what must have been a gigantic wad of cash showing his lame campaign ads during the Bears-Packers game yesterday (which probably 80% of the Chicago metro area was tuned to) before they pulled the rug out from under him. But he did say that politics is not for people to get rich in (uhh wait, isn't that precisely what he did?). WIsh I had a recording of what Mr Pottymouth said!!! hahahaha

Ralph L said...

He should have hired Mary Worth to stay in his house. Cheapskate.

ErnieG said...

This is Chicago. If he can't fix this, he doesn't deserve to be mayor.

ErnieG said...

This is Chicago. If he can't fix this, he doesn't deserve to be mayor.

Marcia said...

I read the majority and dissenting opinions.

I think the dissent gets it right, albeit in an unnecessarily snarky opinion.

Melvin said...

The guy is perhaps the most miserable piece of shit ever in politics. Couldn't happen to a more deserving person. He can start writing refund checks for the $11M he has collected so far.

cokaygne said...

Interesting comments.

A lot of you guys are lawyers and you're arguing about what the word "reside" in the law means. This is such a reminder of Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

So what you lawyers are saying is that the dictionary of the English language should be written by lawyers and judges according to whether or not they like Clinton or Emanuel.

As a nice touch, Emanuel, like draft-dodger Clinton when he argued that he couldn't be served while President, is also using a law intended to protect members of the armed forces who, after all, are putting their lives on the line.

Do you not understand why people hate and despise lawyers, with the exception of Ms Althouse who has forsaken the law for higher education?

Alex Ignatiev said...

The inevitable consequence of the appellate decision in this case is that Mayor Daley wasn't eligible to run for mayor in the previous election, as he had in aggregate spent more than one day out of the year immediately prior to the election outside the municipal bounds of Chi-town.

abeer ahmed said...

For the latest news visit us on cnn.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/cnn.com