Chicago Mayor Election 2011: Emanuel has big lead in Tribune poll

[cinyc]

Just let him on the ballot. Let the people of Chicago decide this with their votes.

Eligibility laws should not be ignored.  Otherwise, why bother enacting them?

[cinyc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chicago_mayor_emanuel

I guess he's not on the ballot. Hello Mayor Moseley-Braun?

It means the GOP has a shot for an upset. If they play their cards right.

That's not going to happen.  For starters, the election is non-partisan.  And the last time a Chicago mayoral election was partisan, the Republicans ran a clown - literally - that was his day job.   He got less than 10% of the vote.  Heck, IIRC, it was less than 5%.

[cinyc]

Rahm can pull a Murkowski and run as a write-in if need be.

No he can't, unless the latest ruling is overturned on appeal to the Illinois Supremes.  Under the intermediate Illinois appellate court's reading of the relevant law, he isn't eligible to hold the Chicago mayor's office.   According to the ruling, that law states:
"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 ***."

[cinyc]

Kicking opponents off the ballot, it should be said, is a time-honored Illinois tradition.

Something Barack Obama knows well.

[cinyc]

Kicking opponents off the ballot, it should be said, is a time-honored Illinois tradition.

This one actually seems legitimate though.

Yeah, and I'm sure the lawyers bringing the suit have the noblest of civic intentions.

Since when is getting the no good bum who's not paying you knocked off the ballot so that the great, virtuous politician who is paying you wins the election not "the noblest of civic intentions"?

[cinyc]

I really don't like Rahm, but I don't feel like this court ruling was quite right.

Did you actually read the ruling or is this based on some sense of "fairness"? 

The law is what it is.  The judge who wrote the opinion is apparently well-respected.  We'll have to see if the Illinois Supreme Court even hears the appeal.

[cinyc]

I really don't like Rahm, but I don't feel like this court ruling was quite right.

Did you actually read the ruling or is this based on some sense of "fairness"?  

The law is what it is.  The judge who wrote the opinion is apparently well-respected.  We'll have to see if the Illinois Supreme Court even hears the appeal.

I think there's an emotional sense of wrongness associated with the concept of kicking off the leading candidate with a split court decision (2-1) and based off of strict local rules that wouldn't necessarily apply elsewhere.  There's a feeling that the courts should error on the side of leniency when it comes to ballot access, I think

What's legally correct, is, of course, another matter

What's fair is for a law that has been on the books for decades be uniformly enforced, regardless of whether the candidate in question is a former clown or former adviser to the President of the United States.  And what's fair is that if a state like Illinois strictly adheres to the letter of the law when kicking people off the ballots, that they do so even when the candidate in question is a former adviser to the President of the United States.  If the election law was strictly applied to knock Barack Obama's opponents off of the State Senate ballot, fairness dictates that the law equally be strictly applied here.

[cinyc]

Of course, of course.  The law should be interpreted consistently, and if it seems wrong or outdated, be changed for future elections.  I wasn't commenting on that because I doubt anyone cares that I think that, I'm simply musing on the situation.

All I said was that there is a feeling of "wrongness" if you will, about the whole situation.  It's not surprising that it requires a leading candidate (as opposed to a clown) to almost get knocked off in order to draw sufficient attention to the rules to get them reformed. 

Usually knocking off opponents is a tool for stronger candidates to muscle out the weaker ones in advance, not the other way around.  As long as it was the outsiders getting the boot, naturally, it's not an issue of prominence among the rulemakers.

I actually think that there should be a residency requirement for municipal office because those who don't live there don't understand the town's problems as well as those who do.  Someone who moves to Washington DC for two years isn't on the ground to hear about the local issues that matter most.  But to each his own, I suppose.

[cinyc]

So wait...is it really unlikely that this ruling will be overturned? I've been too busy telling all of my Rahm-hating friends that he'll be back on.

This is too good to be true. Way too good.

The Illinois Supreme Court need not hear the appeal - but my guess is they probably will decide to, since the stakes are fairly high - that is, unless a clear majority thinks this decision is correct.  Then, it comes down to whether the Illinois Supremes do a strict statutory construction like the majority opinion does or follow the logic of the dissent.   Not knowing a thing about who is on the Illinois Supreme Court, how they usually rule or whether the precedents actually say what the majority or dissenting opinions claim they say means I wouldn't even attempt to guess how they're going rule.

[cinyc]

Actually, it also occurs to me that stricter election laws, as a whole, might favor establishment candidates over political newcomers and outsiders. This happens to be one of the cases where it is the reverse, but I'm curious about other prominent cases? Bysiewicz's run for AG in Connecticut?

Bysewicz truly got hoisted by "the noblest of civic intentions" - the musings of a Connecticut legal blogger who wondered aloud whether she was eligible to hold the AG's office, which then got picked up in the local media.   Bysewicz is actually the one who brought the lawsuit to prove that she was eligible, after asking AG Blumenthal for his opinion.  The courts didn't agree with her theory.

Best I can tell, the blogger wasn't that well connected to the political elite or her opponents.  But you have to remember the Democratic AG field was fairly crowded, and it never was preordained that Bysewicz would win.   Many parties intervened in the lawsuit once it started, including the Connecticut Republican Party.

[cinyc]

He has a house in Chicago that he rented out while he was Chief of Staff. The argument is that although he had a residence in the city, he did not actually reside there.

That's very tight for a residency requirement for anything. How long has IL law been like that?

(no sympathy, mind. He should have checked).

If you believe the majority opinion, over a century; if you believe the dissent, since about yesterday.

Rahm rented out his Illinois house and rented another house in DC.  But he kept his Illinois drivers license, kept his Illinois bank account, kept paying Illinois income taxes, kept a bunch of stuff in storage at the Illinois house, and supposedly told friends he'd be back in two years.  Ironically, for Illinois income tax purposes, he'd probably have a tough time claiming he wasn't domiciled in Illinois during the period.  But the majority claims domicile isn't the same as residence.

Edited to add: Rahm also voted in Illinois - and the opinion makes it clear that he still can, since there is an explicit exception for people out of state doing the business of the United States.  That exception doesn't appear in the second prong of the municipal office eligibility statute (you must both 1) be an eligible voter and 2) have resided in the municipality for a year prior to the election to be eligible to hold municipal office) - which was (arguably) muddied by a recently added exception for those serving in the military, but not otherwise working for the federal government.  

I have to say that as a strict matter of statutory interpretation, I side with the majority opinion.  Rahm had no Chicago residence that he was entitled to return to for much of the past year.  Had he not leased out his home, the answer might be different.  But whether prior Illinois court precedents can be read in the way the majority claims is way above my pay grade.

[cinyc]

The Illinois Supreme Court is going to hear the case, but isn't asking for new briefs, and will not even hold oral argument.

Given that they've also issued the stay, forcing his name on the ballots - at least temporarily - I think odds are very good that the court will deem Emanuel eligible.  But we'll see.  Early voting starts very soon - or already has.

Also, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that at least initially, Rahm Emanuel claimed part-time residency for Illinois tax purposes in 2009.  He has since amended that return.

[cinyc]

In Minnesota in 2002, a State Senator was drawn outside of his district after redistricting. He got his friend who owned a bar in the district that had a weird unused room in the backroom to "rent" him that room for like $50/month and declared that his official residence. It stood.

I don't think that residency requirements for state legislatures are constitutional.

And the reason for that is what?  

If the residency requirement is in the state constitution, it is by definition constitutional.  And the feds should have no say over residency requirements for state officials.

[cinyc]

It's a done deal, cinyc.  He's going to be on the ballot......and win.

Yes.  The die has been cast.  The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's ruling.

Edit: The text of the decision is here.  It appears to be unanimous, though there is a separate concurring opinion.

[cinyc]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48260.html

2 page story on a fake twitter feed

My only question is how did they find a tweet from that account without a swear word in it for their graphic?