Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
As the New York Times reports, the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday restored Rahm Emanuel's name to the ballot, and will decide whether he may run for mayor.
The Illinois appellate court had little ground to deny Rahm Emanuel a place on the ballot for mayor of Chicago. This has nothing to do with whether one likes Emanuel. I, for one, think that Emanuel and the City of Chicago deserve each other. I don't practice Illinois election law, which must be a joy in and of itself, but the law seems pretty straightforward here. Chicago's law apparently states that a candidate must be "a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment." Illinois law says that no elector "shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States."
Since Emanuel was in DC, serving as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, the law does not consider him to have lost his residence in Chicago. Am I wrong about this? If not, then the Illinois Supreme Court should order the lower court decision stayed and order that Emanuel be included in the ballot. And then Emanuel can win election and get down to business overseeing the usual amount of Chicago political corruption.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
And, since neither Illinois or Chicago Municipal law require the elector to have a pulse, some of the more irregular Windy City voting practices are thereby explained.
Nov '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
John Yoo:
Illinois law says that no elector "shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States."
So Rham has been serving the United States? It it because he has a government job?
So, for instance, if I rented out my home in Chicago and moved to Florida because I like the weather better, but I took a job as a park ranger in a federal park, would I still be able to come back and run for mayor because I was on 'business of the United States'? Or is there some kind of difference between that and being a political operative?
Just asking.
Jun '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
Well, that's interesting. In all the reporting I've seen of this issue, I never saw the latter portion of the law that you quote, i.e. no elector "shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States." I consider this a BIG omission in the press coverage. If it is spelled out that clearly in the books, then I'm not sure how the Courts could overlook that. I'm not rooting for the guy, but this seems strange.
Edited on Jan 26, 2011 at 11:49amJan '11
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
I don't know the law, and it's an interesting question. When the president or senator moves to DC, he retains his citizenship in the state from which he came. Does that apply to his staff? How about a computer programmer who works in the Treasury Department?
More importantly, by what logic is there any difference?
The elected people have a ready answer: their presence in DC is required by the election. But is a member of his staff "required" to be in DC?
Dec '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
According to Ace of Spades blog (http://minx.cc/?post=311169), there are two statutes at issue here. One is the residency for voting and that being an elector is necessary for being a candidate.
However, there appears to be another statute with a higher bar. It is a separate statute that states that the candidate must "reside in" Chicago for a year prior to taking office. The court argued that this statute cannot possibly mean the same thing as the conditions for residency inasmuch as that would already be covered by the other law.
Rahm seems to be arguing that the second is just repetitive.
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
What happens if the staffer in DC tries to avoid paying state taxes in Illinois?
Jul '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
"...on the business of the United States," appears broad enough to cover anyone drawing a federal paycheck. I am amused by the notion that Illinois would pursue on taxes people drawing a federal paycheck that have filed a formal change of residence outside of Illinois.
May '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
I can't let a post re: Rahm go by without plugging @MayorEmmanuel on Twitter. This poster is Rahm's alter ego and the collected posts offer a hilarious, if decidedly R-rated narrative. During the period Rahm's name was off the ballot, @MayorEmmanuel trashed his rented apartment and went to live under a bridge where he befriended a duck he has named Quaxelrod. He's back on the campaign trail today with Quaxelrod firmly in tow. Quaxelrod has been making outbound telephone solicitations and arranged a "meet & greet" this morning at Pet Food Express. To the extent that anything on Twitter meets this standard, @MayorEmmanuel is a "must read."
May '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
I did see reporting on this and it seems to have been the opinion of the forces against Rahm that this portion of the statute refers to military service almost exclusively and in spite of the wording, has never been used in the context of taking a federal job in Washington. If someone moves and goes to work delivering mail would that count? Or does it only count because Rahm had a fancy job?
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
AmishDude is right. It's the second requirement—residency for the past year—which Rahm apparently doesn't meet. He is legally qualified to vote in Chicago, but not run for mayor, according to the appeals court.
Dec '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
For the record, I'm just repeating what the blogger said, I didn't read the arguments myself, but my understanding is that, yes, he qualifies as a voter, but not as an officeholder. And there are different standards of residency all the time, just try to pay the in-state tuition rate.
Jun '10
Re: Rahm Should Stay on the Ballot
Guess I missed that in the press. Yes, it would be interesting to see what the original intent of the statute was, but as we normally experienced, that's never stopped a lib from fighting against it. I suspect he will be pursuing the "fancy job" defense. I can't, however, believe that there has never been any precedent. It seems that this issue would happen all the time, especially with politicians.
Trace Urdan
I did see reporting on this and it seems to have been the opinion of the forces against Rahm that this portion of the statute refers to military service almost exclusively and in spite of the wording, has never been used in the context of taking a federal job in Washington. If someone moves and goes to work delivering mail would that count? Or does it only count because Rahm had a fancy job? · Jan 26 at 3:18pm