[Illinois] Supreme Court: Emanuel on Chicago mayor ballot

Chicago Tribune ^ | 1/27/11 | Liam Ford

[Chicago Lampoon]

Did anyone really doubt that the Chicago fix was in all along? The Illinois Supreme Court just announced a 5-2 decision to allow Rahm Emanuel on the ballot for the February 22 Chicago mayoral election. Earlier today, former IL Republican Gov. Jim Thompson and other members of the state GOP establishment came out in favor of giving the former Obama ballot access.

[nikos1121]

I don’t know where you’re from, but I’m from Illinois. I work in Georgia at the moment. I haven’t rented my place out. I come home to vote or vote absentee.

I guess under your rules since I don’t reside in Illinois, I shouldn’t be eligible to vote.

Illinois voters have NEVER required that you actually live in the state one year prior to voting to vote.

Immanuel, despite the fact that I think he erroneously filed his income tax with DC address, later amended....

And let’s be real here too, HE PROBABLY HAD HIS THUGS IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT, NEATLY STORE HIS BELONGINGS IN THE BASEMENT OF HIS RENTED PLACE TO SHOW HIS RESIDENCE.

But the fact is, he never relinquished his residency.

Same as I haven’t either.

The SC agreed unanimously and they scolded the appellate court for their interpretation.

I think the real issue here, is the complete absence of a quality, fresh face candidate in Chicago. Is this the BEST we can find?

Mosely Braun was the worst Senator in the last 100 years. She had her and her staff on junkets all over the world. And now she’s running for mayor?

I live through the Harold Washington years....WE have a guy up there named Stroger who was County Board president. Usually, one has buildings named after you AFTER you die.

They changed the name of Cook Co Hospital where I did my training to STroger Hospital, and the man is still on the board!!!!!!!

Clearly, the most corrupt city in the world, but you can see how it works, and how Obama has applied it to the presidency.

GEt as many of your cronies in office and on some payroll, and you buy votes year after year after year.

I have a place downtown off Rush St. It is a beautiful city, probably one of the most beautiful in the world esp when you add the shops, and restaurants.

The walking paths are the best. The lake front breathtaking.

Immanuel will keep the status quo. And thank God for it.

BTW, the lawyer who eventually brought the suit questioning Immanuel’s residency, initially said that he met the requirements.

Politics works both ways in Chicago, only problem no one other than Mike Ditka could be mayor there from the opposing party.

Which makes me wonder, why someone didn’t push Mike to run. Probably because he lives in the burbs.

[BillyBoy]

Yep, no question they're all staunch liberal Dems and whoever gets in will take the wrong position 80% of the time. I think a Dem with clout could easily beat Rahm, but unfortunately he's the front-runner because the only opposition left on the ballot are second-tier Dems. As for which Dem is the least bad... lol... my take is:

Rahm Emanuel - Evil enforcer for Clinton & Obama, will use gestapo thug-like tactics to run Chicago

Carol Moseley-Braun - Crooked & woefully incompetent, it's a bad joke if she gets elected. Probably one of the worse Senators we've ever had.

Gery Chico - Mediocre, his U.S. Senate run went nowhere and he only got the Hispanic vote. Means well, kinda brings the same credentials as Paul Vallas

Miguel Del Valle - Daley puppet, if he gets in the Daley family will still be running the show from behind the scenes. But I think the outgoing Mayor knows Del Valle's chances are pretty slim so he's sitting this one out instead of actively helping and risking “his guy” going down to defeat.

Given those facts, I'd have to say Gery Chico would do the least damage. He wins the award for “Least Detestable” Of course I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm not a resident of Chicago. Kinda wish I could vote in their elections anyway... serves ‘em right since every election we have a bunch of “suburban voters” at my polling place who aren't in the books and who's ID lists them as Chicago residents. Of course they claim they recently moved to Worth township, and demand to vote anyway.

[mvpel]

I hope you didn't miss that part ~ whatever the Appeals Court said on the matter is NULL AND VOID, and that ain't no Freeper!

Do I seriously have to type out "Illinois" every time I mention the Supreme Court in a thread about the Illinois Supreme Court? Seriously?

The appeals court argument goes straight to the heart of the (Illinois) Supreme Court decision. Their logic and reasoning about the meaning and intent of the law is no more "null and void" than trigonometry would be if the Supreme Court ruled that Pi was equal to three. The Appeals Court decision may be null and void, but their reasoning is not.

I wonder if the legislature, and particularly the legislator who introduced the bill to exempt active duty military from the "resides in" requirement will quietly accept this slap in the face from the usurper Supreme Court which just legalized carpetbagging by anyone who can claim they "intend" to reside in Illinois.

Corrupt? You still haven't explained why there are two residency requirements, one for a "qualified elector" and a separate one for a candidate. I guess you're too busy being snarky to me to get around to it.

[muawiyah]

It's the other way around. The Appeals court made a BS decision. The Supreme Court went right to the heart and cut it out.

There's a time dilation factor involved in this process that PROHIBITS the Appeals Court from reviewing the Supreme Court's decision ~ since it had not yet been made!

[mvpel]

I don’t know where you’re from, but I’m from Illinois. I work in Georgia at the moment. I haven’t rented my place out. I come home to vote or vote absentee. I guess under your rules since I don’t reside in Illinois, I shouldn’t be eligible to vote.

Please read the Appeals Court decision. They clearly and repeatedly stated that Rahm was a resident for the purpose of voting. His residency as a voter was not in any question whatsoever. But being eligible to be a registered voter is not the same as being eligible to be a candidate.

[mvpel]

Why is the Appeals Court decision BS? I explained quite clearly why I think it’s not, and it’d be great if you could return the favor.

[muawiyah]

At the same time your "side" in this debate has also argued that it's OK for a Chicago resident to go to visit his heart surgeon in Indiana and NOT lose his residency.

So how do you explain that?

[mvpel]

BS... we’re talking about residency not where you live....

Actually, we're talking about BOTH residency and where you live. Otherwise being a "qualified elector" would be enough to be a candidate, instead of being both a "qualified elector" and "residing in" the district. There is an "and" in 3.1-10-5(a):

... a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year...

You can sue me, but I don't really care about Rahm's suitability for the job. I care about the law, and about judges repealing law from the bench:

... a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year...

[muawiyah]

Why?

As the Supreme Court explained the Appeals court decision was not based soundly in the law, defied commonsense and the common law, and worst of all was based mostly on a Webster's Dictionary definition of "reside".

Frankly, that decision would have been better off if they'd cited 1950s Superman Comics standards, but they didn't.

[mvpel]

So what, pray tell, is the purpose of 3.1-10-5(d)?

[muawiyah]

To establish what the minimum time is that you have to have residence in Chicago to run for office there ~ and typically once you have established residency anywhere for any purpose unless you AFFIRMATIVELY CHANGE your legal residence through some action that does that, and make a declaration of some sort, then you keep your qualification intact.

You guys keep pointing to the military exception. That's readily explained. Many times a guy will find he's been assigned to a place like Florida with no income tax. So, he decides he's a Florida resident, doesn't pay state income tax, then finishes his tour, returns home to Chicago and takes up where he left off. The law REINSTATES his residency for purposes of running for office just as if he'd never legally changed his residence (for purposes of paying taxes).

Rahm never become a registered voter in DC; never claimed residence there; etc. Whole lot of things he didn't do. PLUS, I am sure he didn't declare his "DOMICILE" as Chicago as a way of getting around federal travel rules.

That's another term you should get acquainted with. Your Congresscritter, Senator, President ~ etc., are all DOMICILED in DC for purposes of federal travel reimbursement. They do not become RESIDENT IN, nor do they RESIDE IN DC just because they work there.

I lived in Virginia. I traveled in and out of my place of DOMICILE which was, for many years, DC. Then, my job moved to Virginia and I became DOMICILED in Virginia.

What I think you guys are trying to do is turn the term DOMICILE into RESIDENCY ~ which just won't work.

[mvpel]

We’re not talking about what’s “typically” the case, we’re talking about 3.1-10-5, which establishes two qualifications for candidacy - being a “qualified elector,” which includes maintaining one’s voting residency in the district, and “residing in” the district for one year, which goes to domicile.

I think there’s definitely a lack of clarity here on the difference between DOMICILE and RESIDENCY.

Using the terms as you’ve set them forth, Rahm maintained one (residency), but not the other (domicile), and both are, as I see it, required by 3.1-10-5. Otherwise why would the law repeat itself?

[muawiyah]

Since there is only one code of law in Illinois, when you find apparent contradictions all you have to do is recall that the overarching presumption is that the "contradictions" were prepared to achieve the same end.

That end is to make sure that people who vote in Chicago are part of that community, and that people who run for office there have been there at least a year at one time or the other ~ and had not affirmatively obtained legal residency elsewhere.

The exception for the military simply gives soldiers and sailers a break ~ they are young, mostly low income people, and no one, and I mean NO ONE, wants to disqualify one of Chicago's heroes from running for office when he comes back from the war with an MOH, a bunch of ribbons, and a record that'd choke a horse.

Although only FOUR Chicagoans are identified as MOH recipients >http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/states/il_cw.html identifies more than 100 others from Illinois.

I suppose this is a real concern in that state ~ and if even one MOH winner were disqualified from running for office simply because he was out there defending this nation over and above the call of duty, I'd say their law was in error.

I think that clarifies the need for the exception. At the same time it also clarifies the point of the law ~ that you gotta' be there a year to run for office ~ and that you have no other residency in some other place ~ and Rahm doesn't.

Say, do you think maybe this has something with that old "Jews have divided loyalties" question?

[nikos1121]

The man was a resident of the Chicago. He worked out of state. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, pointing out that the Appelate court was wrong in fact they completely misinterpreted the term recide.

So, we’re to assume that the Supreme Court is wrong and you’re right? Are you saying they were bought off?

So you’re saying the person recides as in living there 24/7 for one year?

If you’re establishing residency, as HIllary Clinton did in New YOrk, you apply for residency and recide there.

Immanuel was already a resident. He never relinquished that.

Took the Supreme Court a matter of a few hours to figure it out.

[Impy]

I watched part of the debate on PBS.

CMB just oozed arrogance from every pore, few are her rival in that regard. I never wanna see or hear from her again. She was also the only one to dis charter schools coming off as a hard left (w)itch while the others struck a more mainstream populist tone. Of course each of them claimed to be THE choice for reform. Much like the last GOP mayor William Hale Thompson’s (a wholly owned subsidiary of Al Capone) claims of altruism this is so funny that it’s literally impossible to laugh to at.

That (crap)stain Braun would leave the city in ashes.

Rahm wouldn’t be the disaster CMB would be but he is evil and corrupt in addition to being a committed ideological leftist.

I’ve hated Chico since he and Vallas ran the schools but he appears to be to be the obvious least bad choice, like Vallas he’s a smidge more toward the center than the others. He’s viable among white voters so he’d have maybe a third of a chance against Rahm in the runoff if he makes it. I think the RINOs are supporting him.

Chico’s wife is a Republican, (if he hasn’t turned her to the dark side yet) maybe she could whisper some sanity into his ear on a couple things.

Del Valle (my former state senator) is as Billyboy said a Daley puppet (which, barf alert, makes him much better than Rahm and CMB) and his appeal is limited to Hispanics. He only won citywide because of Daley’s support. He has no money (which I learned from him cause he won’t shut up about it) and is a lock to come in 4th.

In some instances I’d waste a vote on a write in but I’ll vote for Chico, the only slim chance to keep Rahm out.

There hasn’t been a Republican candidate since we went to the “non-partisan” ballot. Whether it’s because of signature requirements or the GOP not wanting to take votes from the least bad dem I don’t know. But I wish we would go back to the partisan ballot and at least offer a token choice.

[mvpel]

That end is to make sure that people who vote in Chicago are part of that community, and that people who run for office there have been there at least a year at one time or the other ~ and had not affirmatively obtained legal residency elsewhere.

No, it requires that they have been there at least a year immediately prior to the election. And where do you draw the conclusion that the law says anything about affirmatively obtaining legal residency elsewhere? Legal residency is covered by the "qualified elector" part, physical residency is covered following the "and."

Why does a deployed soldier, who does not affirmatively obtain legal residency in Iraq or Afghanistan (and votes absentee in Chicago when the Democrats allow it), need an exception to run for office while Rahm does not?

And what does the fact that Rahm is Jewish have to do with anything? What's the point of even bringing that into this discussion except to aggravate people?

[mvpel]

If you’re establishing residency, as HIllary Clinton did in New YOrk, you apply for residency and recide there.

New York's anti-carpetbagger law is not as strict as Illinois', so Hillary was able to run for office after spending one night in a house in New York, rather than being required by law to live there for a year as she would have to run for mayor in Illinois.

The US Supreme Court set a 30-day residency requirement for the term "inhabitant" as set forth in the US Constitution, but New York only requires that they live there on the day of the election, and voila, you have Senator Clinton.

Of course, none of this has much bearing on Illinois law.

However, for the sake of discussion, let's put it this way: was Rahm an inhabitant of Illinois while he was living in DC? Yes, he was still a "legal resident," but was he an inhabitant of Chicago during that time?

Consider this clip from Galveston v. Gonzalez, 151 US 496, with the US Supreme Court talking about where a corporation could be considered an "inhabitant:"

A citizen of Chicago might not be an inhabitant, though he retain his Chicago citizenship, in other words?

Here they draw a distinction between domicil, "legal residency," and the place which one inhabits:

[mvpel]

And yes, he did retain animus manendi in Chicago, but again I go to the fact that this is already covered in the "qualified elector" requirement, so the "reside in" requirement has to mean something other than mere animus manendi.

[nikos1121]

i guess this again comes down to the question you refuse to answer. If what you say is true, then why did the SC rule unanimously in his favor, and in agreement with me?

[Condor51]

Chico’s wife is a Republican, (if he hasn’t turned her to the dark side yet) maybe she could whisper some sanity into his ear on a couple things.

She is also full-blooded Lithuanian.₍₁₎
So the things she whispers in his ear could be more than 'sanity' ;-)

(1) I bet they met at Kelly High School or in our 'old hood' Brighton Park. Chico and I are both grads of Kelly and both from 'BP'. He was 8 yrs behind me.