Posted on 01/27/2011 3:19:12 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com ...
This is common law ~ there are gazillions of law cases on the topic ~ always somebody like Obama trying to get rid of a competitor on what appear to be pretty clear cut technicalities ~ and unless those people can afford a lawsuit, the petty bureaucrats in the little voting bureaucracies will kick them out in a thrice on behalf of a machine favored candidate.
By working in DC, the nation's capitol, Rahm didn't do anything different than he did as a member of Congress. It's not like DC is just another Door County or something.
The state Supreme Court's decision is very clear and virtually identical to what you'd get in any other state.
However, Florida is one of those spots US Navy and US Air Force folks just dream of having a one month stay in so they can claim residence AND thereby evade anybody else's income taxes later on.
Illinois exception applies to a group well known for changing residence for the sole purpose of evading taxes.
And Rahm being Jewish ~ name all the Jews ever elected to office in Chicago. Actually it's not difficult ~ yet that's an enormously large city.
Wouldn’t declaring residence in Florida be a constructive act to change one’s domicile, and thus void one’s voter registration in Illinois making them no longer a “qualified elector” in Illinois and thus making them ineligible to run?
Suffice it to say, therefore, that this court has not always spoken clearly on what is meant by residency, and the majority should acknowledge this fact. This is why both sides in this dispute can contend that their respective positions are supported by decades of precedent. Indeed, contrary to the majority’s assertions, the only thing that is well established in this case is the confusion that has existed on this subject. The majority today now makes clear that residency for all purposes is the equivalent of domicile. The majority, therefore, should overrule those portions of Pope, Park, and Clark which hold to the contrary.
In other words, the special concurrence agrees with me that the majority has essentially repealed the second half of 3.1-10-5(a).
You only need 30 days residency to vote.
Reality is that politicians get elected and they go to Washington all the time. They hire staff from back home. They go to Washington.
None of them become Washington residents ~ it's just a job. Sometimes the job goes with them ~ on Air Force One for example!
Neither Rahm nor Barak became DC residents ~ they still belong to the pukes in Chicago and we all want them to take them back and grasp them tightly so they can't get loose and bother everybody else again.
Nobody said they became DC residents, not even the Court of Appeals.
I guess NOT becoming a resident of DC is pretty much an affirmation that you are still a resident wherever you came from!
It's like this, once you become an adult you have a residence.
If you are an illegal alien your residence is "back home" and you should go there! (Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!)
Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean that you "reside in" wherever you came from, except according to the Illinois Supreme Court now.
I guess that the state colleges and universities can kiss their out-of-state tuition rates goodbye, since the only thing someone now needs to prove to establish residency for in-state tuition is that they "intend" to stay in Illinois at any given moment.
There are a variety of residency standards for licensing too.
At the same time once you qualify, you qualify and you do not lose that status just because you travel around ~ else, you'd find that one year out of four no one who wanted to run for mayor of Chicago could go outside the city bounds.
Did you see a single judge argue that the law required the person to STAY INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS for that entire period?
No you didn't. That's because they understand the limits of the term "reside" and they referred to other cases where that word was dealt with.
You also have a totally different set of laws regarding "residency for purpose of qualifying for candidacy," yet Rahm was trying to use the "in the service of the United States" exemption from a completely different part of the law against the candidacy requirement.
Why does a soldier who never declared residency in Afghanistan need an exemption when Rahm does not?
There is a reasonable interpretation of "residing in" that takes into account trips without chaining someone to the city limits. You have to live in Illinois for at least 30 days in order to be able to vote, right? So why wouldn't the same standard apply to the one-year "living in Chicago" requirement for candidates, where you'd have to spend no more than 30 days outside of the city at any one time?
Aside from that, Rahm violated DC law, openly admitted in court, since DC requires you to transfer your vehicle registration if you live in the district for more than 30 days - and as a staffer of the President, not a member of Congress or a Congressional staffer, he wasn't under the DC reciprocity exemption.
You've come up with a novel interpretation ~ that you live no more than 30 days outside of Chicago over a 1 year period!
So, guy works in Evanston Illinois as a professor and he drives 15 minutes from his job to his home in Chicago ~ every day ~ he can never possibly meet that 30 day standard ~ he'd not even make a 1 day standard.
BTW, that military exception isn't for soldiers who work in Afghanistan and "reside in" Chicago. It's for sailors who worked in Florida, declared Florida as their state of residency, and then come back to run for office in Chicago.
If they'd never declared Florida as their state of residency they'd not need the exception!
You don't "reside at" your job, and I don't think any court anywhere, or even the people opposing Rahms candidacy, were arguing that. If the professor rented an apartment in Evanston, lived there for months on end while renting out his house in Chicago, then would he still be eligible to run for Mayor? Apparently so, according to the IlSC.
Your interpretation of the common understanding of residency regarding folks who work for the federal government is way off the mark ~
Actually, DC only allows federal employees who are members of Congress or Congressional staffers, active-duty military, and Senate-confirmed political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President to retain their original state vehicle registration and drivers license. Everyone else has to switch to DC license and registration before a 30-day deadline expires, including Rahm.
See DC ST 50-1401.02(b).
But then, Democrats are above the law, after all.
They readily move to Virginia and Maryland in case of any dispute with DC.
I've ridden to work over the years with dozens of members of Congress. Ain't no thing!
Rahm was not living in a federal installation, he was living with his family in DC and sending his kids to DC schools.
Members of Congress have a specific exemption from the requirement to register vehicles and get drivers licenses in DC within thirty days, along with their staffers, Senate-confirmed political appointees, and the President and Vice President.
Employees of the President do not have an exemption.
It “ain’t no thing” for Members of Congress because they are exempt from that law. Rahm is not.
He worked at a federal installation.
So where did you get the idea this guy would send his kids to public schools? Even Obama doesn't send his daughters to a public school.
BTW, Rahm is still a resident of Chicago as far as anybody around here is concerned, and he doesn't use the public schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.