Illinois Appeals Court Says Rahm Emanuel Not Eligble for Mayor

[Bricker]

Wow.

The court seems to base its ruling on the fact that in Illinois, "domicile" and "residence" are not synonyms.

I don't have much in the way of expertise in residency law for elections purposes, but I have to say this result surprises me.

What effect will this have on the national scene? Any?

[Happy Lendervedder]

I'm not sure how much it'll matter nationally (in fact I can't imagine how it would matter at all), but is anyone else picturing Rahm jamming pencils into the eyes of the person who told him he's off the ballot?

[Bricker]

After a brief read of the opinion, I agree with the dissent and don't understand how the majority can rest their decision on a 110-year-old case that isn't even precedential.

[Tom Tildrum]

Is it possible to get a link to the opinion?

[Giles]

Apparently there will be an appeal -- and one which needs to be heard in the next 4 weeks! Presumably the Board of Elections will be prepared for two possible contingencies on February 22nd -- and I don't know if there is any polling before election day, which would make matters even more difficult.

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

Is it possible to get a link to the opinion?

Here you are.

[Broomstick]

No, the appeal must be decided before next Monday, not in four weeks, because early voting starts on Monday.

[Euphonious Polemic]

It's a moot point anyway, because Rahm Emanuel was born in Kenya.

[Rusalka]

I have not read the opinions yet, but people who keep saying "but he owned his house" as an argument do not understand the law. You can own residences in all 50 states but that doesn't make you a resident in those states. It's where you physically reside that is important. Mr. Emanuel understood the law and did not need to rent out his dwelling but he did anyway because he was never planning to run for a local office in the near future. He signed a lease, and a lease confers rights to live on a property upon another person. That means that other person for all practical purposes, "owns" the space of the property for the time and under the rules stipulated in the contract. People think that renting a space to someone means that you still have some kind of control over the property, like entering the space, but that is incorrect. Chicago has very strong laws favoring the renter in this regard, which a lot of landlords don't understand.

It is very difficult to establish residency in a place where you don't have a physical address. Ask any homeless person. Take that a bit further and imagine a homeless person who considers Chicago his "home" but decides to move to another state for a few years. What chance in hell does he have of claiming Chicago as his residence?

[Claverhouse]

As an outsider I am disappointed: not through any great admiration of Mr. Emanuel, yet through the fact that like Mr. Rove ( also long on reputation, but short on substance ), is --- unlike both their rather inchoate and nebulous masters "Mr. Harding's official style is excellent. Its merits are obvious. In the first place, it is a style that looks Presidential. It contains the long words and big sentences which are expected. ... Furthermore the President's style is one that radiates hopefulness and aspiration. ... In the President's misty language the great majority see a reflection of their own indeterminate thoughts." --- a definite character, and strongly-defined characters should be the lifeblood of the American political scene.


I can't find it online, but somewhere D. H. Lawrence warned us to against cultivated individualism, as in to paraphrase: 'Beware of someone who is a character, for he is nothing but a painted bug', which may or may not be true, but the lack of which larger than life figures, substituted by IBM trained/built technician drones, destroys the whole point of politics, which is to find someone to hate.





However, as far as Chicago goes, he could be no worse than the average, over the last century. Which is high praise. But I do have doubts about the political brilliance, however famed, of anyone who would start his campaign by telling Union Bosses he planned to cut not merely future public pensions, but those being received or due to be received by union members now.


Full marks for plain straight-up honesty and rectitude, but I think that despite not having one tenth of his skills, I should reserve this information until after the election.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Giles

Apparently there will be an appeal -- and one which needs to be heard in the next 4 weeks! Presumably the Board of Elections will be prepared for two possible contingencies on February 22nd -- and I don't know if there is any polling before election day, which would make matters even more difficult.

Here you are.

I find it especially impressive that the court spent three pages discussing permanent residences but didn't bother to address whether a house Emanuel owned for 10 years was a more permanent residence than one he leased for two.

ETA: ...and I found this bit of the dissent equally amusing:

The majority completely ignores Dillavou, a recent Fourth
District case that addressed candidate residency, even though
Walsh, on which Justice Hoffman previously concurred, favorably
cited Dillavou and discussed it at length. Walsh, 267 Ill. App. 3d
at 978-79. I recognize that the question in Dillavou was whether
the candidate at issue had established a residence in the required
district; however, the case cites approvingly to supreme court
election cases such as Clark and Kreitz. Dillavou, 260 Ill. App.
3d at 132. Of particular relevance to the case before this court,
Dillavou quotes the language of Clark and Kreitz, which provides
that, once established, a residence will not be lost by an
individual’s absence from that residence unless the individual
demonstrates such an intent. Dillavou, 260 Ill. App. 3d at 132-33

[Tom Tildrum]

I wonder where those "objectors" have hidden out. Will changing their names be enough to protect their lives, or will they have to have plastic surgery as well?

[Marley23]

I'm surprised by the ruling for sure. I'm sure the Supreme Court can handle this in time for the early voting if necessary. Courts have been known to get their asses in gear when they have to.

[Snowboarder Bo]

If this distinction stands, shouldn't college students have to vote wherever they attend classes rather than in their "home" states? And shouldn't mitary service members vote where they are stationed, rather than cast absentee ballots for where ever their families live?

[Really Not All That Bright]

No. The ruling is limited to residence for the purposes of running for office under Illinois law. It specifically distinguishes residence for the purpose of running for office from residence for the purpose of voting. If it didn't, they would have upheld the earlier ruling.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

No. The ruling is limited to residence for the purposes of running for office under Illinois law. It specifically distinguishes residence for the purpose of running for office from residence for the purpose of voting. If it didn't, they would have upheld the earlier ruling.

Yes -- the question of Rahm Emanuel's right to vote in City of Chicago elections is not raised. He continued to vote there after retiring as a Congressman and going to work at the White House. Though, of course, his vote in city elections is rather less important than his right to run for election as Mayor.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

No. The ruling is limited to residence for the purposes of running for office under Illinois law. It specifically distinguishes residence for the purpose of running for office from residence for the purpose of voting. If it didn't, they would have upheld the earlier ruling.

Yes, in fact this distinction is a key point of the ruling; they claim that the section that creates an exception for being absent on "the business of the United States" applies only to voting, not to residency for election eligibility.

[Mtgman]

Sometimes I wonder at mid-level court rulings. I don't know if they did this because they really believe that's what the law means, or because they want to kick it upstairs for the supreme court of Illinois to rule on. I can't imagine any possible legislative intent for bifurcating the residency between eligibility to be active as a voter in a district while in a Federal office and to be eligible to be active as a representative in a district while holding a Federal office. The opinion makes it clear the court believes the Election board should carry the day in most circumstances, only overturned when their decision runs against the weight of the evidence, and then issues this ruling based not on the plain language of the statute, but upon some obscure non-precedent.

It's a bizarre decision and I would be surprised if it stands on appeal, but it is certainly adding zest to this election cycle.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

It's a moot point anyway, because Rahm Emanuel was born in Kenya.

It's a moot point anyway, because Rahm Emanuel was born in Kenya is a Packers fan.

[Todderbob]

I've seen this trumpeted by republicans (and some democrats) as a "major (or minor) defeat for the Obama administration," my question is... Isn't the court supposed to be entirely impartial?

If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn't that mean the judges are being activist?

[DSeid]

It seems that most who know law are pretty surprised by this and expect it will be reversed by the State Supreme Court. But if not ... how does the election shake out?

In the latest poll he had 44%, Braun was in second at 21%, Chico next at 16% and del Valle at 9%. Who would those who would want to vote for Emanuel cast for instead?

[flickster]

Originally Posted by Todderbob

If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn't that mean the judges are being activist?

How individuals may interpret a ruling does not mean the judges are being activists. Theoretically, the judges are basing their decision based on the law. How others interpret that shouldn't be any of their concern.

[Omar Little]

Originally Posted by Todderbob

I've seen this trumpeted by republicans (and some democrats) as a "major (or minor) defeat for the Obama administration," my question is... Isn't the court supposed to be entirely impartial?

If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn't that mean the judges are being activist?

I doubt that it is the judiciary themselves that are trumpeting their verdict as any type of defeat, but rather pundits, the media and SDMB posters. That in and of itself doesn't neccesarily qualify their verdict as political activism.

[villa]

Originally Posted by Todderbob

If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn't that mean the judges are being activist?

Given that activist means nothing other than "came out with a decision I don't like," in any case where there are political overtones, judges will be being activist in some people's eyes.

[Rusalka]

I have read and understood the opinions of the judges. If anyone is an "activist" judge, I would think it is the dissenter. She writes in very emotional and almost insulting language.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

No. The ruling is limited to residence for the purposes of running for office under Illinois law. It specifically distinguishes residence for the purpose of running for office from residence for the purpose of voting. If it didn't, they would have upheld the earlier ruling.

Ah ok, thanks. I was posting from my phone earlier and hadn't been able to look at the decision myself. Appreciate the clarification.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Rusalka

I have read and understood the opinions of the judges. If anyone is an "activist" judge, I would think it is the dissenter. She writes in very emotional and almost insulting language.

Well, they are using a stupid excuse to knock the front-runner out of the race. I'd be insulting them, too.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I have read and understood the opinions of the judges. If anyone is an "activist" judge, I would think it is the dissenter. She writes in very emotional and almost insulting language.

Er... what? I didn't see anything more insulting than "flight of fancy". Even if the dissenter was insulting, well, the majority opinion doesn't make sense.

I should note that Hoffman, who wrote the majority opinion, last ran for election as a Democrat.

Anyway, dissenting judges often write like that. Witness Scalia's dissents in... well, actually, just about any of them. Lawrence v. Texas is a good example:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Todderbob

I've seen this trumpeted by republicans (and some democrats) as a "major (or minor) defeat for the Obama administration," my question is... Isn't the court supposed to be entirely impartial?

If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn't that mean the judges are being activist?

Originally Posted by flickster

How individuals may interpret a ruling does not mean the judges are being activists. Theoretically, the judges are basing their decision based on the law. How others interpret that shouldn't be any of their concern.

flickster is right. And for whatever it's worth, both judges who ruled against Rahm are Democrats.

[Gyrate]

Whatever happened to doing things "the Chicago way"? I thought Obama had all those shady contacts in Illinois politics which would allow him to fix anything? Or have the media and the internet been lying to me again?

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Bricker

flickster is right. And for whatever it's worth, both judges who ruled against Rahm are Democrats.

And, for what it's worth, three of the candidates still running in the election --who presumably want Rahm off the ballot -- are Democrats. The chances of a GOP candidate winning in an election for Mayor of Chicago are about as good as my chances of being elected as President of the US.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Whatever happened to doing things "the Chicago way"? I thought Obama had all those shady contacts in Illinois politics which would allow him to fix anything? Or have the media and the internet been lying to me again?

Well, it just means Ed Burke holds more clout than Obama in local politics.

[Mtgman]

This thing was headed to the Illinois Supreme Court in any case. There's no way Rahm would walk away from a strong lead and no way the other side(possibly including Ed Burke) was going to let it stand if the appeals court upheld the county and election court decisions. If the judges on the court of appeals are elected I'd almost believe they did it to get their names in the paper. There just doesn't seem to be much sense in it and they're almost certain to be overturned, but it gets their names and faces into the news cycle.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Rusalka]

Why doesn't the majority opinion make sense? They stuck with a strict interpretation of what was in the statute, confining most of their logic to what was within the statute. Can someone please explain this to me?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Does this make Obama ineligible to run for local office after his term is up?

[Really Not All That Bright]

They ignored half of the statute completely.

[Kolak of Twilo]

The State Supreme Court just issued a stay of the Appeals Court's order according to WGN. They also are saying any ballots printed have to include his name.

[Jonathan Chance]

Woo. That didn't take long.

Can a state supreme court actually overrule a lower court by saying 'Fuck you'?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sure, as long as they "reversed" too. A stay doesn't mean they're going to rule in Emanuel's favor, though. It mostly just means the harm of leaving him off the ballot outweighs the potential harm of leaving him on it.

[Marley23]

Moved to Elections from Great Debates.

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

It's a moot point anyway, because Rahm Emanuel was born in Kenya.

When running for Mayor of Chicago birthplace isn't important, but a minimum level of corruption is.

[Wheelz]

I'm enjoying the spectacle from a safe distance here in the suburbs.

The lead attorney trying to get him kicked off the ballot had wanted the case to go to the Illinois Supreme court, but now -- quite conveniently -- he doesn't think it should.

The lead lawyer for the objectors, Burt Odelson, said he is hopeful the Supreme Court won't even take the case.

"I originally thought they would take the case, but now that the Appellate Court has ruled this way in a long, detailed opinion, there really is no need to take this case," Odelson said. "There is no conflict in the state of Illinois anymore on the law."

Meanwhile, the rest of the candidates have their say:

[Carol Moseley] Braun called the appellate ruling a "milestone for our campaign." She trailed Emanuel 44 percent to 21 percent in a Tribune poll conducted Jan. 15-19.

Wow, that's a pretty sorry campaign when your "milestone" is something that happened to the other guy.

[Miguel] Del Valle, who had only 7 percent backing and raised the least cash among the major contenders, issued a statement chastising "those who thought that Rahm Emanuel's election was a foregone conclusion."

"Now, the voters are going to really have an opportunity to choose the next mayor of the city of Chicago," he said.

Um, as opposed to what? Being forced at gunpoint to vote for Emanuel? Oh, I see -- You losing badly equals voters not having "an opportunity to choose." Got it.

[Gery] Chico, who trailed Emanuel and Braun with 16 percent support, acknowledged he was surprised by the appellate ruling. Still, he maintained he hasn't "paid much attention to who's on or who's off" the ballot.

Sure, Gery, we believe you. You'd barely noticed Emanuel there at all.

It's all wonderfully entertaining theater.

Oh, and surely, somewhere Tom Dart is kicking himself.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

If this distinction stands, shouldn't college students have to vote wherever they attend classes rather than in their "home" states? And shouldn't mitary service members vote where they are stationed, rather than cast absentee ballots for where ever their families live?

No. It appears to be settled law that attending school away from home, even for several years, does NOT automatically make you a resident of the jursdiction of the school.

In theory, it might be possible for a boarding student to gain residency in law (however unrecognized in fact by the elections board, DMV, and school financial office), if you have completely severed ties with your old home and have a clear settled intention that when you graduate, you will remain in town and live there indefinitely. Good luck.

The military is odd. It used to be, according to my parents, that US military servicemembers could basically choose their legal residence at will when they are on active duty.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

No. It appears to be settled law that attending school away from home, even for several years, does NOT automatically make you a resident of the jursdiction of the school.

In theory, it might be possible for a boarding student to gain residency in law (however unrecognized in fact by the elections board, DMV, and school financial office), if you have completely severed ties with your old home and have a clear settled intention that when you graduate, you will remain in town and live there indefinitely. Good luck.

In NH college students have the right to vote in the towns they attend college since it does fit the definition of residency if you live on campus 8 months out of 12. Those of us who lived in NH anyway just registered in our home towns instead after college.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

Oh, and surely, somewhere Tom Dart is kicking himself.

If the State Supremes rule against Rahm I'm sure there will be other people willing to kick Dart. Gery Chico is an ok option after Rahm but that is about it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

Woo. That didn't take long.

Can a state supreme court actually overrule a lower court by saying 'Fuck you'?

In Chicago, it uses that exact terminology.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

Can a state supreme court actually overrule a lower court by saying 'Fuck you'?

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In Chicago, it uses that exact terminology.

No, no, no--that's in New Jersey. In Chicago they issue a calm and reasoned reversal, and then send inspectors to write up the appellate judges for thousands of dollars in building code violations.

[pulykamell]

He's officially back on the ballot. Illinois Supreme Court rules 7-0 in his favor.

[Lakai]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

He's officially back on the ballot. Illinois Supreme Court rules 7-0 in his favor.

Good. That was one flaky appellate court opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if corruption was involved.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Lakai

Good. That was one flaky appellate court opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if corruption was involved.

For a kick, read the comments. Corruption is alleged by many--but in regards to this decision, not the last.

That's why I generally don't read the comments for newspaper articles. Makes my head explode.

[Kolak of Twilo]

The Illinois Supreme Court said:

The novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha!!!
IANAL, BUT: this is a major dissing of the appellate court.
The phrase "novel standard" basically translates to "made up".
The phrase "without foundation in Illinois law" translates to "made up."

Any lawyers out there educate me if I am wrong in my interpretation of what the State Supremes said. They basically called bullshit on the appellate court.