# Does Rahm meet the residency requirements?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [January 25, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867 "2011-01-25T02:02:59Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@HarryK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HarryK)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/1 "2011-01-25T02:02:59Z")
Cecil Adams believes Rahm meets the residency requirements based on ILCS 36:3.2a
“A permanent abode is necessary to constitute a residence within the meaning of Section 3-1 [which says who’s allowed to vote in Illinois]. No elector or spouse 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, or of this State.”
I disagree. An abode is “a place in which a person resides; residence; dwelling; habitation; home.” To meet the requirement Rahm would have had to maintain a permanent place of residence in Chicago. Rahm didnt do that. He rented his house to someone. When the house was rented it was no longer Rahms “permanent abode”. It became the abode of the renter.
If Rahm had left the house vacant and hired people to maintain it for him he would have met the requirement. Rahm should be disqualified and removed from the ballot.
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/2 "2011-01-25T03:30:31Z")
> [@HarryK](#):
>
> Cecil Adams believes Rahm meets the residency requirements based on ILCS 36:3.2a
>
> “A permanent abode is necessary to constitute a residence within the meaning of Section 3-1 [which says who’s allowed to vote in Illinois]. No elector or spouse 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, or of this State.”
>
> I disagree. An abode is “a place in which a person resides; residence; dwelling; habitation; home.” To meet the requirement Rahm would have had to maintain a permanent place of residence in Chicago. Rahm didnt do that. He rented his house to someone. When the house was rented it was no longer Rahms “permanent abode”. It became the abode of the renter.
>
> If Rahm had left the house vacant and hired people to maintain it for him he would have met the requirement. Rahm should be disqualified and removed from the ballot.
You just don’t understand. The law, quoted by Cecil, supports Rahm. You choose to quote something about what an “abode” is, and then give your own opinion of what the law _should be_. That ain’t the way life works. Suck it up.
---
### Author:  [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/3 "2011-01-25T04:05:41Z")
[The appellate court’s analysis](http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/01/the-emanuel-decision-plain-text-version.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+chicagotribune%2Fchangeofsubject+%28Chicago+Tribune+-+Change+of+Subject%29) pays a lot of attention to the differences between the two statutes that establish qualifications for being an elector (voter) and qualifications for being a candidate.
---
### Author:  [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/4 "2011-01-25T06:12:19Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#):
>
> [The appellate court’s analysis](http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/01/the-emanuel-decision-plain-text-version.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+chicagotribune%2Fchangeofsubject+%28Chicago+Tribune+-+Change+of+Subject%29) pays a lot of attention to the differences between the two statutes…
This is something Cecil appears not to have done in his [column of December 2](http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20101202.php). I wonder if he’ll now provide an update.
---
### Author:  [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/5 "2011-01-25T06:31:13Z")
I’m reluctant to speak for the boss, but let me make a few quick comments:
(1) The reasoning of the appellate court is a lot more cogent than that offered by the original petitioners. I hope they appreciate the favor.
(2) To put the matter charitably, the law is ambiguous. The court argues that residency as it applies to voters is different from residency as it applies to candidates. But the law doesn’t say that in so many words. The distinction, if there is one, must be inferred.
(3) One of the court’s arguments for its inference is that (a) the statute dealing with candidates says members of the military don’t lose residency when they’re stationed elsewhere; (b) the statute dealing with voters says you don’t lose residency if you dwell elsewhere on "business of the United States; © members of the military are engaged in business of the United States; (d) if residency as used in (a) is the same as residency as used in (b), the clause referenced in (a) is superfluous in light of the clause referenced in (b); therefore, (e) the legislative intent was that residency for voters is different from residents for candidates.
(4) However, an equally persuasive argument, in my opinion, is that the law was carelessly drafted, and the court is drawing an inference where none was meant. The law on candidates says they must be qualified electors. To discover what a qualified elector is, we must turn to the law on voters. The two laws, in other words, must be considered together. The court now asks us to believe that the ordinary word residence, as used in one law, means something different from what it does in a closely related law, even though there’s no explicit statement to that effect. This argument isn’t implausible, but neither is it compelling.
(5) Given this confusing state of affairs, and lacking any clearer statement of legislative intent than we have seen so far, the Illinois Supreme Court in my opinion would be justified in ruling that (a) the seemingly plain meaning of Illinois law is that residents of the state do not lose residency while away on business of the United States; (b) Rahm was away on such business and intended to return; © relying on what he took to be the plain meaning of the law, Rahm diligently took those additional steps he believed necessary to support his claim of residency, namely voting absentee, retaining ownership of his house, paying property taxes, etc.; (d) Illinois statutes do not explicitly draw a distinction between residency as it applies to voters vs. residency as it applies to candidates, and there is no compelling reason to think a distinction was intended; (e) therefore, it would be an injustice to conjure up such a distinction at this late hour and thereby deny Rahm the right to run for mayor of a city of which he clearly and reasonably believed himself to be a legal resident.
Supreme courts, as we know, are capable of rulings that seem far from just, so I don’t predict how this court will rule. I merely observe that no tortured logic is required to rule in Rahm’s favor.
---
### Author:  [@Cheryl44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheryl44)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/6 "2011-01-25T19:25:15Z")
> [@HarryK](#):
>
> If Rahm had left the house vacant and hired people to maintain it for him he would have met the requirement. Rahm should be disqualified and removed from the ballot.
You missed this part: _No elector or spouse 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, or of this State."_
He was working for the POTUS. How can that not be ‘on business of the United States?’
---
### Author:  [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/7 "2011-01-25T19:32:27Z")
> [@Cheryl44](#):
>
> You missed this part: _No elector or spouse …_
Right - but that applies to electors (voters). At issue are the rules that apply to candidates, and how these might differ.
---
### Author:  [@Cheryl44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheryl44)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/8 "2011-01-25T20:13:11Z")
> [@Xema](#):
>
> Right - but that applies to electors (voters). At issue are the rules that apply to candidates, and how these might differ.
This is from the section dealing with candidates.
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/9 "2011-01-25T20:39:01Z")
You guys are cute, with your quaint notion that the letter of the law is relevant. This is Illinois and Chicago; it’s all about the politics.
---
### Author:  [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/10 "2011-01-25T21:12:41Z")
> [@Cheryl44](#):
>
> This is from the section dealing with candidates.
But the appellate court decision seems to be saying that “elector” means “voter” - and that the residency rules for candidates are not the same as for electors.
Clearly, it’s a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-rahm-meet-the-residency-requirements/568867/11 "2011-01-28T04:11:31Z")
Done and done: [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/27/rahm-emanuel-back-on-mayoral-ballot-in-chicago-illinois-court-r/](http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/27/rahm-emanuel-back-on-mayoral-ballot-in-chicago-illinois-court-r/)