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?
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?
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.
Is it possible to get a link to the opinion?
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.
No, the appeal must be decided before next Monday, not in four weeks, because early voting starts on Monday.
It’s a moot point anyway, because Rahm Emanuel was born in Kenya.
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?
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.
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:
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?
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.
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. 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.
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.
:dubious:
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
It’s a moot point anyway, because Rahm Emanuel [del]was born in Kenya[/del] is a Packers fan.
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?
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?