# Illinois Appeals Court Says Rahm Emanuel Not Eligble for Mayor **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 24, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817 "2011-01-24T18:30:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/61 "2011-01-29T21:18:05Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > Well, politics makes for strange bedfellows. Had the Illinois Supreme Court not ruled as it had, and the Appellate Court decision stood, then arguably anyone returning from military service would be eligible to vote in Illinois municipal elections but not to run for municipal office until they were back for a year. Considering that some veterans have run for office upon return, you’d think that conservatives would consider barring them a bad outcome. :dubious::smack: Both appellate judges who ruled that Emanuel wasn’t eligible to run were Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/62 "2011-01-30T02:03:15Z")
I wouldn’t read too much into that (from a partisan POV). AIUI, all of the serious mayoral candidates are also Democrats. And it _is_ a non-partisan office. Nominally. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/63 "2011-01-30T03:42:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And how often do you see a concurring opinion to the effect of “The majority is right, of course, but they didn’t have to be so \*mean \*about it.” ? I thought you were asking the question as a joke until I read the opinion. It’s possible that Supreme Court suspected corruption and couldn’t come out and say that was the case, but instead decided to embarrass the Judges responsible. [QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Is a Supreme smackdown of this vehemence and rapidity a rare occurrence? [/QUOTE] Yes. It’s usually the appellate courts that get to have all the fun, smacking down wacky trial court judges. Intermediary review courts rarely go off the deep end. I don’t think the legal analysis in this case was as bad as the Supreme Court made it sound - and two judges seem to agree. But they felt they had to be really emphatic. Here is some more from the Supreme Court: > [@](#): > > Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the principles governing the question before us were settled. Things changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency. See No. 1-11-0033, slip op. at 6-8 (dismissing the foregoing authority in its entirety). Thus, our review of the appellate court’s decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817.md?page=3)