Illinois Appeals Court Says Rahm Emanuel Not Eligble for Mayor

[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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@Jonathan_Chance

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

@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]

@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]

@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.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Kolak_of_Twilo

hey basically called bullshit on the appellate court.

IANAL, but that’s how I read it too.

[Inner_Stickler]

Perhaps we as a country would be better served by replacing the judicial system, or at least the appellate courts, with slot machines.

[Leaper]

Well, I’ve read some commentators on conservative blogs who believe this result is because of corruption. (The overturning, that is; the stripping of Rahm from the ballot was apparently the “proper” decision.)

[Gyrate]

For tangential irony, ISTR another Democratic politician from Illinois who benefited from getting his opponents removed from the ballot on legal technicalities. Maybe this is the new Chicago way?

[Grumman]

@Leaper

Well, I’ve read some commentators on conservative blogs who believe this result is because of corruption. (The overturning, that is; the stripping of Rahm from the ballot was apparently the “proper” decision.)

There is only one appropriate response to such a claim: “Why do you hate democracy?”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Kolak_of_Twilo

The Illinois Supreme Court said:

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.

Well, not quite. It translates to “nobody else made this up first”. High courts can make things up. Trial and appellate courts have to demonstrate some very clever reasoning if they want to make things up, and the appellate court didn’t do that here.

[robby]

@robert_columbia

…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.

Not exactly.

U.S. servicemembers on active duty are permitted to retain their original state of residency, that is, the state in which they were residents of at the time of their initial induction into the military.

This is because it is thought that U.S. servicemembers should not be penalized because they are being sent all over the country (and the world) for the convenience of the government. After all, unlike civilians, servicemembers cannot refuse an assignment–as the saying goes, “That’s why they call them orders!”

That being said, servicemembers who are stationed in a given state other than their original state of residence may switch their state of residence to the new state by expressing a desire to make the new state their their permanent state of residence. In this way, they have the same freedom to establish residence in the state that they are living in, just like civilians. In practice, many servicemembers switch residency to states that just happen to have no state income tax, like Florida and Texas. However, they have to be actuallly living and permanently stationed in the state at the time that they want to switch residency (i.e. not just visiting or on temporary assignment).

When servicemembers separates from the service, they have a time limit to either move back to their current legal state of residence, or establish residency wherever they are living, just like they had moved there.

In my case, I was a legal resident of Texas the whole time I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy, even though I was stationed in Florida, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. I had a Texas driver’s license, Texas plates on my vehicles, and voted by absentee ballot in Texas. When I lived in Connecticut during my time in the Navy, I had no obligation to pay Connecticut state income tax, because I was not a legal resident of Connecticut. However, when I got out of the Navy, I had to switch everything to Connecticut (driver’s license, plates, etc.), and was then subject to Connecticut state income tax, all because I chose to make Connecticut my legal state of residence upon separating from the military. (This decision was primarily because that’s where I found work upon getting out.)

[John_Bredin]

@Leaper

Well, I’ve read some commentators on conservative blogs who believe this result is because of corruption. (The overturning, that is; the stripping of Rahm from the ballot was apparently the “proper” decision.

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:

[ElvisL1ves]

@Kolak_of_Twilo

The Illinois Supreme Court said:

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.

And the appellate court can’t say jack about it, either.

Is a Supreme smackdown of this vehemence and rapidity a rare occurrence?

[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.” ?