# So, No Thoughts about Rahm Emmanuel Yet?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [October 6, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300 "2010-10-06T22:59:47Z")
**Posts on this page:** 15
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@SanDiegoTim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanDiegoTim)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/41 "2011-01-24T21:26:13Z")
Tim R. Mortiss, if I were into sly quips, and assuming he couldn’t get elected as a write-in, I’d quip on the inability of Chicagoans to spell. Just kidding, of course.
BTW, with my understanding that RE holds a lead at this point, who would you say has the best chance of getting elected if RE were to limited to write-in status?
BTW II: As my borther and I were watching the Bears game from afar yesterday, he expressed an opinion that the the City will go to pot when Daley leaves office. Do many who actually live in Chicago feel this way?
---
### Author:  [@NCDane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NCDane)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/42 "2011-01-24T21:34:52Z")
Here is a link to the court’s full written opinion:
> **[Illinois](https://www.illinois.gov)**
>
> Find places to go, things to see. Search through all the different services offered by the various Illinois agencies.
As far as I can tell from skimming the majority considers there to be
different definitions of the word “residency” as it applies to (1) voters
and (2) candidates, with the defintion for candidates being narrower,
and a disqulaifying factor in Emanuel’s case.
This seems to be a key passage pertaining to residency:
(p13 of the opinion):
> [@](#):
>
> _…requirements that candidates “reside in” the area they would represent "can only be truly served by requiring such representatives to be and remain actual residents of the units which they represent, in contradistinction from constructive residents. A mere constructive resident has no better opportunities for knowing the wants and rightful demands of his constituents, than a non-resident, and is as much beyond the wholesome influence of direct contact with them…_
Hence, though Emanuel’s status as a voter is preserved by exception
embodied in sec. 3-2 of the Election Code (cited by Cecil in discussion
of the case), his qualification as a candidate is not preserved:
(p22 of the opinion):
> [@](#):
>
> \*In our view, the exception embodied by section 3-2 of the Election Code applies only to voter residency requirements, not to candidate residency requirements. We base this conclusion largely on the plain language of the Election Code. That plain language limits the reach of the “business of the United States” exception to “elector[s]” or their spouses; it makes no mention of “candidates.” \*
I would have to read the whole thing through again and more
carefully arrive at a anything approaching full undestanding of
the court’s reasoning. However, in the page after the quote just
above the court makes a pronouncement that simply makes no
sense to me:
(p23 of the opinion):
> [@](#):
>
> \*If section 3-2 of the Election Code applied to candidates, then its statement that a person will not lose his or her residence “by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States” would certainly apply to relax the candidate residency qualifications on those who serve in the nation’s armed forces. \*
And there are other aspects of the decision that I wonder about.
IMO long-time (lifetime?) Chicago resident Emanuel should qualify
as a candidate under any reasonable statute.
Our man Cecil would be a great person to file \*amicus curiea \*on
Emanuel’s behalf, and I hope he is working on it as we speak.
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/43 "2011-01-24T21:44:01Z")
> [@SanDiegoTim](#):
>
> Tim R. Mortiss, if I were into sly quips, and assuming he couldn’t get elected as a write-in, I’d quip on the inability of Chicagoans to spell. Just kidding, of course.
>
> BTW, with my understanding that RE holds a lead at this point, who would you say has the best chance of getting elected if RE were to limited to write-in status?
>
> BTW II: As my borther and I were watching the Bears game from afar yesterday, he expressed an opinion that the the City will go to pot when Daley leaves office. Do many who actually live in Chicago feel this way?
Re: your BTW #I, I have no idea. I think Chico might be running second in the polls, but of course that doesn’t mean he’d move into first if RE were removed.
Re: your BTW #II, I don’t know how many feel that way, but _I_ certainly do. We will fall into barbarism for a decade or so, until a new Daley appears just when we need him most. That’s the way it went down last time.
---
### Author:  [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/44 "2011-01-24T23:47:31Z")
Well I think this is very good for the McCain campaign.
Anyway.
Actually Braun has been [polling](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-chicago-mayor-race-0121mdv-20110120,0,7220283.story) in second, Chico in third, but Emanuel had 44% and who knows who those people would vote for?
It sounds like most would be shocked if this is not reversed but this is bizzaro world.
Chicago is in for some hard times with or without Daly and he knows it which is why he is leaving now before it gets too ugly. The next mayor(s) are in for a rough go of it.
---
### Author:  [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/45 "2011-01-25T07:13:58Z")
If this decision stands I would say the smart money is on Chico.
I don’t see a scenario where Carol M-B pulls this off.
And I think it likely the State Supremes turn this entire mess on its head and let Rahm run. The only problem will be whether he is on the ballot or a write-in. The election board said they were sending the ballots to the printers tonight.
_Without_ Rahm Emmanuel listed as a candidate.
---
### Author:  [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/46 "2011-01-25T14:04:24Z")
> [@SanDiegoTim](#):
>
> Tim R. Mortiss, if I were into sly quips, and assuming he couldn’t get elected as a write-in, I’d quip on the inability of Chicagoans to spell. Just kidding, of course.
This actually does bring up an interesting question, though perhaps a bit of a hijack.
Say the ballots are printed without Emmanuel on them, but the Supreme Court rules on the eve of the election that he can indeed run. There’s no time to print new ballots, and voters must write him in.
How close must the spelling be for a valid vote? Would every “Ram Emannuall” and “Rom Amanual” and even “Ron Imaanel” go into Rahm’s column?
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/47 "2011-01-25T15:54:25Z")
They just went through that in Alaska, and I believe they required exactly correct spelling. If I were Rahm, I wouldn’t want to hang my future on the spelling prowess of the products of the Chicago Public School system!
---
### Author:  [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/48 "2011-01-25T16:18:00Z")
It’d be expensive, but they should have prepared two sets of ballots since the question is still up in the air.
---
### Author:  [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/49 "2011-01-25T16:22:44Z")
> [@Skammer](#):
>
> It’d be expensive, but they should have prepared two sets of ballots since the question is still up in the air.
I agree: in the context of all the costs of an election, printing the ballot papers is a very small part.
---
### Author:  [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/50 "2011-01-25T16:25:10Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#):
>
> They just went through that in Alaska, and I believe they required exactly correct spelling.
I don’t know for sure how this ended up, but last I remember [that was not the case](http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/10834231/article-Fix-the-law--Write-in-ballot-statute-needs-repair-by-Legislature?instance=home_opinion_editorial).
> [@](#):
>
> The judge ultimately deferred to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled in Mr. Miller’s state lawsuit that the name of Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t have to be spelled correctly.
But that was a question of state law, and the article goes on to say it needs to be re-written to avoid such ambiguity in the future. Don’t know what the Chicago electoral law says about this.
---
### Author:  [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/51 "2011-01-25T18:07:56Z")
WGN just reported the State Supreme Court has issued a stay of the lower court decision and any ballots printed should include Rahm’s name.
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/52 "2011-01-25T19:25:51Z")
Gotta love politics in Chicago! It’s more entertaining than our sports teams, that’s for sure!
---
### Author:  [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2011, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/53 "2011-01-25T21:08:49Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#):
>
> Gotta love politics in Chicago! It’s more entertaining than our sports teams, that’s for sure!
All we need now is for Chief Justice Robert Thomas (who, of course, was once the Bears’ placekicker) to suffer a sprained MCL and recuse himself.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/54 "2011-01-28T04:12:35Z")
The Illinois Supremes rule for Rahm, 7-0: [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/)
---
### Author:  [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300/55 "2011-02-06T14:44:23Z")
Again, I am delighted to point out that The Onion has reported a verdict.
_CHICAGO—In a unanimous decision handed down on Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was sleazy enough to be included on Chicago’s mayoral ballot. “It is the opinion of this court that Mr. Emanuel is coarse, vulgar, and power-hungry to such a degree that he should be eligible to hold this city’s highest office,” Illinois Justice Robert R. Thomas wrote in his majority opinion, adding that Emanuel also met a key stipulation requiring that any mayor of Chicago be a bully willing to do whatever is necessary to push his agenda through the city council. “Further, Mr. Emanuel is a sleazebag and a sleazeball, both of which are criteria he fulfilled prior to filing his papers with the local election board.” The decision overturned an appellate court’s ruling that Emanuel was only sleazy enough to be the governor of Illinois, and that he lacked the slithery, snake-like attributes necessary to oversee the morally bankrupt cesspool of Chicago politics._
**[February 2, 2011](http://www.theonion.com/articles/illinois-supreme-court-deems-rahm-emanuel-sleazy-e,19036/)**
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-no-thoughts-about-rahm-emmanuel-yet/556300.md?page=2)