According to WGN News it seems the relevant law has an exception for anyone who has been away for “business of the government of the United States.”
Something tells me working for the President is likely to fall under that rule.
The other guy is trying to make the case that this refers strictly to military service, but it doesn’t actually say that as far as I know. I bet the challenge gets thrown out pretty quick.
The Master has spoken here:
But then he’d have to show His face.
And if He deserves a capital letter, that may not be a good thing for us mere mortals.
Wow, this is like the third question of mine to get the Cecil treatment in the last year or so! I must be one of the leading sources of ignorance in Chicago!
I haven’t researched the first law beyond the snippet posted by Cecil, but it does not appear to require the year of residency to immediately precede the election…
Unless that is what “one year next preceding means.”
Congrats, Tim, and when folks come knocking at your door to take your picture for the Guiness Book of Whirled Records, remember NOT to give them a credit card. 
Rahm’s group filed a friend of the court brief. Includes signatures from various legal heavyweights. Including two former Illinois attorneys general.
Sure sounds like the law is on his side.
Considering this board veers nearer to the Democratic end, and has a strong link to Chicago, I’m rather amazed that so far there has been no thrilled triumphal rejoicing over the fact that as one chief of staff returns to Chicago ready to become mayor, his replacement not merely comes from Chicago, but is a son of her most famous mayor.
The symmetry is perfect.
I believe I pointed that out in the Carol Mosely Braun thread. But you are right, it is an example of the universe enforcing near-perfect symmetry…TRM (who was not “rejoicing” at the development)
Apologies, as you know vBulletin searches are infamously imperfect…
However there is one striking difference between the two men: Mr. Emanuel worked for Goldman Sachs. Mr. Daley worked for J. P. Morgan Chase.
http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20101202.php
Apparently Cecil inhabits a different sector of the galaxy than the rest of us.
I’m not sure how this whole thing will end up shaking out (though my money’s on the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Rahm’s favor), but one thing I know for sure is that this Halpin guy is an asshole.
What an idiotic thing to say! It’s very common for more than one person to be resident in one residence, e.g., husband, wife and perhaps adult children.
Clearly you’re a hippy.
I thought that one of the distinctive characteristics of hippies as that they didn’t have a husband or wife, even though they might have children.
Good point. I think he really means that non-hippies have their spouse and kids sleep outside.
Assuming today’s ruling w/regard to RE’s name not appearing on the ballot holds up, what does it do to his chances of getting elected?
I assume you are just making a sly quip about the state of politics in Chicago. But on the off-chance you are asking if he could win as a write-in (which I’ve heard some people suggest), I suspect the ruling would knock that option out for him as well.
Although, in the end, my money is on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of his candidacy.
So far as I understand it, if he’s not eligible to be on the ballot, he’s not eligible as a write-in, either. Or rather, he’s eligible as a write-in, but not eligible to take the office.
It seems like we’re in a gray area.