Skip to comments.Court orders Emanuel off mayoral ballot
Posted on 01/24/2011 12:36:14 PM PST by Cincinatus
Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot because he does not meet the residency standard, according to a ruling issued by a state appellate court today.
Emanuel told a news conference he would appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and would ask for an injunction so his name will appear on the mayoral ballot.
"I have no doubt at the end we'll prevail in this effort," Emanuel said. Well now go to the next level to get clarity."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
It depends what the definition of “resident” is. Could be interpreted to mean “left at least one suitcase in town for a year”
That judge will find a suitcase full of cash and a threat, then all will be cozy for Rahm.
Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot
because he does not meet the Rat-Hole residency standard,
according to a ruling issued by
the State of Illlinois Pest and Vermin Control Board today.
The court could rule so tight that if any candidate had LEFT THE CITY for even 1 second during the preceding year he or she could not be on the ballot.
Might be time for the courts to put Chicago to the test regarding their open ended law on residency of candidates.
If we could only have this same disappointment fall upon his old boss.
How’s this for clarity, RAHM!
Either way, Chicago is going to get the mayor it so richly deserves.
Expect near infinite pressure from the White House on this one.
“I have no doubt at the end we’ll prevail in this effort,” Emanuel said.”
Of course he will. It’s just a matter of getting the right judges...
You’re absolutely right. This leaves the field open for Carol Mostly-Fraud.
More clarity....R AH M...
I guess those judges don’t have a union card? Seriously they need to watch their backs for quite a while.
He didn't commute...He left Chicago....even rented out his former house...He simply hasn't been residing in Chicago for the past year.
Had his wife and kids remained in Chicago and he was commuting....whole different story...
He was a landlord, not a resident.
Sounds like Carol Moseley Braun has been consulting with a community organizer.
But I suppose it could be the 57th state...
The people of Chicago got a short reprieve. This guy has too many corrupt connections not to get his own way. Poster child for what has gone wrong in the USA with cronyism and corruption and special rules for connected political hacks. The career path is either to get political connections first and then go rip off the system, or vice versa and rip it off twice.
We need pols that get into the political system to serve the public short term and then get out. They are few and far between.
So, a candidate drives outside of Chicago for a half an hour to visit a Wal-Mart. Does that mean he broke his one year residency?
Of course his “budds” have put all of the Supreme Court justices in their jobs, so little Rahm has no worries.
To “reside in” means exactly that. Not only did he have to have a residence, but he was to “reside in” the City that he was running for office.
Taking a 2 night trip to another State does not break the “reside in” rule but renting out your residence and “residing” elsewhere does.
The ruling is pretty straight forward and only 42 pages long. You should read it.
Well, I guess we’ll see how honest the Illinois SC really is.
Nice try. Not even close.
It’s about where he resides, i.e lives, hangs his hat, or as the law describes “resides in” for the year next preceding the election.
Nor does he qualify under the exception. The exception is is for those in the military. Rahm doesn’t qualify here, either.
If I decide to serve the United States in some other capacity, for 18 months, let’s say, the TSA at Denver Airport, am I still a resident of Illinois ?
I was eventually convinced I had to change my residence to Indiana lest the US Army assign me to a vacancy in an Indiana Guard unit. Drill weekends would have been miserable ~ making a 600 mile drive each way.
Of note, that position was one of the ones available for ordinary NG enlistees in Indiana at the time ~ including DAN QUAYLE.
I never owned a house in Indiana, and didn't actually live there from about June 1966 through to 1971 ~ yet, I voted, paid income tax there, and kept my drivers license.
It didn't matter what Indiana law said either ~ there are federal laws that allowed for this.
It was much more common in the past, then a bunch of Democrat refugees moved to the state and raised taxes making Virginia more "convenient" anyway.
Rahm was Chief of Staff for the President of the United States ~ and the city of Chicago imagines that it's piddly little laws regarding domicile should take precedent over the needs of the entire United States for Rahm's services ~ or the services of any other Chicago resident.
I think it's a civil rights problem that will eventually be ruled in Rahm's favor.
It’s a ruling made by an Illinois state court regarding a federal matter. I’ll read it when we run out of toilet paper.
Actually, the legal term in this Illinois law is “resides in, not residence.
Again, it's not a city law, it's a state law. And the exception in Illinois IS for military only.
Being COS of the POTUS is not an exception.
Your personal experience is great but is not relevant and not the same as Rahm’s case.
so what's your point, again ?
If the law is unfair, change the law, otherwise, enforce it.
Then, it goes further and lays the case on a concept of "...... shall themselves be component parts of such units......" which runs smack dab into the 14th amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause ~ to wit: "..... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....."
What that means is that Rahm Emanuel's rights, as far as this court is concerned, depend entirely on whether or not he can get Justice Thomas to convince FOUR OTHER JUSTICES that he, Rahm, met the requirement of "residing in" Chicago as meant by not just Illinois law, but but also by a hard-core Conservative.
Let me suggest that Rahm Wins!
And I thought you said don't bother bringing popcorn ~ this one is a slam-dunk!
Your last post makes no sense whatsoever. Go back to sleep, Rahm.
How is it a federal matter? It’s about the eligibility of someone to run for office in the State.
The 14th Amendment makes it a FEDERAL MATTER. I’m sure Justice Thomas will have no trouble at all with this ~ but it’s the old biddies on the court who will be a problem.
No it doesn’t. Each State can set their own requirements for eligibility of elected office within their State.
If they had tried to impose extra eligibility on someone serving in Congress, you would be correct.
Requiring that a person has both a residence and that they reside in the city that they are running for mayor of for one year prior to the election is not a violation of the 14th amendment.
This is not a federal issue. The Illinois Supreme Court is as high as it can possibly go.
how is SCOTUS involved in this ?
The most conservative candidate, in that race, is Fred White, a write-in candidate. He wants to cut the salaries of the mayor and council members by 30%. Hes pro-gun rights and anti-illegal alien. Including write-in candidates, the race has 13 candidates. Please read Freds site, www.fredrick-k-white.com.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.