Rahm back on...

[Mini 14]

Its Chicago.

He will be the next Mayor even if he isn't on the ballot.

The Illinois Supreme Court doesn't like waking up to a horse's head anymore than the rest of us do.

 

[jillian]

The Illinois Supreme Court has just issued a stay of the appeals court's order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the ballot and directing the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to restore his name to the ballot.

First Read - Ill. court issues stay; Rahm back on the ballot

To hell with the rules!

rahm is as much a resident of illinois as any congressman who is in DC.

i'm not quite sure why anyone would prefer mosely braun... or is it that it's rahm, so it doesn't matter who gets the mayoralty as long as it isn't him?

Not quite a solid analogy. For -- very often -- when a Congressperson moves to D.C., he (or she) leaves his spouse and children behind to "live" at "home."

Rahmbo?

No.

Not so much.

* * * *

So while plenty of political people go to work in Washington, D.C., or business people go spend weeks in New York or other places, they have to come home pretty regularly to qualify under that standard, the experts say.

"When he was a congressman, his wife and family lived here, and he would fly home on the weekends," Nally said. "He had a place to sit on the sofa, to keep a toothbrush."

But when Emanuel agreed to become chief of staff, the family moved out to D.C. and the home was rented out to another family that now refuses to break the lease and clear the way for Emanuel to move back in. Emanuel could come back to Chicago to vote, but he could not stop at the house he owns on his way to the polling place, and that does not meet the residency test to run for mayor, Nally said.

* * * *

-- Rahm Emanuel: Experts say not a legal resident of Chicago, cannot run for mayor - Lynn Sweet

Not to worry. This is Chicago we're talkin' about. Words have no fixed meaning.

rahm didn't have to. his constituent was in D.C.

did he keep paying taxes to chicago? kept a residence?

i find that b/c all i've heard is a lot of rightwingnut noise for the past two years, i don't really pay attention to much that's said by them about anyone on the other side of the aisle. *shrug*

 

[Trajan]

The Illinois Supreme Court has just issued a stay of the appeals court's order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the ballot and directing the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to restore his name to the ballot.

First Read - Ill. court issues stay; Rahm back on the ballot

To hell with the rules!

rahm is as much a resident of illinois as any congressman who is in DC.

i'm not quite sure why anyone would prefer mosely braun... or is it that it's rahm, so it doesn't matter who gets the mayoralty as long as it isn't him?

uhm how?

congressman are elected.....they are their on states bus...(?)

 

[boedicca]

If his Constituent was in DC, then its clear that he wasn't serving Chicago, and can't make the "doing the people's business" argument to claim an exemption from residency requirements.

 

[jillian]

If his Constituent was in DC, then its clear that he wasn't serving Chicago, and can't make the "doing the people's business" argument to claim an exemption from residency requirements.

*yawn*

 

[JFK_USA]

Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.

If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.

I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.

And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.

Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.

Could go either way.

If he did every thing he could to keep his residency. I don't see how he is ineligible. He was asked by Obama to serve as Chief of Staff. He did his job and then resigned. Mayor of Chicago is the job he wants, and until the Supreme court makes their decision, he should at least keep his name on the ballot. I agree with the stay from the courts since he is appealing the decision.

 

[boedicca]

So sorry to interfere with your perpetual somnambulant state, jilly. Perhaps another dose of Oprah will restore it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL

Rule of law? Wussdat?

From Toricelli to Ramh Democrats could give a fuck about the rule of law

 

[saveliberty]

Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.

If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.

I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.

And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.

Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.

Could go either way.

If he did every thing he could to keep his residency. I don't see how he is ineligible. He was asked by Obama to serve as Chief of Staff. He did his job and then resigned. Mayor of Chicago is the job he wants, and until the Supreme court makes their decision, he should at least keep his name on the ballot. I agree with the stay from the courts since he is appealing the decision.

Rahm needed to join the military for one thing.
Maybe stay in his home a couple of times a year.
Everything to keep his residency, right.
No one thought Daily was going to leave office. Emanuel made a bad move. Now he gets to pay the price.

 

[jillian]

So sorry to interfere with your perpetual somnambulant state, jilly. Perhaps another dose of Oprah will restore it.

you know, i've never watched oprah.

but i do get bored by self-important pseudo-intellectual trolls like you, boebitcha. *shrug*

 

[Mushy]

rahm is as much a resident of illinois as any congressman who is in DC.

i'm not quite sure why anyone would prefer mosely braun... or is it that it's rahm, so it doesn't matter who gets the mayoralty as long as it isn't him?

Rahm was not elected and go to DC to serve the people of Illinois. He went to serve at the request of Obama. Big difference in my opinion. But if the statute reads as it has been explained in this thread he will win the decision.

 

[xotoxi]

Here's the actual language:

Sec. 3.1-10-5. Qualifications; elective office.

(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(b) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office if that person is in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony.

(c) A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(d) If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person's spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement under subsection (a).

Illinois Compiled Statutes 65 ILCS 5 Illinois Municipal Code. Section 3.1-10-5 - Illinois Attorney Resources - Illinois Laws


Rahm was a qualified voter BUT he was not a resident for one year. Trying to compare serving in a political position in the White House with military duty is specious - and that appears to be how he is spinning this.

The big mystery is what do subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11 say?

 

[saveliberty]

Here's the actual language:

Sec. 3.1-10-5. Qualifications; elective office.

(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(b) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office if that person is in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony.

(c) A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(d) If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person's spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement under subsection (a).

Illinois Compiled Statutes 65 ILCS 5 Illinois Municipal Code. Section 3.1-10-5 - Illinois Attorney Resources - Illinois Laws


Rahm was a qualified voter BUT he was not a resident for one year. Trying to compare serving in a political position in the White House with military duty is specious - and that appears to be how he is spinning this.

The big mystery is what do subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11 say?

A good question.

Not sure it matters, I see the words active duty military. That is a very specific qualification. "A person", which is what Emanuel is, MUST reside in the city. Unless the sections you mention shed some light.

 

[xotoxi]

Here's the actual language:

Sec. 3.1-10-5. Qualifications; elective office.

(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(b) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office if that person is in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony.

(c) A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(d) If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person's spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement under subsection (a).

Illinois Compiled Statutes 65 ILCS 5 Illinois Municipal Code. Section 3.1-10-5 - Illinois Attorney Resources - Illinois Laws


Rahm was a qualified voter BUT he was not a resident for one year. Trying to compare serving in a political position in the White House with military duty is specious - and that appears to be how he is spinning this.

The big mystery is what do subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11 say?

A good question.

Not sure it matters, I see the words active duty military. That is a very specific qualification. "A person", which is what Emanuel is, MUST reside in the city. Unless the sections you mention shed some light.

Nope...I just looked up those sections and they discuss what happens when a new ward or district is created from scratch (thus the residency requirement is difficult to determine)

Looks like this is a win for Conservative America.

American Conservatives - 1
American Liberals - 0

 

[Liability]

rahm is as much a resident of illinois as any congressman who is in DC.

i'm not quite sure why anyone would prefer mosely braun... or is it that it's rahm, so it doesn't matter who gets the mayoralty as long as it isn't him?

Not quite a solid analogy. For -- very often -- when a Congressperson moves to D.C., he (or she) leaves his spouse and children behind to "live" at "home."

Rahmbo?

No.

Not so much.

* * * *

So while plenty of political people go to work in Washington, D.C., or business people go spend weeks in New York or other places, they have to come home pretty regularly to qualify under that standard, the experts say.

"When he was a congressman, his wife and family lived here, and he would fly home on the weekends," Nally said. "He had a place to sit on the sofa, to keep a toothbrush."

But when Emanuel agreed to become chief of staff, the family moved out to D.C. and the home was rented out to another family that now refuses to break the lease and clear the way for Emanuel to move back in. Emanuel could come back to Chicago to vote, but he could not stop at the house he owns on his way to the polling place, and that does not meet the residency test to run for mayor, Nally said.

* * * *

-- Rahm Emanuel: Experts say not a legal resident of Chicago, cannot run for mayor - Lynn Sweet

Not to worry. This is Chicago we're talkin' about. Words have no fixed meaning.

rahm didn't have to. his constituent was in D.C.

did he keep paying taxes to chicago? kept a residence?

i find that b/c all i've heard is a lot of rightwingnut noise for the past two years, i don't really pay attention to much that's said by them about anyone on the other side of the aisle. *shrug*

LOL.

You have become a lot more strident and less articulate of late.

"Rahm didn't have to."

Sure. In your universe where words are permitted to have no fixed meaning. Rahm could have been born in Kenya, raised in Hawaii and passed through Illinois at some unknown date sometime in his life and he'd qualify as a "resident."

Fuck the words of the statute. We mustn't let THOSE archaic things get in the way of having our boy run and win.

Your words have lost a lot of weight. No big deal. That's only to be expected of a biased overly-partisan hack like you who believes (fervently) that words are just malleable little fuckers. *shrug*

 

[Foxfyre]

This will create a whole class of people who are political already and give them advantages over other persons seeking office. The courts need to define this more narrowly or all potential candidates need to do is attach their name to a property within the district. I can run for governor in multiple states at the same time by simply having a friend place my name as an occupant at their home.

This is the other side of the argument and the side that two of the three appellate judges came down on. It should not be sufficient to establish residency simply by owning property in a place. We have enough trouble now with people voting in two or three different states.

In Rahm's case though, he had occupied the house for several years before accepting the job in Washington, a lot of his personal furnishings including a piano, bedroom suite, family heirlooms, library collections, etc. remained in the home for the entire period indicating he had every intention of reoccupying the house within a relatively short period. And the fact that he never established a permanent or legal Washington address also factored into the dissenting opinion that he had not abandoned his residency status.

Again I'm not an attorney and my legal education is quite modest. But if I had been serving on the election board, with that kind of evidence put in front of me, and the clause in the law that persons on official government business do not lose their residency status, I would have ruled in his favor. I would have had to hold my nose for sure, but it just feels that he has a case to me.

 

[Liability]

rahm is as much a resident of illinois as any congressman who is in DC.

i'm not quite sure why anyone would prefer mosely braun... or is it that it's rahm, so it doesn't matter who gets the mayoralty as long as it isn't him?

Rahm was not elected and go to DC to serve the people of Illinois. He went to serve at the request of Obama. Big difference in my opinion. But if the statute reads as it has been explained in this thread he will win the decision.

The statute reads literally in a way that compels that Rahm get removed from the ballot.

But he won't.

It's as good as a done deal. Rahm will prevail NOT because the statute authorizes that result. It plainly does not. Rahmbo will win because the Illinois Supreme Court will CHOOSE to "interpret" the words of the statute -- that requires no interpretation -- in a way that determines that outcome.

I am very pleased that I am not a Chicagoan on this fine day. My sympathies go out to Chicagoans (even if they happen to like THIS outcome). For they live in a fantasy world where legislation doesn't mean what it says. And there is damn little security in the rule of law when it can be so cavalierly ignored by the very bodies which are supposed to give the law proper effect.

 

[boedicca]

Here's the actual language:

Sec. 3.1-10-5. Qualifications; elective office.

(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(b) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office if that person is in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony.

(c) A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

(d) If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person's spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement under subsection (a).

Illinois Compiled Statutes 65 ILCS 5 Illinois Municipal Code. Section 3.1-10-5 - Illinois Attorney Resources - Illinois Laws


Rahm was a qualified voter BUT he was not a resident for one year. Trying to compare serving in a political position in the White House with military duty is specious - and that appears to be how he is spinning this.

The big mystery is what do subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11 say?

These are not really relevant to Rahm's situation.

3.1-20-25 is about redistricting:

Illinois Compiled Statutes 65 ILCS 5 Illinois Municipal Code. Section 3.1-20-25 - Illinois Attorney Resources - Illinois Laws

And more about districts in 3.1-20-75

Illinois Compiled Statutes 65 ILCS 5 Illinois Municipal Code. Section 3.1-25-75 - Illinois Attorney Resources - Illinois Laws

The other two are about managing small municipalities

2005 Illinois Code - Article 5 - Managerial Form Of Municipal Government - Illinois 65ILCS5/Illinois Municipal Code. :: Justia -- US Laws, Codes, Statutes & Cases -- Justia

 

[boedicca]

So sorry to interfere with your perpetual somnambulant state, jilly. Perhaps another dose of Oprah will restore it.

you know, i've never watched oprah.

but i do get bored by self-important pseudo-intellectual trolls like you, boebitcha. *shrug*

I doubt that very much. But if it makes your life endurable, knock yourself out.

 

[boedicca]

This will create a whole class of people who are political already and give them advantages over other persons seeking office. The courts need to define this more narrowly or all potential candidates need to do is attach their name to a property within the district. I can run for governor in multiple states at the same time by simply having a friend place my name as an occupant at their home.

This is the other side of the argument and the side that two of the three appellate judges came down on. It should not be sufficient to establish residency simply by owning property in a place. We have enough trouble now with people voting in two or three different states.

In Rahm's case though, he had occupied the house for several years before accepting the job in Washington, a lot of his personal furnishings including a piano, bedroom suite, family heirlooms, library collections, etc. remained in the home for the entire period indicating he had every intention of reoccupying the house within a relatively short period. And the fact that he never established a permanent or legal Washington address also factored into the dissenting opinion that he had not abandoned his residency status.

Again I'm not an attorney and my legal education is quite modest. But if I had been serving on the election board, with that kind of evidence put in front of me, and the clause in the law that persons on official government business do not lose their residency status, I would have ruled in his favor. I would have had to hold my nose for sure, but it just feels that he has a case to me.

He rented out the house and lived in DC during the year of required residency.

Storing possession in a building is not residency.