6 Two 3 Nine

Expert Unexpert Advice

Posts Tagged ‘Residency

It’s Official and Unanimous – Rahm’s On the Ballot

leave a comment »


7 out of 7 Illinois Supreme Court Justices agree that Rahm Emmanuel is in fact a resident of Chicago.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago,  saying in a unanimous decision that he meets the state’s residency requirements despite spending most of the last year as White House chief of staff.

“The voters deserved the right to make the choice of who should be mayor. And what the Supreme Court said basically, in short, that the voters should make the decicions of who will be mayor,” a victorious Emanuel said after slapping backs and shaking hands with commuters at the Clark and Lake elevated train stop near his downtown headquarters.

“The nice part was to be able to tell the news to voters, because a lot of people had not heard it,” Emanuel said.

The court essentially took the position of the Appellate minority, and by that I mean their position is that the Appellate majority are a bunch of political hacks who wouldn’t know established jurisprudence if it jumped up and bit them square on the ass.  Allahpundit at Hot Air points out:

So harsh is it, in fact, that two justices wrote a separate concurrence criticizing the court for being unduly vicious towards the appellate court. (“[T]he tone taken by the majority today is unfortunate…”)

Surprise surprise, one of the two dissenting concurrences came from Ms. “I Think For Myself and Don’t Care That My Husband Rules the Chicago City Council With an Iron Fist” Justice Burke.  Can’t imagine she likes seeing them get this kind of lashing when all they did was what her husband ordered them to.


Rahm Off the Ballot – Clusterfuck to Commence Update: Rahm’s Attorneys File Emergency Motion to Supreme Court

leave a comment »

Uh oh

Chicago News Cooperative just reported that the Illinois Appeals Court has overturned the previous ruling on Rahm Emmanuel’s residency, ruling that he’s not legally a resident of Chicago.  More updates to come…

Update I: So the first thing, this was going to go to the Illinois Supreme Court no matter what.  He wouldn’t have gotten the previous rulings in his favor if the powers that be didn’t want him to be the next mayor, so I’d say chances are good this is going to be overturned by the Supreme Court (as they tend to rule as they’re told)

That said, Melissa Clouthier is saying that the Illinois Supreme Court is slow to overturn appellate decisions.  So we’ll see.

Update II: Alright, so supposing Rahm doesn’t get back on the ballot, what does this mean?  He’s got the most support from all 3 racial demographics, meaning there are a lot of free votes for everyone playing the race game.  This means a lot of votes from Braun and a lot of votes for Chico.

This definitely helps Chico a lot.  He’s the only one with the money to be up on the air in any capacity, and he’s got significant support amongst whites and hispanics.  If the ruling stands, this is almost certainly going to mean a runoff between Braun and Chico, barring white people getting comfortable with Braun or Chico somehow learning how to run a campaign that’s anywhere near the level of Rahm’s.

Update III: Thank you Mark Knoller, the ruling is available here.

Update IV: This ruling seems kind of goofy.  So the court rejects the intent to return as qualifying as residency argument, which makes sense.  They also put forward that the definition of “reside” is to actually live there, which makes enough sense.  Where is gets kind of silly is the issue of whether the “business of the United States” argument saves Rahm.

The code reads as such:

Ҥ 3-2. (a) A permanent abode is necessary to constitute

a residence within the meaning of Section 3-1. No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.” 10 ILCS 5/3-2(a)

The court accepts that Rahm serving as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States qualifies as “business of the United States”, but then argues that when they say “residence” they only mean in terms of whether one qualifies as a voter, and not in any other residency context.  The basis of this conclusion is that the code specifies an “elector” and not a candidate, and that the section of the law is specifically about voter qualifications.  They follow this up that being a qualified elector and being a resident are two separate requirements (which makes enough sense, as they are both stated) and that subsequently the residency requirements for a voter aren’t the same as the residency requirements for a candidate (which is dumb).

This strikes me as being a really dumb argument, as they are arguing that he simultaneously is and isn’t a resident of Chicago.

Now imagine the judge is a witness being questioned.  “Is Rahm and elector?” “Yes.” “Did Rahm only leave because of the business of the United States?” “Yes.” “And does the statute say no elector shall be deemed to have lost his residency because of the business of the United States?” “Yes.” “So do you deem he, an elector, lost his residency because he left due to the business of the United States?” “Yes.”


Update V: New twist – the ballots are being printed tonight…sans Rahm.  Obviously they can still be reprinted, but this is Chicago, they’ll only be reprinted if the powers that be decide they want them to be reprinted.  This is smelling more and more like some powerful insiders want to get Rahm over a barrel before they let him get elected (or they want Chico, who’s more than willing to be over a barrel).

Don’t forget, we elect our judges here…meaning they’re just as corruptable as any other politician.

Update VI: The dissent is a very good read.  Here’s a key part:

Because the candidate had established his Chicago residency, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is shown, and the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there has been a change. Hatcher v. Anders, 117 Ill. App. 3d 236, 239 (1983). In the foundational case Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 Ill. 141 (1888), the supreme court stated:

“We have frequently held that when a party leaves his residence, or acquires a new one, it is the intention with which he does so that is to control. Hence the shortest absence, if, at the time, intended as a permanent abandonment, is sufficient, although the party may soon afterwards change his intention; while, on the other hand, an absence for months or even years, if all the while intended as a mere temporary absence for some temporary purpose, to be followed by a resumption of the former residence, will not be an abandonment.” Kreitz, 125 Ill. at 195.

The majority does not acknowledge Kreitz even though it has been the leading case defining “residence” since its issuance 122 years ago. To the extent the majority addresses the long-held principle that a party’s intention when he leaves or acquires his residence largely controls the determination of whether he has abandoned the residence, the majority distorts this principle (see discussion of Smith below). Then, the majority simply reads the principle out of its analysis, choosing instead to adopt a completely new standard.

Update VII: CapFax is reporting that Rahm’s attorneys have filed an emergency motion with the Illinois Supreme Court.  It’s available here.

My operating theory here is that this is just a question of whether Ed Burke thinks Chico’s a safe pick in a runoff against Braun.  I think it’s safe to say, due to the timing, that this ruling is Burke’s doing.  Remember, judges are elected in Illinois.  That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re corrupt, just like no other politicians in Chicago/Illinois are necessarily corrupt.  He’d obviously approve someone who’d jump at the opportunity to be his puppet (Chico) but he definitely prefers someone he can work with over the shitshow Braun would put on.

Written by updowndownup

January 24, 2011 at 6:21 pm