Judicial smackdowns
January 27, 2011 4:42 PM Subscribe
Everyone's favorite political bulldog, Rahm Emanuel, won his appeal to the IL Supreme Court and gets to remain on the ballot for mayor.
Background: the IL law says that a candidate for municipal office needs to have been a resident of that municipality for a year. Emanuel lived in DC for a while, serving as the President's Chief of Staff, and did not physically "return" to Chicago in time to (it was alleged) meet the statute's requirement. However, he maintained "legal" residence in Chicago; he retained the right to vote there and maintained an intent to return when he was done as Chief of Staff.
So, hearings were held. The Election Board and the Circuit Court agreed that Emanuel retained his residency because he intended to return, and because he didn't do anything to abandon his residency.
The IL Appellate Court disagreed, with an impassioned dissent. The basis of the disagreement was that "residence" and "resided in" can refer to two completely different things, and in this case, Emanuel maintained the right to vote but not the right to be on the ballot. So, it was ordered that his name be removed from the ballot and the City started printing ballots without his name.
Emanuel appealed to the IL Supreme Court, and within 12 hours, the Court ordered a stay of that ruling and that if any other ballots were printed, *should* contain Emanuel's name.
And, about an hour ago, the IL Supreme Court issued a unanimous (almost) ruling, written by the multi-talented Robert Thomas, stating that the Appellate Court was in error and that "residence" and "resides in" are the same, as it pertains to candidates meeting the requirements of residency. As such, Emanuel did nothing to abandon his residency and is legally qualified to run for Mayor of Chicago. Further, the opinion was fairly critical of the appellate opinion. Two justices issued a separate, but concurring, opinion, that criticized the majority's criticism, and raised the issue of residency requirements imposed on city employees.
But what's most interesting about all of this is the back and forth sniping between the appellate, the dissent, the ruling and the concurrence. A spirited debate to say the least. Read them if you have the time.
(For the politically minded, there were bizarre and frankly offensive calls for Justice Ann Burke to recuse herself from the case, because her politically powerful husband supports a different candidate for the office of mayor.)
Background: the IL law says that a candidate for municipal office needs to have been a resident of that municipality for a year. Emanuel lived in DC for a while, serving as the President's Chief of Staff, and did not physically "return" to Chicago in time to (it was alleged) meet the statute's requirement. However, he maintained "legal" residence in Chicago; he retained the right to vote there and maintained an intent to return when he was done as Chief of Staff.
So, hearings were held. The Election Board and the Circuit Court agreed that Emanuel retained his residency because he intended to return, and because he didn't do anything to abandon his residency.
The IL Appellate Court disagreed, with an impassioned dissent. The basis of the disagreement was that "residence" and "resided in" can refer to two completely different things, and in this case, Emanuel maintained the right to vote but not the right to be on the ballot. So, it was ordered that his name be removed from the ballot and the City started printing ballots without his name.
Emanuel appealed to the IL Supreme Court, and within 12 hours, the Court ordered a stay of that ruling and that if any other ballots were printed, *should* contain Emanuel's name.
And, about an hour ago, the IL Supreme Court issued a unanimous (almost) ruling, written by the multi-talented Robert Thomas, stating that the Appellate Court was in error and that "residence" and "resides in" are the same, as it pertains to candidates meeting the requirements of residency. As such, Emanuel did nothing to abandon his residency and is legally qualified to run for Mayor of Chicago. Further, the opinion was fairly critical of the appellate opinion. Two justices issued a separate, but concurring, opinion, that criticized the majority's criticism, and raised the issue of residency requirements imposed on city employees.
But what's most interesting about all of this is the back and forth sniping between the appellate, the dissent, the ruling and the concurrence. A spirited debate to say the least. Read them if you have the time.
(For the politically minded, there were bizarre and frankly offensive calls for Justice Ann Burke to recuse herself from the case, because her politically powerful husband supports a different candidate for the office of mayor.)
This post was deleted for the following reason: The other thread is only three days old. -- cortex
Mayor Emanuel is pleased. "God, I fucking wish Axelrod and Carl the Intern were here right now. Who's going to hold my fucking feet for the kegstands?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:47 PM on January 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:47 PM on January 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
OneMonkeysUncle called it (sort of): "I've lived here thirty years and you can take this to the bank: Rahm Emmanual and the people who want him to be mayor Will. Find. A. Way."
posted by vidur at 4:48 PM on January 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by vidur at 4:48 PM on January 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
They send one of yours to the Illinois Supreme Court, you send one of theirs to the morgue. That's the Chicago way.
posted by tzikeh at 4:52 PM on January 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by tzikeh at 4:52 PM on January 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm the first to admit that I don't know anything about the applicable Illinois law, and I've long joked about this that the fix was in, but I'm glad it went this way. On its face, he wasn't a resident, but there was a case to be made through paying taxes and the driver's licence and voter's registration -- a sort of Miracle on 34th Street Defence -- that he was. And if there was an error to be made in deciding that, better it be through giving the people of Chicago more choice than less.
That said, I found this story fascinating not so much because of the legal issues involved, but because for all of Rahm's political expertise and reputation for getting shit done -- this was a rookie mistake. An absolute rookie mistake not to maintain some residence, a cheap rental or whatever. How could Rahm make a simple error like that?
It's like Michael Jordan going for a magnificent dunk and tripping because he forgot to tie his shoes. Sure, it happens, but it's not supposed to happen to a guy like HIM.
posted by Capt. Renault at 4:56 PM on January 27, 2011
That said, I found this story fascinating not so much because of the legal issues involved, but because for all of Rahm's political expertise and reputation for getting shit done -- this was a rookie mistake. An absolute rookie mistake not to maintain some residence, a cheap rental or whatever. How could Rahm make a simple error like that?
It's like Michael Jordan going for a magnificent dunk and tripping because he forgot to tie his shoes. Sure, it happens, but it's not supposed to happen to a guy like HIM.
posted by Capt. Renault at 4:56 PM on January 27, 2011
How could Rahm make a simple error like that?
Dude, he knew the fix was in.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:58 PM on January 27, 2011
Dude, he knew the fix was in.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:58 PM on January 27, 2011
so 3 of the 4 bodies that have a say in this agreed with Emanuel.
I think that may transcend "fix" and just be the law.
posted by edgeways at 5:07 PM on January 27, 2011
I think that may transcend "fix" and just be the law.
posted by edgeways at 5:07 PM on January 27, 2011
« Older I Was Teenage Hockey Message Board Jailbait | Gladys Horton, Marvelette, RIP Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Joe Beese at 4:45 PM on January 27, 2011