Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:37 PM ET, 01/24/2011

Rahm Emanuel got robbed

By Eva Rodriguez

Even hundreds of miles away, you can probably hear the blizzard of F-bombs sweeping down from the Great Lakes. They're from Rahm Emanuel, the profanity-happy former chief of staff to President Obama, who was stricken from the Feb. 22 ballot for mayor of Chicago. I wouldn't blame him.

The Chicago board of elections and a trial court earlier gave Emanuel the go-ahead to run. But an Illinois appeals court today overturned those decisions and barred Emanuel -- who has been leading the race -- from running because he did not meet the municipality's residency requirements. Specifically, the 2-1 majority concluded that Emanuel did not "reside in" Chicago for at least one year before the election.

Sure enough, Emanuel did not for some 18 months physically live in the Chicago home he shares with his wife and kids. But Illinois law isn't as black-and-white as the appeals court ruling makes it out to be. A quick read of the decision -- and the dissent -- reveals that Illinois courts have interpreted the residency provision pretty broadly, concluding that absence alone could not be used to disqualify a candidate. Emanuel -- who was born in Chicago -- spent some 18 months living in Washington and working for Obama; before that he commuted from Chicago to D.C. as a U.S. representative. During his stint in the White House, he never sold his Chicago home, never bought a home in D.C., kept his Illinois driver's license, voted in Illinois and made clear his intention to return to his home state. Emanuel, in other words, was not a carpetbagger.

I'm not a Chicago resident and I'm not an Emanuel partisan, so I have nothing personally vested in this contest. But it seems to me that Emanuel got robbed. The Illinois Supreme Court should act with lightning speed to return him to the race.

By Eva Rodriguez  | January 24, 2011; 3:37 PM ET
Categories:  Rodriguez  | Tags:  Eva Rodriguez  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sorry, Dana Milbank -- I won't quit Sarah Palin
Next: Michele Bachmann's 'absolutely amazing' view of history

Comments

He was not there. He did not LIVE there. He "intended to return".

I agree with the ruling. You can establish residency without actually residing there. Too bad the law requires you reside in the city rather than merely being a landowner, taxpayer, and voter.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | January 24, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Ah those pesky residency requirements -- They don't apply to me. I always "lived or thought about living in Chicago" while I moved to Washington DC to "save or create" millions of jobs. You should be honored that I want to be your mayor, a step down from President's right hand man...

Posted by: girish975 | January 24, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The author presents the argument that "he never sold his Chicago home, never bought a home in D.C." but doesn't say where he lived. Did he rent a house (or hotel room, etc) in Chicago or DC? Was he a long-term guest at the White House?

Where did Rahm live?

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | January 24, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

And yet ... two out of three Illinois licensed attorneys, presumably of some experience with Illinois law, sitting on one of the state's higher courts, disagree with your legal analysis. I don't care one way or the other if Emmanuel can run; what I am left wondering (and assumed would be stated) is "why?" Are you saying those two judges are dumber than the third? Were they bought off by a vast right wing conspiracy? Is their judgment drug impaired? What was the motivation or explanation for the decision being so blatantly dishonest that you call it robbery? He'll have an appeal, and if he wins, more power to him. But if I was one of those two judges right now, I'd be wishing I had a job where I could just write whatever I want to without offering an explanation -- or quoting the ones given in the legal opinions I rendered, so as to have my side presented.

Posted by: KurtStallings | January 24, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

As the author states, Emanuel owned and still owns a home in Chicago, has an Illinois driver's license, and according to the requirements of federal and state election law is a voter from the city of Chicago. That right there makes you a resident. On that alone the court was wrong.

But here's the other thing. To NOT be a resident, residency must be surrendered. Emanuel must present himself to the appropriate officials of another jurisdiction, declare that he meets the residency requirements of that jurisdiction, prove it, and complete appropriate legal paperwork. He did not and has not. That is the law my friends. He is not Philip Nolan.

If Emanuel is not a citizen of Chicago, then what is he? That is the question this court had settle to make this decision, and they did not.

Posted by: adolphemenjou | January 24, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Obama eliminate his Democrat opponents for the Senate nomination via the courts?

What goes around, Rahm-bo.

Posted by: JustJoe3 | January 24, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Rules, we live by rules.

Posted by: gousa1 | January 24, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Some of the commenters apparently don't understand that residency has a specific meaning legally, and that you can retain your residency without physically remaining there. Think about it. Soldiers who are deployed to battle zones still reside in their home state; they don't become legal residents of Afghanistan. Students who go out of state to school still reside legally in their home states. All the members of congress--even the president--are still are treated as living in their home states. And things like still owning a home, voting and registering your vehicles in the home state are all used to establish your intent to still reside legally in that state. Why should the support staff of congress and the president be treated differently, unless they do something affirmative to cut the tie with the home state. If Rahm became a permanent Washington fixture working for a succession of pols, then yes, you could treat him as a resident of DC, but not if he served one and did nothing in the meantime to sever his Illinois ties. I'm not a big Rahm fan, but I think the court screwed up.

Posted by: ScoutieDog | January 24, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't the fact that he had long residence in Chicago outweigh a temporary absence in the service of his country? Would a soldier in the US military from Chicago, who had been deployed overseas for two years fighting be denied a place on the ballot because he had not resided in Illinois for a year prior to running? I wonder what the political makeup of the court that took him off the ballot is. Bet they are mostly GOP affiliated. Nothing is non-partisan anymore. What ever happened to common sense and simply doing the right thing? Rham has more right to run for Chicago mayor than Hillary Clinton ever had to run for NY senator!

Posted by: atrussophd | January 24, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse


Once again, this decision is obviously based on party affiliation.

Posted by: lindalovejones | January 24, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Rham got robbed?

Come on.

More like: Rham didn't do his homework.


Posted by: BILDERBERG | January 24, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Rahm's going to turn it back over.

Posted by: PulSamsara | January 24, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't this be determined by voters, not by the courts? If voters don't want him as mayor, they won't vote for him. It's so simple. Leave it up to the voters to decide!

Posted by: beersquirrel | January 24, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

It is the citizens of Chicago who were robbed. Robbed of the right to choose who they want for mayor. The Chicago Board of Elections voted he could stay on the ballot, so did an election judge. The should have the ultimate say. If Rahm loses his appeal, the City of Chicago will be a second class city with a second class mayor- one ruled by the city council.

Posted by: dmvk | January 24, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I am sure a man as resourceful as Rahm will find someway to continue to fleece the public sector.

Posted by: wcochran60 | January 24, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I agree with lindalovejones: This is obviously party related.

If the republicans can't win by playing by the rules, then they will change the rules so that they can win.

Also obvious: They see Emmanual as a threat to them.

Posted by: taroya | January 24, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Rahmy should have asked Hillary how she was able to carpetbag herself into a New York State Senate position.

Posted by: Cliffyworld | January 24, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I think this ruling is stupid. For everyone who thinks he does not qualify as a resident would then agree that Illinois should give him all his tax money back for the past 18 months since he wasn't a 'resident'. Just because you travel for a job should not disqualify you for residency. If he had a license that was valid, an address that was valid and paid taxes; he IS a resident!

Posted by: Annonymous_Blogger | January 24, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I presume you meant "lightning" speed rather than "lightening" speed ... Know-it-all editors still out to lunch over at the Post, I see. And you're "not an Emanuel partisan" ?

Slip's showing, my dear. Hike it up!

Posted by: jomicins | January 24, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Is Rahm not a citizen of Israel?

Posted by: GEarlMoore | January 24, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree with Ms. Rodriguez and I hope the Illinois State Supreme Court acts quickly to make this right. Unless every Congressional Representative and U.S. Senator is subject to the same approach, whereby because their job is in Washington, DC and they have to have a roof over their head while working which happens to be in Washington so therefore they are deemed to be a resident of Washington. If the appeals court logic was similarly applied then Illinois reps and senators wouldn't meet the residency requirement either.

Posted by: Nina1908 | January 24, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Eva, Rahm did not get robbed. He did not "reside in" the city for one year. He resided in Washington. The Court correctly made a distinction between "residency" and "reside in." Pursuant to Municipal Law and the law in Illinois, the two are not the same. Rahm did not meet the "reside in" requirement and the court correctly said so. Why do you think Hillary had to move to New York before she could become a senator? She had to "reside" there. Nough said.

Posted by: EMMANUELBOB | January 24, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I think this ruling is stupid. For everyone who thinks he does not qualify as a resident would then agree that Illinois should give him all his tax money back for the past 18 months since he wasn't a 'resident'. Just because you travel for a job should not disqualify you for residency. If he had a license that was valid, an address that was valid and paid taxes; he IS a resident!

Posted by: Annonymous_Blogger | January 24, 2011 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Weird. What about the Illinois senators and congressmen? Are they not residents in the towns they are from, just because they have to work in washington? I think that makes them technically "homeless", doesn't it? Too weird. Actually, it sounds fishy, like a political stunt.

Posted by: tafffy | January 24, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

the law is the law...rahm did not "live in" his home for the required period of time. couldn't of happened to a "nicer" guy.

Posted by: salmonrun | January 24, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

By the way, if the logic that the Illinois appeals court used is applied uniformly then however long it takes for Congressional Representative Giffords to go through rehab in Texas, she wouldn't be considered to have Arizona residency. It just doesn't make sense. Rahm was robbed and I hope this is fixed quickly.

Posted by: Nina1908 | January 24, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

@ kitchendragon50 - The AG of Virginia apparently disagrees with you as college students who go to school in Virginia are blocked from voting. Their official residence is their home state, not Virginia.

As it happens, I voted absentee during my sophomore year of college. Same thing. One can reside in one state and work in another.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 24, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Those who posted legal defence of Emanual's right to run are correct. Federal law supersedes state law in this instance and should the right continue it's rush to disinfranchise absent parties from residency then all hope of a republican president in 2012 is over and all law made by the current congress of the republican party will fail under definition that those in power are not legal residents of their home states and therefore can not legally represent those constituents who elected them. I believe Johm Roberts is about to be led into the abyss of juris prudence he never in his wildest dreams assumed the Bush gang would put him.

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | January 24, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Rahm is a resident of Kenya.

Posted by: luvleep | January 24, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Nobody not named Daley is eligible to be Mayor of Chicago, Capiche?

Posted by: Macdaddy357 | January 24, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

As a former Illinois resident now living in Montana I say Illinois deserves this guy. He will fit right in with the last hundred years of Chicago crime and corruption. Illinois residents won't even notice the difference. And, he'll be first in line for a state bailout. After all I think he has friends in high places.

Posted by: twotaul | January 24, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Eva:

Rahm did not get robbed in any shape or fashion. Quite frankly Rahms Chicago residency claims where a bit thin on the factual side to me. As well as stretching credulity to believe them as well.

So I'm not surprised he lost the case in appeals court. In fact IMO it was long overdue and should have been caught far earlier in the process.

Posted by: werehawk | January 24, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

to k.stalling. that's why this is a blog. an opinion from the writer. her opinion. just like the opinion they allowed from you.

Posted by: bruce30 | January 24, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the ruling. He didn't live there and hasn't since oh about January 2009. So what's so hard to figure out about this ruling? I do admit though that Carol Mosley Braun isn't any better as a choice for candidate.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | January 24, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

this is silly.

evidently there are two members of the appeals court who have it in for him.

he passes all the conventional tests for
residency:

1. votes in chicago. this alone would make him a resident for political purposes.

2. lived in chicago immediately prior and six months after accepting a position in the obama administration, which by it's nature is NOT a PERMANENT position.
permanency is the key here.

3. owns his house in chicago and pays taxes there. this property is not rented to another party in his absence.

4. does not own a residency elsewhere.

5. has a current illinois drivers license.

Posted by: surlydoc | January 24, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I would urge you to read the decision.

The two judges that decided against residency went through the most convoluted argument I've ever seen. This was also the opinion of the dissenting judge. They turned burden of proof rules on their head. Said that a repatriation statute (a statute that was unnecessary when passed and may be unconstitutional on its own merits) meant to protect service members that surrender their residency (when in fact they don't) should be applied here in a situation where it doesn't even correlate (partly Rahm's fault, because he cited it.) Which also the appeals court should have disallowed for non-applicability.

It ignore both legislative intent and the best interests of the electorate. They really, really, really stretched to get to this conclusion and it was clear it was more a justification than a decision.

Posted by: adolphemenjou | January 24, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Being an absentee landlord doesn't entitle you to run for mayor in that city. Sorry, but the decision was a proper reading of the law.

Rahm can drop the f-bomb all he wants, he doesn't belong in the race.

Posted by: aicohn | January 24, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

This is a closed primary election - they are all democrates. Thier is no GOP primary. Whoever gets 50% in the Dem. primary or the run off is the Mayor. As a lifelong Chicago Democrate the nut jobs on our looney left continually embarrass us with this GOP conspiracy theory blabber. That’s why they took over the US House of Representatives, not because of issues. It was because we let the 10% looney left run our party.

Posted by: TOMNAUGHTON | January 24, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the ruling. He didn't live there and hasn't since oh about January 2009. So what's so hard to figure out about this ruling? I do admit though that Carol Mosley Braun isn't any better as a choice for candidate.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | January 24, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

He did not sell his Chicago home, but neither he nor his family lived there. In fact, they rented it out and then tried to break the contract with the renters.

No Emanuel family member lived in the house for that period of time.

Rahm also got kicked off the voting rolls and magically re-appeared twice. Ordinary humans would have stayed off the voting rolls.

King Emanuel just wanted to be crowned without fuss, like the last dictator Chicago has had. For once, the little guy might win one in the Windy City.

Posted by: foodwriter67 | January 24, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Rahm got robbed? What about the American People?

He couldn't hack it as Chief of Staff, quits his job early so he can satisfy his desire for power as Mayor of Chicago and leaves the rest of the team in the mud?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how he can even qualify as a reliable burger-flipper at the moment...

Posted by: supershwa | January 24, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I can just hear the "Elect Rahm Emanuel organization now...

'Crank up the graveyards, boys - we got an election to steal!"

Good democrats all...

Posted by: wilsan | January 24, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

ya gotta live in the roost if ya want to lord over it.

soldiers and federal level politicians don't lose "residency" 'cause they get elected to perfom a job on behalf of their respective states.

rahm was an employee who resided in (maryland, dc or virgina).

i reside in nj 6 days a month, every month for 20 years. am i a nj resident?

Posted by: perryrants | January 24, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

surlydoc:

I guess you are not from Chicago? He DID rent his house out, if fact his RENTER was running for mayor until his petitions were questioned. Just posting something does not make it true. Plaese check your facts first.

Posted by: TOMNAUGHTON | January 24, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

And just to be clear on the Hillary Clinton v. Rahm Emanuel comparisons.

Hillary Clinton had to move to New York state to establish residency to run for the senate having never lived there.

Rahm Emanuel was born in Illinois and a life-long resident. To be otherwise he would have had to affirmatively abandon his residency. He did not. Rahm Emanuel has nothing to prove--The burden of proof is on others to prove otherwise. It should be an obviously insurmountable hurdle.

Posted by: adolphemenjou | January 24, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

So, you agree with Chicago politics. Only follow the rules when you agree with them? If this was Joe Schmo, would you be asking the State of Illinois to bend the rules. Doubtful.

Posted by: bethg1841 | January 24, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Chicago politics will win out and he will run, and Chicago will have another run of politics as usual forhm and his pals.

Posted by: goldenco5 | January 24, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Chicago politics will win out and he will run, and Chicago will have another run of politics as usual forhm and his pals.

Posted by: goldenco5 | January 24, 2011 4:49 PM | Report abuse

When I worked for an Indiana congressman in Washington, DC, District law permitted me to retain my Indiana driver's license and my Indiana license plates. I filed an Indiana state tax return. I served at the will of an elected federal official in Washington, DC.

When I returned to Indiana two years later after "residing" in DC for two years (I did not own or maintain property in Indiana), I was still considered an Indiana resident and was eligible for in-state tuition at IU's School of Law.

This matter seems fairly straight forward - Rahm Emanuel is and always has been a Chicago resident.

The Illinois appellate court decision is simply dirty Chicago politics - business as usual.

Posted by: SCOTTSCHMIDTT | January 24, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel, in my opinion, is not fit to be the Mayor of Hooterville. His shower room antics in the Obama Administration are enough to make you wonder why anyone would vote for him. However, under the cover of Chicago politics, as long as him name remains on the ballot, his election is probably assured. I hope the ruling of the appeals court stands. The merciful judges may have saved the people of Chicago from this rabid wingnut.

Posted by: jerdjon | January 24, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The usual and customary interpretation of residency so far as running for office is that if your eligible to vote then you are eligible to run. Since no one contested his right to vote in Illinois elections for the past few years, it makes it tough to justify the ruling. Precedent make politicians based in DC eligible to vote in their home districts. If someone wants to make an " employee vs. elected official" argument, I would gues that one would need to look at cabinet members and see where they vote.

Posted by: TXKAT3 | January 24, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The Ill. rule is very clear. Live in the state for a minimum of 12 months, continuously.

It doesn't matter if you're a soldier serving over sea, or on a 2 years sailing trip. You can not run for office until you meet this rule.

Capeesh?

Posted by: jihobbyist | January 24, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Could'not happen to a more deserving person. I screw you, you screw me, we are family.

Posted by: igorkh | January 24, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

First, Rahm is neither a student nor a soldier, so those arguments are moot. Second, just because he owns a home in Illinois doesn't mean he is a resident or that he resides there. If I own a home in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami, does that mean I reside in each of those cities and could therefore run for Mayor in whichever of those states I choose? NO. EMMANUELBOB hit the nail on the head. The interpretation here is between having legal "residency" and "residing in" the city. Rahm has not "resided in" Chicago the year prior to this race and is therefore disqualified for running for mayor. And like the author of this article, I don't really care one way or the other if he's allowed to run or not, I've never lived in Chicago, never have, never will. But the same loophole that got him kicked out of the race is probably the same loophole that will allow him to get back in it.

Posted by: usa15 | January 24, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Emanuel's wife and kids didn't reside in Chicago, either. He rented out his house, for money, and moved his legal residence, kit and kaboodle, to Washington.

When I rented out my apartment for a much briefer stint, I was not able to remain registered as a voter there, because I was no longer a legal resident. I don't see why Mr. Emanuel should get a better deal than anyone else.

Posted by: Itzajob | January 24, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

America is fed up with morphing laws to suit politicians, connected people, or even legislation (the U.S. Senate orginally needed 2/3's to pass Obama Care(with the unconstitutional individual mandate) to pass it, but could not get the votes so they came up with simple majority).

If the Illinois Supreme Court overturns the correct Court Of Appeals ruling it will be just one more message to the American public that stated rules and the law no longer matter for politicians, the connected, a select few.

Posted by: JuicyJuice | January 24, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"He did not "reside in" the city for one year. He resided in Washington. The Court correctly made a distinction between "residency" and "reside in." Pursuant to Municipal Law and the law in Illinois, the two are not the same."
Posted by: EMMANUELBOB


Yeah, what he said.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | January 24, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I wondered how he could pull this off,beings anyone who keeps up with poltics knows he was in D.C.Looks now that he can't.

Posted by: carolynabliawalker | January 24, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Even this forum has Rules, but Rham doesn't abide pesky little things like Rules. Ha ha ha ha

the Player got Played
He likes Chicago Style politics, lets see how he likes it now. He'll grease someones palms....

Posted by: Phil6 | January 24, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Eva
I read the court decision, which runs some 40 pages, and the majority spells out clearly why they believe Mr. Emanuel is not eligible to be a candidate. They cite court rulings and try to interpret legislative intent. The dissent does disagree with the majority.

I had wondered before I read the decision why his work for the White House did not exempt him from the residency requirement. Whether you agree with the majority or not, the majority does give its reasons for the decision in that respect.

The majority even admits that some of the reasoning for the law may be outmoded, but as the majority states, that is the business of the legislature.

It is true as one person stated the citizens have a right to elect whom they wish, but in all cases it must be in accordance with the law.

Mr. Emanuel states he intends to appeal the ruling. That is his right under the law.

I do agree with the person who said that Mr. Emanuel did not do his homework.

Thank you.

Posted by: apember | January 24, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

All I wish to add to this fiasco is simply this.

Typical Chicago politics - if you can't win one way use the Obama method - cram it down someone's throat.

The very corrupt Democrat political machine has 'iron fisted' Chicago and the state of Illinois for decades.

For God's sake, don't change it at this late date. You will need his help if you get Braun.

Posted by: dharper2 | January 24, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Was it legal for him to have a Illinois driver's license while living in D.C. In NC you have to get a driver's license with your local address within 30 days. A law breaker?

Posted by: piezopaul | January 24, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The court's interpretation of the law poses an arcane question of legal interpretation, and the arguments for the majority and dissent are roughly equal in strength. The majority starts from the distinction between domicile and residence. The dissent cites precedents that self-describe as residence, but according to the majority are really about domicile. (Legal terms are often used in strong and weak senses, intent determined by context.

The majority dealt with all the arguments raised here. Someone says what happens when you go into the military? Do you lose your status as a resident? As the majority interprets the law the answer is yes, and that fact, it says, support it interpretation. The relevant Illinois statute decrees that returning soldiers will have their residence *restored* upon their return.

Posted by: srdiamond | January 24, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The court's interpretation of the law poses an arcane question of legal interpretation, and the arguments for the majority and dissent are roughly equal in strength. The majority starts from the distinction between domicile and residence. The dissent cites precedents that self-describe as residence, but according to the majority are really about domicile. (Legal terms are often used in strong and weak senses, intent determined by context.

The majority dealt with all the arguments raised here. Someone says what happens when you go into the military? Do you lose your status as a resident? As the majority interprets the law the answer is yes, and that fact, it says, support it interpretation. The relevant Illinois statute decrees that returning soldiers will have their residence *restored* upon their return.
http://juridicalcoherence.blogspot.com

Posted by: srdiamond | January 24, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

That Karma is *itch isn't it.
Not to quote an eighties band, but "what comes around goes around"

Posted by: stuckinkoreaagain2001 | January 24, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The real determintion as to his status is did he pay his Illinois Income tax? It doesen't matter where you own real estate.
It usually relates to whether or not you physically spent at least six months in residence in the state you are claiming is your legal residency.

Posted by: bjplechaty | January 24, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Once a Chicagoan, always a Chicagoan. Let him run!

Posted by: LNChicagoan | January 24, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

EVA

Rahm did not get robbed -

the people of Chicago almost got their election STOLEN by Rahm's outside money.


If Rahm wants to run for Mayor, he can. All he has to do is live there for a year, and then run in the next election.


By the way, Rahm's wife and kids are still in Washington.

Until his family is in Chicago, I would challenge what Rahm is thinking. YOU live where your family is.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 24, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

What kind of speed? "Lightening" speed?

Posted by: eagle22 | January 24, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I bet if Rahm Emmanuel had been a member of the military fighting in Afghanistan, and upon return decided he would run for mayor of Chicago, he would be granted his desire. Nobody can spit on a military member for not fulfilling the requirement to "reside" in Chicago during the past 18 months. However, we all know that a military member would not be refused his/her wish to run for the mayor's office, so why should Emmanuel be denied? Oh, yes, that's right! It's not a member of the military, it's Rahm Emmanuel. A man they don't like but will probably win.

Posted by: ChronosFT | January 24, 2011 5:18 PM | Report abuse

What kind of speed? "Lightening" speed?

Posted by: eagle22 | January 24, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

What kind of speed? "Lightening" speed?

Posted by: eagle22 | January 24, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Driver's license, voting card . . . he's a legal resident. I suppose the courts could also rule against you if you drove over to Indiana one day. After all, you weren't there all the time.

Posted by: scientist1 | January 24, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

A 2-1 vote against the union candidate, the Chicago liberal and the most corrupt human being to be walking free is a VERY decisive decision. Rahm - take a hike.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 24, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

So if I follow the ruling in IL today on residency, I may need to go back to law school and tell my civil procedure and conflict of laws professors they are idiots, because apparently all the "legal" requirements for establishing residency have been thrown out the window. This should make for some interesting precedent in future cases, particularly where the issue of residency and jurisdiction comes up. I know for sure I am citing this case if I have such an issue come up for a client, who does not want to be classified as a resident. Let's hope the IL Supreme Court can shed some light on the subject.

Posted by: legaleagle3 | January 24, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

The story doesn't say where he paid his income taxes. If he listed his Chicago address on his federal tax returns and paid state and local taxes to Illinois and Chicago, and not anywhere else, that would seem to be a strong argument in his favor.

Posted by: none12 | January 24, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I love how she says "he commuted from Chicago to D.C. as a U.S. representative." Really? So he got up every morning in Chicago and commuted to DC? Or is it really that he lived in DC most of the time and sometimes returned to Chicago? When you see a phrase like this one, it's hard to believe that the author is "not an Emanuel partisan!"

I don't live in Chicago, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but so called journalists should either truly impartial or state their true biases when offering opinions.

Posted by: kkellam1 | January 24, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

What is the address on his license? Where does he serve Jury Duty? What State does he pay taxes to? Seems to me you reside in the place where all these commitments are fulfilled. I don't care if you take an "extended 2 year vacation" anywhere else in the world as long as you keep up with your list of commitments in the state you mean to reside in.

Having no personal steak in this I say he should be reinstated. I say this as a person who travels a great deal and spends much time in other states. I still consider my "home residence" the place that takes my taxes and sends me my Jury Notice. Consider our troops sent over seas for long stretches, even with their spouse living home side. Should they give up their rights in the state they claim to reside in? Emanuel was serving his country just like our soldiers, just in an executive capacity. He went where the job was required him to just like anyone who has to travel for work. It is ridiculous to think he did not reside exactly where his license said he did.

Everyone is making this FAR more convoluted than it is.

Posted by: tara172 | January 24, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I was going to write something, but surlydoc put it just perfectly:

he passes all the conventional tests for
residency:

1. votes in chicago. this alone would make him a resident for political purposes.

2. lived in chicago immediately prior and six months after accepting a position in the obama administration, which by it's nature is NOT a PERMANENT position.
permanency is the key here.

3. owns his house in chicago and pays taxes there. this property is not rented to another party in his absence.

4. does not own a residency elsewhere.

5. has a current illinois drivers license.

Posted by: cococo | January 24, 2011 5:35 PM | Report abuse


Cillizza the egregious leftist hack sanitizes his comments, no use posting anything there, and as for Rahm the left wing thug, he got what he deserved. He was not a Chicago resident.

Posted by: screwjob23 | January 24, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I must say, I am as conservative as they come and I agree, Rahm should be on that ballot,not that I would vote for him mind you, but He was doing a service for the President, boy that hurt's me to say that,LOL!

Posted by: hrailey | January 24, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Was it legal for him to have a Illinois driver's license while living in D.C. In NC you have to get a driver's license with your local address within 30 days. A law breaker?

Posted by: piezopaul | January 24, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The wording is that you have to live in Chicago for a year. You may think the law is awkward or bad, but that is what it says.

To cococo and surlydoc, he rented his place out. Again, if you lived in Chicago (as I do), you would know this.

Rahm was taken off the voting rolls twice and magically put back on. He didn't vote here.

The laws that others are talking about are different. The laws aren't the same. Perhaps in the other laws, Rahm would qualify. But not in the laws here -- in Chicago.

Posted by: foodwriter67 | January 24, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse


John Kerry owns houses and pays taxes in Pennsylvania and Idaho ... does that make Lurch an Idaho resident? Maybe Senator Horseface plans to run for senate there after Massachusetts finally sends him packing. Hmm?

Posted by: screwjob23 | January 24, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I think most are confusing the eligibility to vote with the eligibility to run for the office. The best example is the requirements to be President of the US (minimum age and be born in the US). one can be 18 and not born in the US and still be able to vote for a Presidential candidate.

Posted by: Reality15 | January 24, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The Illinois SC will ultimately sort it out, so enough with the folks crowing 'well, two-to-one legal experts disagree with you." Plenty of smart legal minds disagree on this very cloundy issue, nothing here on this thread but a bunch of partisan hacks.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 24, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

It's debatable whether Rahm Emanuel was even eligible to vote in Illinois when he did considering that mailings to his fraudulent address were sent back to sender and Emanuel had to smooth his voting eligibility later through his local reputation and close political connections.

Posted by: cprferry | January 24, 2011 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the most telling fact in this case that indicates that the Appellate Court majority may have had a political agenda is that they also declined Monday to certify this case for immediate review by the Supreme Court, apparently not deeming it a matter of great enough importance.

Early voting starts this coming Monday and there is perhaps no greater judicial sin than voter disenfranchisement, yet this court chose to insert a deliberate obstacle to an appeal.

Please also note that among those posting here, those in favor of the ruling are against Emanuel because they don't like him, not because of the legal factors.

I live in the Chicago suburbs, so can't vote for him, but in any case prefer another candidate. That said, this decision is ridiculous, politically motivated, and should not stand.

Posted by: adolphemenjou | January 24, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Rules are too inconvenient for Rahm to follow. Watch as he tries to subvert the law to get his way.

Posted by: Conservative2008 | January 24, 2011 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he'll throw a temper tantrum and get his way....

Posted by: kbalderson | January 24, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Please someone fill me in if this is correct.

A friend emailed me and asked why Justice Hall didn't recuse herself because of a political connection/affiliation with Carol Mosley-Braun.

News to me.

Anyone know if this true--connect the dots?

Posted by: adolphemenjou | January 24, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

No one's gotten robbed.

It's just a chapter in the drama. That's all.

This was destined to go to the Ill-In-Oy Supreme Court, no matter what the lower court decided.

For those of you who aren't Windy City registered voters, chill out. No one outside northeastern Ill-In-Oy would even care if the guy hadn't most recently held a high profile job at the White House.

And those commenters who are Windy City voters can relax knowing the drama is unfolding just as it was always expected to. The only decision that ever mattered is the next one up.

Posted by: MsJS | January 24, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Couldn't have happened to a nicer a-hole.

Posted by: Azarkhan | January 24, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois to Jewish parents." - wikipedia

Being drafted to work for the President is like being drafted by the service. Although I didn't like him much, Emanuel should be a Chicago resident all along.

Posted by: dummy4peace | January 24, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"The Illinois Supreme Court should act with lightening speed to return him to the race."

***NO, they shouldn't.***

Rahmbo did not actually live in Chicago until his return a month or so ago. He was not sleeping in his Chicago house, he did not get mail there, he did not cook his meals there. HE DIDN'T LIVE THERE. Anyone can own a house in Chicago. Rahm rented his house out while he was gone. His day to day physical presence was in DC, not Chicago.
IF he had come back to Chicago an entire year before the election, he would have passed the one year residency requirement. He came back only a month before the election cycle began.

Rahmbo is expecting that his 'connection' to the President, is supposed to get him anything he wants, whether or not he's legally entitled to it. And in this case, Rahmbo IS NOT entitled to run for Chicago Mayor. IF he stays in Chicago, he can legally run in the next mayoral election.

Posted by: momof20yo | January 24, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Did Rahmbo's family stay behind in Chicago? NO, they moved to DC with him.
There might be some chance to claim Chicago residency if his family had stayed there. They didn't.

"Intending" to return gives no specific date of return. Rahmbo had to be physically present living in Chicago for ONE YEAR prior to the election. He gave up that residency when he and his family moved to DC.


Rahmbo's choice to go to DC was voluntary. A soldier has to go where the military service sends him. The two issues are not the same. Rahmbo came back to Chicago too late, and that was his fault. He loses!!!!!

Posted by: momof20yo | January 24, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Rahmy should have asked Hillary how she was able to carpetbag herself into a New York State Senate position.

Posted by: Cliffyworld
++++
Better yet, Rahm should ask Alan Keyes how he got himself into an Illinois senatorial race when he was a resident of Maryland.

Posted by: Sandydayl | January 24, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that this is going to be a problem for Rahm. One phonecall from his soulmate at the White House should grease the skids for him.

Posted by: usnret742w4 | January 24, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Those judges don't mind taking a portion of the income taxes Mr. Emmanuel paid to the State of Illinois, and the city sure didn't refund the city taxes he paid.

It's a shame than when an individual goes to Washington to serve his or her country then he becomes a non-citizen of his home town.

This decision was a decision by judges who are political enemies of Mr. Emmanuel. It sets a very dangerous precedent for people who wish to avoid paying Illinois income taxes.

There are implications for voting rights, too.

Dangerous. Very dangerous.

Posted by: colonelpanic | January 24, 2011 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I read the order of the appeal court.

He leased the house that he used for an address well into 2011 or 2012. He clearly did not "reside in" that house. The court was clear in identifying the state law that requires that he "reside in" the city.

Representatives and Senators keep and regularly return to real residences in their disricts or states.

He will lose the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Posted by: BobNH | January 24, 2011 7:05 PM | Report abuse

We may live by rules, but that's no reason to live by stupid rules! Rahm should be able to run for Chicago's mayor, and I have to wonder whose/which money/political interests bought/influenced that ruling -- seriously!!! Had someone suddenly moved in from Indianapolis or Atlanta or New York City, of course the rule would apply, but everyone knows where Rahm is from. Chicago is his home. Show some common sense, people!

Posted by: blackeyedminx | January 24, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Why can't Eva and the left support REASONABLE limits on F-Bombs?

Obviously Rahm didn't pay enough. He'll fix that soon enough. It's the CHICAGO way.

Posted by: mdsinc | January 24, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't care for Rahm but he is being screwed on this one. The Supreme Court should reverse this one fast and allow him to run.

Next thing you know Obama will have to vote in Hawaii instead of his home district in Chicago. How ironic would that be?

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | January 24, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

All these people citing residency don't get it. He probably a resident, can vote etc. The rule states reside, not be a resident. They are two different things. The reside requirement is like The minimum age requirement to be president - a specific thing.

It is probably just another demo conspiracy to get a corrupt minority candidate elected.

Posted by: Reality15 | January 24, 2011 7:30 PM | Report abuse

The law couldn't be written more clearly. Rohm doesn't qualify. That probably comes as a surprise to all you who think that for the right person -- you can make up the rules as you go.

And, why do these pro-Rahm stories always lead with "he was born in Chicago"? There is nothing in the statute that says anything about where you were born. That's only important for Presidential candidates.

Posted by: joe59 | January 24, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

The law seems pretty clear- he lived in DC -- perhaps the law should be changed, but it was applied reasonably.

Posted by: sarno | January 24, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Did Mr. Emanuel vote and pay taxes in Washington, DC...? Well, DC needs money...so take the money. Does he have a birth certificate? Did he pay any taxes in Chicago? Hmmmm Watch out for all the people who come to Washington to join in our government. Do Congressman vote and pay taxes in Washington? You better watch out you better not cry...hmmm by and by??

Posted by: judithclaire1939 | January 24, 2011 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on. It's Illinois. Does anyone really think any court there issues a ruling based on the merits? Emanuel needs merely to come up with more money.

Posted by: MagicDog1 | January 24, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Those Judges are very brave. Rahm is a big Progressive and Progressives don't like people telling them they have to follow laws like other people. These Judges may want to have other people start their cars for them and taste their food before them.

Posted by: Independentview | January 24, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

So a partisan court decides another political race, and you call this news?


Posted by: BigRoy | January 24, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

This clown rented out his house for cash and moved to Washington to try to destroy the country. He is no longer a Chicago resident. The court was of course correct. Apparently it really bothers the Dems when the courts uphold the law instead of making up law from whole cloth. This being Chicago there is no doubt that Emmanuel will find a way to game the system and get back on the ballot. It is the "Chicago Way".

Posted by: oldno7 | January 24, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Chicago has a decades long reputation for dirty politics. If a man answers the call of his nation or of his president (our president) to serve in a broader venue, and keeps his primary domicile in the parish of his electorate he remains a Chicagoan, just serving in DC for a time. Arguably this stupid ruling would imply that Senators and Representatives could no longer represent the states they're elected to serve because they're out of their district living in DC to ....duh, serve the state....

Yes, I'm not a fan of the man, but this strikes me as good old fashioned underhanded dirty politics. The kind of politics that the rest of the country knows and recognizes about Chicago.... Remind me not to spend a dime in the airport next time I fly through.

Posted by: jjmfe | January 24, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Chicago has a decades long reputation for dirty politics. If a man answers the call of his nation or of his president (our president) to serve in a broader venue, and keeps his primary domicile in the parish of his electorate he remains a Chicagoan, just serving in DC for a time. Arguably this stupid ruling would imply that Senators and Representatives could no longer represent the states they're elected to serve because they're out of their district living in DC to ....duh, serve the state....

Yes, I'm not a fan of the man, but this strikes me as good old fashioned underhanded dirty politics. The kind of politics that the rest of the country knows and recognizes about Chicago.... Remind me not to spend a dime in the airport next time I fly through.

Posted by: jjmfe | January 24, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that democrats feel that the rules only apply to others when it interferes with their plans? Reside means to live - not own property or plan to go back when it personally suits you.. In fact if the present Mayor hadn't quit so suddenly Rahm would still be in the White House. He only returned to run and therefore has not been a resident of the city for the past year. And for those talking about when he was an elected Congressman, those rules are different - he was elected. He was elected by no one to go to the White House and gave up those perks that might have helped him when he resigned his elected position and became a regular citizen like everyone else.

So as unpopular as it may be to democrats, rules are supposed to apply to everyone. I bet if it was a republican appealing this decision, every dem would be raising their voices that he is not eligible and for him to give it up.

Posted by: justmyvoice | January 24, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Rahm ALWAYS stated his wish to run for mayor of Chicago if and when the opportunity opened up. That ought to be a strong part of his appeal to the state supreme court, and it's fairly well documented in the newspapers. Any argument to the contrary is nit-picking and legalistic in the extreme...

Posted by: thanksforfish | January 24, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

So, Ms. Rodriguez, when you say that it is true Mr. Emanuel "did not physically live in" the Chicago home, aren't you saying he did not reside in Chicago, which is what the law requires?

In addition, since he does not live in the Chicago home, then, obviously, he cannot "share" the Chicago home with his wife and kids. I think you meant he OWNS the home with his wife, like a rental property. Oh, the home IS being rented out. My bad!

I did get a kick out of Mr. Emanuel's, how'd you put it, "commuting" from Chicago to DC for two years with his wife and kids in tow. Ha!

Some advice, Ms. Rodriguez: Never read a legal decision quickly.

Posted by: InHarmsWay | January 24, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey! It's Chicago - as they say in the musical.

Posted by: shangps | January 24, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

So rahm wants to go back to his "Hometown" to fulfill his lifelong dream to be Mayor?? Really? Hmmm...I wonder if the reason he is being so insistent on being in this particular mayoral contest is the creation of the CCX? That would be the Chicago Climate Exchange for all of you who have never heard of it. If Cap and Tax goes through and the carbon taxes come to fruition , LOTS AND LOTS OF $$$$$ will be flowing through good old Rahm's "Hometown". AS always folks...FOLLOW THE MONEY!!

Posted by: anonymous11111111111111111111 | January 24, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Rahm was qualified to vote in Chicago elections for the last two years . The commonsense is that , Rahm has a right to run for the office of Mayor of Chicago . This is not justice rather unfair ruling on the law .

Posted by: dmfarooq | January 24, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

He did not reside in Chicago for the required one year period. Period. He should have to wait until the next election, just like everyone else would have to do. He didn't "serve" our country. He moved for his job and rented out his house. If the Supremes overturn this decision, it will show exactly who the laws are meant to protect.

Posted by: anonymous11111111111111111111 | January 24, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

If those pesky residency requirements don't apply to Emanuel who should they apply to? Only to nonpolitical appointees?

The fact of the matter is that the opinion of the Appellate Court panel is right on the money. Those who disagree probably haven't read it.

The Municipal Code clearly requires that "candidates" both be a "qualified elector" and have "resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election." These two requirements are clearly separate and distinct and Emanuel admits that he did not actually reside in the city of Chicago during the year prior to the election. Whether or not he intended to reside there is irrelevant.

And the exception providing that an "elector or spouse" shall not have lost his residence while on business of the United States clearly only applies to electors - not to candidates - and hardly exempts a candidate from having to have "resided in" the municipality for the preceding year.

Posted by: billeisen1 | January 24, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Doggone it. Maybe Obama will change his mind about moving his campaign headquarters to Chicago. Rahm was trying to rob the City by running when he does not even live there. Hope it stands up to what is probably a liberal SUpreme Court

Posted by: eaglesnest1 | January 24, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

But hey, this is America, where politically-appointed judges decide who runs for office, and sometimes, they even select the "winner."

Heck, someday, with the right mix of partisan hacks, you might even see them rule that corporations can contribute unlimited amounts of money to political races. Really.

Posted by: BigRoy | January 24, 2011 10:45 PM | Report abuse

The statue says you have to "physically" LIVE THERE...what's nuanced about that? Who cares if he was in the Peace Corp, the White House, whatever, he didn't physically live there..

Posted by: george_w_bush0 | January 24, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we should restructure our democracy and the candidate who has the most cash money wins. Regis Philban can host.

Posted by: bmr5 | January 24, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

The reality of politics is that the only people who really care whether Emanuel stays on the ballot are Emanuel and the campaign workers who'd get cushy city hall jobs if he won. No one should mistake a lead in an election poll for a devoted public following. If the Supreme Court doesn't put him back on the ballot, it will just be another one of those Chicago political stories that people talk about. But no one is going to lose any sleep because Emanuel isn't mayor.

Posted by: vokesk51 | January 24, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Ah those pesky legal requirements...

The Appellate court said in its majority decision:
"Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that, under subsection 3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code, a candidate must meet not only the Election Code’s voter residency standard, but also No. 1-11-0033 must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior to the election..."

They took the most narrow of opinion, which is that any candidate for public office in Illinois must for one year, continuously and contiguously, reside within their representative district. As in every single day of the year. Like standing in line for U2 tickets. Step out--start over.

Not to be silly (like this decision makes any sense), but given the wording this means that any candidate that left town for more than an overnight stay outside of Chicago in the last year is not eligible for election.

As long as we're following the letter of the law, that is.

Posted by: adolphemenjou | January 24, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Look, I don't like Obama. I can't stand him or any member of his Administration. That said, if you don't see this a hardball politics at it's worst, with the courts jumping into the Illinois political cesspool, you are either really dumb or blind. Take a look at the three judges, a very close and careful look. Every one of them should be removed from office and tried and convicted of felony vote tampering. Prison, not a courtroom, is where they belong.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 24, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Who cares what you think?

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | January 24, 2011 11:31 PM | Report abuse

With 44% of voters supporting him, it would appear that he should be on the ballot so that voters are not denied the chance to vote for their candidate of choice. There's no question that if he were black and living in the south, then the Justice Department would be all over this issue as an example of local laws being exploited to defeat the democratic process.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 25, 2011 12:00 AM | Report abuse


What, Emanule should follow the rules?
Do you know WHO HE IS?

Besides, you know, being a foul mouthed
much detested brat among the WH staff, or wherever else he's been...
(except, you know, when he ran off to the Israeli army immediately after 9/11 to aide them instead of the American military)

Why on earth would Chicago want him as mayor?

Posted by: whistling | January 25, 2011 12:16 AM | Report abuse


What, Emanule should follow the rules?
Do you know WHO HE IS?

Besides, you know, being a foul mouthed
much detested brat among the WH staff, or wherever else he's been...
(except, you know, when he ran off to the Israeli army immediately after 9/11 to aide them, instead of the American military)

Why would Chicago want him as mayor?

Posted by: whistling | January 25, 2011 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Note to tea-baggers:
You're too dumb to give an intelligent opinion on Chicago politics.

A tea-bagger caucus is six folding chairs around a meth lab
debating on who has lost the most teeth.

This issue doesn't concern you.
Please, just go away.

Posted by: ethereal_reality | January 25, 2011 12:33 AM | Report abuse

By all means, there is so much money at stake, all we can do is pray that the state supreme court comts to Rahm's rescue.

As a famous statesman once reflected, "It's a shame to waste a good constitutional crisis".

Posted by: r_loveland | January 25, 2011 1:04 AM | Report abuse

We are a nation of laws. The law is clear. You must have lived in Chicago for one year prior to the date of the election. Rahm did not. Simple. Straightforward. Rahm is not above the law.

Further, all city workers--teachers, firefighters, police, etc--are required to live in the city to work in city jobs. This is a victory for them, as well.

Rahm spent most of his time in IL in Wilmette & Evanston--not Chicago. He went to grade school, high school and college in the wealthy suburbs of the North Shore. Intent does not matter here. But even if it did, why did he not leave his family here in Chicago if he had every "intention" of moving back to become mayor? Could it be because he thought he was above things like laws--and he could do it "the Chicago Way"--by strong-arming people to do his will?

Thanks to the Appellate Court, justice & the rule of law prevails. If he truly wants to be Mayor, live here and run in the next election.

Gery Chico will be the next Mayor. As the Sun-Times reports: "As an all-purpose mayoral trouble-shooter who has served Mayor Daley as chief-of-staff, school board president, park board president and City Colleges board chairman, Chico is the natural second-choice for a business establishment that has rallied around Emanuel."

Posted by: midwestfam | January 25, 2011 1:10 AM | Report abuse

thanksforfish wrote: Rahm ALWAYS stated his wish to run for mayor of Chicago if and when the opportunity opened up. That ought to be a strong part of his appeal to the state supreme court...

-------------------------------------------

You obviously know your law. I always expressed to my friends my wish to play for the Bears. Could the state supreme court help me with that, too?

Posted by: r_loveland | January 25, 2011 1:13 AM | Report abuse

ethereal_reality cleverly wrote: Note to tea-baggers:
You're too dumb to give an intelligent opinion on Chicago politics.

------------------------------------------
I've never been involved with the Tea Party movement, but if I were ever to do so, I would hope I could be surrounded with articulate geniuses like etheral_reality.

He/she has such a way with words (short words, anyway). We can only hope for more of his pithy, insightful (inciteful?) utterances in the future.

Posted by: r_loveland | January 25, 2011 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Rham Emanuel is a sleaze, a liar, a chicken hawk, and a crook, but he not a citizen of Chicago. The rules are the rules, unless you are a Chicago democrat sleaze who think the rules are just for the little people.

Posted by: carlbatey | January 25, 2011 1:22 AM | Report abuse

We have friends who own houses or condos in Chicago and pay property taxes. Yet, they live elsewhere for the majority of the year. They even sleep in said houses/condos a few times per year--unlike Rahm and family. Do they get to run for elected office? No! Why? Because we have these laws, see, and the laws say that they have to live there continually.

If people who own homes in other states, and pay property taxes in those states, and don't even rent their homes to others, cannot run for office in those states, why should the law change for one Rahm Emanuel? Easy--it shouldn't! And the Appellate Court just brought home a victory for all law-abiding citizens.

Posted by: midwestfam | January 25, 2011 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Rahm and his corrupt corporatist supporters had bought and paid for the Chicago Mayor's Office fair and square. All that stood ahead was the formality of the election with the voters ratifying the decision of Wall Street's anointed candidate.

How dare the Illinois Court of Appeals interfere and interpose the statute and rule of law to deprive this man of the office which had already been paid for?

Posted by: waroper | January 25, 2011 1:35 AM | Report abuse

How can Rahm have been "robbed" when everyone and their brother knew that there was a problem with the eligibility statute from the day he declared his candidacy? It has been almost a given that he was more likely to lose on this issue than to actually lose the election.

The mayoral eligibility provision in the Illinois Municipal Code requires that the candidate "reside in" the City for one year preceding the election. The court ruled this phrase is not interchangeable with other definitions of "residence" and requires physical, rather than constructive, residency in the City.

Basically, the statute did not contemplate moving out of the city for non-military federal service and then attempting to return to run for mayor of an Illinois statute. [The statute does provide a clear exception that military service is a valid excuse for being away from a city.] Since there is no exception clearly covering Rahm's situation his sole argument is to argue "reside in" has a different legal meaning than its ordinary meaning.

This argument has always been a 50/50 proposition at best and Rahm decided to roll the dice on it. However, he may have crapped out. He certainly wasn't robbed.

P.S. Also, for those looking for a conspiracy: all of the judges who ruled against Rahm initially ran for the Appellate Court as Democrats and the only candidates that have any chance of winning the "nonpartisan" election for mayor are democrats. [Of course, if you want to be really cynical you could argue this decision benefits a different candidate. Also, the hearing officer (Morris) who originally ruled that Rahm would stay on the ballot is a Republican.]

Posted by: chiguy | January 25, 2011 2:05 AM | Report abuse

So what happens to soldiers returning from government service after being relocated 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years to other countries. Do they lose their residency right also.

What is the difference with government workers whether little people or senators, congressman etc. and between government service people.

Whatsup wid dat?

Posted by: MissClarty | January 25, 2011 2:41 AM | Report abuse

What's the difference between government soldiers serving 2 to 6 years in other countries and government workers working out of state? Do they all lose their residency rights?

Whatsup wid dat?

Posted by: MissClarty | January 25, 2011 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Alan Keyes moved to Illinois from Maryland just 86 days prior to the election date to run for the Senate from Illinois. How was it the authorities approved that maneuver?

Posted by: expandingabroad | January 25, 2011 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Ms. claims she doesn't have a dog in the hunt, as it were. If that's true, why would she claim that the court was wrong in failing to apply an exception to the regulation which is not there.


The state law applicable to the case reads:

"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 ***." 65 ILCS
5/3.1-10-5(a)

The law requires that to be qualified for office the person must have "resided in" the municipality for at least a year.

If it is true that other courts have tortured the same words of the same statute in order to advance their partisan ends she effectively takes the position that as soon as one court issues a ruling contrary to the law, all subsequent rulings must also.

Posted by: samscram | January 25, 2011 6:22 AM | Report abuse

If Abraham Lincoln had lived to finish his second term and returned home to Illinois, would his eight years in Washington have disqualified him from elective office in the state, even if his home, law office and other ties to Illinois were intact.

Posted by: Rayr | January 25, 2011 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Politics in Chicago are known to be well, sometimes "undemocratic". Is that the case here?

The real story is the background of the 2 judges who eliminated common sense from the equation. Who appointed them and what has been the historical political bent of their rulings? When will the media give us the "real" story?

Even without that information, this smells strongly of "good old boy" politics or even worse did money change hands?

Posted by: TomMiller1 | January 25, 2011 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Eva, I think your interpretation skirts the intent of the law.

Chicago is legendary for decisions based on pure political considerations, so it doesn't surprise me that it took a "downstate" court to make the right decision in this case.

Rahm Emanuel made an unwise decision when he chose to rent out his Chicago home, if he had any intention of maintaining his Chicago residency. I'll bet there are dozens of other people who lost their Chicago residency by doing the same thing. Why should he be above the law?

Posted by: Kathy8 | January 25, 2011 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Yea Gods! The State of Illinois is on the financial ropes!

If the people of Chicago think a smart politician with connections to the White House is best qualified to keep them from going down the drain, they should be able to vote for him.

Posted by: loyalsyst | January 25, 2011 7:34 AM | Report abuse

BTW, we really should revisit the laws that allow employees of elected officials to maintain residency outside of the D.C. area, too.

Elected officials are sent to Washington to represent people. Technically, our laws really don't require them to hire any employees to help them do that job.

If you choose to move to the D.C. area to work for an elected official, you should be required to change your legal residence.

Maybe if fewer people were willing to leave their homes to work for elected officials in D.C., our federal government wouldn't be the "make work" institution it has become -- where officials think it is crucial that they do something every day (even interfere with Americans' lives) to justify their existence, rather than just coming to Washington to pass an annual budget and going home to live like other Americans for most of the rest of the year. Maybe the president could actually go play a leisurely game of golf without being criticized for it, too...

Posted by: Kathy8 | January 25, 2011 7:38 AM | Report abuse

This issue affects everyday people in terms of in-state college tuition and state income tax. Where one intends to reside is only one factor in the analysis. Where one has a driver's license is but one factor, especially if you simply retained your prior DL rather than getting a new one. nobody from your prior state comes and yanks it out of your wallet. So what if he kept his? Maybe he renewed it and used the address of the house he did not live in. Same with voter registration. If it was that easy, college students would get a DL and a voter registration and would be instantly eligible for in-state tuition anywhere in the country. Or one could avoid state income taxes by using those devices. Also: what if Rahm had lived in VA instead of DC and he had a college-age child who had gone to high school in VA. Rahm would be able to make a better case for in-state tuition at UVA than he would at U if I.

Posted by: Compared2What | January 25, 2011 7:47 AM | Report abuse

This issue affects everyday people in terms of in-state college tuition and state income tax. Where one intends to reside is only one factor in the analysis. Where one has a driver's license is but one factor, especially if you simply retained your prior DL rather than getting a new one. nobody from your prior state comes and yanks it out of your wallet. So what if he kept his? Maybe he renewed it and used the address of the house he did not live in. Same with voter registration. If it was that easy, college students would get a DL and a voter registration and would be instantly eligible for in-state tuition anywhere in the country. Or one could avoid state income taxes by using those devices. Also: what if Rahm had lived in VA instead of DC and he had a college-age child who had gone to high school in VA. Rahm would be able to make a better case for in-state tuition at UVA than he would at U if I.

Posted by: Compared2What | January 25, 2011 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Are you Rahm Emanuels' lover?

Posted by: bigmac1810 | January 25, 2011 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Do you know why John Boehner is orange?

Posted by: bigmac1810 | January 25, 2011 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Rahmbo still isn't living in the house he owns in Chicago.

Rahmbo voluntarily gave up his Chicago residency to go pursue power and glory in DC.

Posted by: momof20yo | January 25, 2011 8:00 AM | Report abuse

All you commenters who think this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue, this is from the Chicago Tribune today: "Longtime Appellate Court Judges Thomas E. Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall — who on Monday ruled that Emanuel's stay in Washington precludes him from running for mayor this year — were both judicial candidates slated for election by the Cook County Democratic Party judicial slating committee ". The judges rendering this opinion were DEMOCRATS.

Posted by: Illini | January 25, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Eva's article is misleading (did she read the opinion?). The court observed that residency is read broadly under VOTER QUALIFICATION provisions, NOT candidate qualifications, which call for actually physically living in the municipality.

Posted by: JackTripper011 | January 25, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

If Rodriguez had done her homework she would know that Obama used the same technique to successfully bump off the ballot all of his opponents the first time he ran in Chicago. Rahm Emanuel also tried to use the strict Illinois laws in this way but unsuccessfully. Hypocracy reigns here. What goes around comes around, Rahm. Suck it up and move on. And Ms Rodriguez gets a razz here for her lack of professionalism.

Posted by: mlbduffy | January 25, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Federally elected representatives retain their residency, as they are REPRESENTATIVES of their district or state, and meet, physically at one location, our capitol, to legislate. A "staffer" was offered a job and he accepted it. He was not elected. No different than someone accepting a job going to work for a public or private company....Arrogance, I repeat ARROGANCE, to the law does not mean you are above the law. Even Hillary Clinton got that one right.

Posted by: paydough | January 25, 2011 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Why is it hard for the deems to follow the rules?

one must reside - aka live, in Chicago. Interesting the reside rule is likely a demo rule - when has the rep run Chicago? It was probably a deem union law that had meaning a longtime ago.

Posted by: Reality15 | January 25, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Weird. What about the Illinois senators and congressmen? Are they not residents in the towns they are from, just because they have to work in washington? I think that makes them technically "homeless", doesn't it? Too weird. Actually, it sounds fishy, like a political stunt.

Posted by: tafffy

------------------------

Elected officials are considered exceptions in every state. Most require elected officials to maintain a residence in their home state, but they are not required to be physically in the state for the time that they are performing their elected duties. Otherwise, almost no representative or senator in any state would meet the residency requirements of the job within a few months of being elected, and this goes for those in state legislatures as well as in Congress.

For that matter, active military members are considered to retain their residency and eligibility, too, despite being out of the state or country for extended periods, provided that their absence is demanded by military service.

Had Rahm Emanuel been returning to Chicago from the House, residency would not have been an issue. The problem for him, and the upshot of the arguments against his eligibility, is that he went to Washington, D.C., for a job. He was physically present in D.C., where he was earning a salary. This was not an elected position, and thus he ought to be subject to normal residency requirements that all other people in Illinois have to deal with.

The fact that Emanuel had apparently also rented out his home in Chicago probably also weighed on this ruling. Yes, a person may show intent to return to the state, but intent to return and residency are not necessarily the same thing. If Emanuel's home was occupied by someone else renting the space, then it's kind of hard for him to list that as his "home" address.

Posted by: blert | January 26, 2011 1:53 AM | Report abuse

The local law has the intent to make certain that the future mayor of the city should live and experience the city and his constituents' needs on a regular basis. Understandably Rahm Emanuel is a popular fellow and holds connections with the Chicago political machine, and he may yet find or buy off a willing court (the political machine-run board of elections had previously certified him).

However, in principle the law is a good law and should not be reversed because of one candidate's unique situation. This is why we have laws in this country. That even the rich, elite and politically-connected be humbled before an equal standard that we must all follow. It is that law that truly makes us equal citizens of these united states.

Posted by: cprferry | January 26, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company