In today’s ruling, Hoffman wrote: “We … order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or if, necessary, be removed) from the ballot from Chicago’s Feb. 22, 2011.”
Opponents have been trying to get Emanuel removed on the grounds that he did not reside in Chicago for a year before the upcoming February election. He moved to Washington, D.C., two years ago to work for President Barack Obama.
Good. It’s unusual for Chicago.
He must have forgotten to bribe/threaten somebody.
Indeed, McGehee — he failed because he wasn’t Chicago enough.
It isn’t over until the Illinois State Supreme Court gets its bribes and puts him back on the ballot.
Whats that big german word that starts with an ‘S’ and ends with an’e’?
Ha Ha!
This is a stupid ruling. Emanuel is eligible to (and did) vote in Chicago elections because he’s a resident of Chicago. Reading the opinion (available here), the Appellate Court creates out of whole cloth a new standard for residency to run for office, while ignoring the legislative intent (intent that they cite in the opinion) that temporary absences for Federal service should not deprive somebody of the right to run for office.
It’s a violation of common sense. Following the ruling, a US Congressman could represent a district in Congress, vote in their home town, but not run for mayor of that same home town. Look for this to be overturned on appeal, and quickly.
I think that’s overstating matters quite a bit. The opinion isn’t at all arbitrary, and they go to some lengths to explain why there’s a distinction between the residency requirement and the “reside for a year” requirement. While the Illinois supreme court may view things differently, I don’t think this is some great miscarriage of justice.
Frankly, I tend to think that we’d be better served by a requirement that people actually live in the jurisdictions they’re purporting to represent. A year prior to the election seems reasonable enough.
I’m no fan of Emanuel, but I couldn’t care less whether he gets elected to be God Mayor of Chicago. The place is hopelessly corrupt, and the office has been held by the same family for most of the last fifty years. Anyone not named Daley is an improvement.
One other thing–it appears that Emanuel’s counsel were the ones who wanted to mix and match the voting and eligibility statutes, so the court may have really just been rejecting the idea that they are necessarily related.
I’m happy for the people of Chicago, they were overdue for a political break.
I’m no fan of Emanuel, but I couldn’t care less whether he gets elected to be God Mayor of Chicago. The place is hopelessly corrupt, and the office has been held by the same family for most of the last fifty years. Anyone not named Daley is an improvement.
While I’m amused at the ruling (and rooted for the Packers yesterday just so Chicago could lose), I wouldn’t go so far as your last sentence. Just about anytime someone implies that things can’t get worse, someone comes along as proves you wrong. The Daley family is political sleeze but that doesn’t mean no one else couldn’t (and won’t) be even worse.
Rahm couldn’t produce a citizenship certificate, eh?
Chris, merely owning residential property is not the same thing as maintaining a residence. This is the subtle point that you miss. Emanuel was sloppy. It’s not that hard to maintain a residence, members of Congress do it easily enough. But Emanuel didn’t have own or rent a place where he and his family could and did live on occasion.
Illinois law does allow for people in Emanuel’s situation as government employee to maintain their residency. The burden isn’t onerous. Emanuel didn’t meet that burden.
So ask yourself this, should we reward the powerful for cutting corners? I doubt any third party candidate would be able to pull this off. The mayorship of Chicago may not be the most serious office out there, but I think it’s serious enough to warrant holding all candidates to the letter not to the “intent” of law.
“I couldn’t care less whether he gets elected to be God Mayor of Chicago.”
Yes, but would he have sandworm powers and live for a thousand years?
Karl Hallowell – I didn’t own a house in Illinois while in the military, yet I maintained Illinois residency. I voted in my county’s elections based on the fact that I paid taxes and had an Illinois drivers license, which made me a resident of Illinois, despite me renting an apartment in Florida.
This is exactly what Emanuel did, and under every rule of common sense should count as residency in Illinois.
I actually see nothing unreasonable about having tighter residency requirements for local office than for voting. Voting is a secular sacred right, so it would be unconscionable to deny a man a right to vote in his home district regardless of how much flying around the world he does, especially if he’s serving abroad in the armed forces. One cannot say the same of leadership, which is more of a privilege.
Titus, you could (and I think, should) look at it as the citizens’ right to elect whoever they want to lead them, rather than a person’s privilege to serve as their leader. Regardless of Rahm and this particular court decision, the residency requirement, while generally a well-intentioned law, itself limits the electorate’s rights.
Bob-1, those who came before us and created a limited Constitutional Republic, instead of a pure democracy, disagree with you.
Yes, those who came before us were mistaken about quite a lot when it came to the right to vote. I’m glad we’ve made as many major improvements on their work as we have, and I think relaxing residency requirements (but by no means reducing its significance as a campaign issue) would be a tiny improvement as well. Obviously, my argument would be similar for residency requirements, age requirements, citizenship requirements, and term limits — in all cases, I’m saying that the voters’ freedom is worth the risk, and while each of those requirements deserves individual consideration, I’m not impressed by arguments to the contrary by people who supported denying the right to vote to large portions of our population.
What risk would that be? Oh, you were referring to the fact that the effect of a leader can have repercussions, for good our ill, that outlive the ephemeral election cycle, the voters themselves and extend into posterity, and thus we should be very circumspect with regards to whom is allowed into office, perhaps even holding it to a higher standard than the franchise itself? Is that the risk you’re talking about?
Well, anyway, if you think I “should” renounce that benighted position, that office-holders should be held to a higher standard than voters, then by all means make your case, and I will at least read it…
This all reminds me when then Houston Mayor Lee P. Brown said that the citizens should build a house for the Mayor, like the President has the White House and the Governor a mansion in Austin. Of course he was a Democrat. It’s not about proper governance of the little people; it’s about the trappings of power. Rahm had the power, and thought that was sufficient to get him elected where ever and when ever he wanted to be. Fortunately, city elders figured out long ago that cities aren’t that large, and that people who run them probably ought to have a personal familiarity with them by actually living there, in their own home.
Paul Milenkovic,
Only the Daleys have the genetic capability of being God Mayor.
There’s nothing wrong with a state requiring something more of candidates in regards to residency than they do of voters. In the latter case, they have to tread carefully to avoid denying people fundamental rights. In the former case, the right to run for office is trumped by the jurisdiction’s right to require that the candidate actually be strongly connected to the area. Arguments that it’s not as democratic don’t hold much water, as plenty of aspects of our system aren’t democratic. . .on purpose, I might add.
What’s funny is that Emanuel–who must’ve had some of these aspirations when he took the CoS position–could’ve retained his residency simply by not renting (or selling) his house. Or so it appears.
Awwww, let him get elected. He can’t make all of the vast improvements in Chicago he will inevitably make without having absolute power, right?
Besides, they really need a new look to their ballet…