Court Boots Rahm Emanuel From Chicago Mayoral Ballot

by Wes Barrett | January 24, 2011


An appeals court in Chicago ruled Monday that Rahm Emanuel doesn't meet the residency requirements to run for mayor of Chicago and ordered his name be pulled off the ballot. The three judge panel voted 2-1 against Emanuel.

In a major blow to Emanuel's campaign, Monday's ruling overturned a Cook County Circuit Court ruling that upheld a Chicago Board of Elections decision to let Emanuel run in the February 22nd election.

The court agreed with Emanuel's contention that he met Chicago's voter residency standard but added that wasn't enough to allow his run for mayor.

"...a candidate must meet not only the Election Code's voter residency standard, but also must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate unquestionably does not satisfy," the ruling stated.

And the ruling may well keep Emanuel's name off the ballot.

"We're going to press with one less candidate for mayor," said Langdon D. Neal, the chairman of the Board of Election Commissioners for the city of Chicago.

The residency questions stem from Emanuel's time spent living in Washington while he served as President Obama's chief of staff. He resigned and moved back to Chicago in October of 2010 and almost immediately announced his candidacy for mayor.

Click here to read the ruling (.PDF)

Read more:

It will go to the Supreme Court, its already being appealed.

My favorite bit from the dissent: "It is patently clear that the majority fails to even attempt to define its newly discovered standard because it is a figment of the majority’s imagination."

People outside Chicago seem to be having a field day with all this, which is strange since regardless of who wins, it will have little effect on their day to day lives. Whereas it will have a very real effect on if my trash gets picked up, streets get plowed, trains run on time, etc.

The other candidates are FAR worse than Emanuel. Watch any debate, he is the only one who even seems to have a clue. Carol Mosley Braun? Holee ****. That would be an absolute disaster. Literally an absolute worst case scenario. Absolute crooked base scum Chicago politician of the highest order. Gery Chico is WAY more of a Daley insider than Rahm ever could be. Will not touch pensions. Has spent the past 20 years entrenching himself in the machine. De Valle is probably an OK guy, but as city clerk I seriously doubt has the vision or experience to lead a city of this size. Thats it, folks.

The fact is, 44% of Chicagoans support him as of the last poll. Residency rules are bull**** to begin with, and if this isnt hasn't shown how outdated and pointless they are I dont know what will.

This is part of the corrupt Chicago tradition of keeping potential challengers off the ballot and has been written about in the Chicago media for some time. Heck, the Chicago Reader did a story on the assessors race last year covering this very issue (Berrios was trying to get his challengers off the ballot). These laws should be drastically reformed to allow most serious candidates on the ballot.

It is funny to watch people who can't stand the Chicago Democratic Machine bend over backwards to support a set of laws that has been one of their major weapons for the last 50 years. "The Machine sucks! But this law is working out for us pretty well this time around. Boo Rahm!"

I will say if nothing else, the fake Rahm twitter has been hilarious to follow.

Rules are rules

(01-24-2011 07:15 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Rules are rules

He was already cleared by the Chicago Board Of Elections and other oversight committees. So obviously the rules are open to interpretation, or we wouldnt be having this discussion.

F RE.

(01-24-2011 08:05 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 07:15 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Rules are rules

He was already cleared by the Chicago Board Of Elections and other oversight committees. So obviously the rules are open to interpretation, or we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Would he have won had he made the Ballot anyway?

(01-24-2011 08:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  F RE.

Quote:Location: North Carolina

(01-24-2011 08:10 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 08:05 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 07:15 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Rules are rules

He was already cleared by the Chicago Board Of Elections and other oversight committees. So obviously the rules are open to interpretation, or we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Would he have won had he made the Ballot anyway?

He was polling support of 44% in the latest Tribune poll. On the verge of having a level of support that would even negate the traditional 2-candidate run off. In other words, it wasnt even close...he was the clear frontrunner.

(01-24-2011 08:15 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 08:10 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 08:05 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 07:15 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Rules are rules

He was already cleared by the Chicago Board Of Elections and other oversight committees. So obviously the rules are open to interpretation, or we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Would he have won had he made the Ballot anyway?

He was polling support of 44% in the latest Tribune poll. On the verge of having a level of support that would even negate the traditional 2-candidate run off. In other words, it wasnt even close...he was the clear frontrunner.

I guess he just needs to buy some Supreme Court Judges.

(01-24-2011 08:10 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 08:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  F RE.

Quote:Location: North Carolina

Comment related to his orchestration of current national polices.

Location: America

Why is it candidates from Chicago have eligiblity questions? Wonder if Ramn planes to spend as much on lawyers as Obama?

(01-24-2011 06:42 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  Residency rules are bull**** to begin with, and if this isnt hasn't shown how outdated and pointless they are I dont know what will.

What are you saying? Do mean that by merely owning property in a particular location you're entitled to run for office? Or do you mean that a person can run for any office any where without residing or owning property at that location? I think a person needs to have some sort of connection with the city he's running for office in.

The Trib's editorial sums it up:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...8590.story

Quote:Judicial arrogance

With startling arrogance and audaciously twisted reasoning, two appellate judges ignored more than 100 years of legal precedent, invented a new definition of "residency" and ordered Rahm Emanuel off the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot.

With the election just four weeks away, the appellate panel voted 2-1 to reverse the decisions of the Chicago Board of Elections and a Circuit Court judge. It's an adventurous, flawed ruling that has immediate and profound consequences. The case is headed to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the ballots are headed to the printer — without Emanuel's name. Early voting begins Monday.

In a blistering dissent, Appellate Justice Bertina E. Lampkin accused her colleagues, Thomas E. Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall, of "careless disregard for the law," and harshly criticized them for refusing to ask the Supreme Court for an expedited review.

Lampkin accused the majority of ignoring case law that clearly supported Emanuel's argument —including a significant case in which Hoffman prevailed.

"The majority's new standard is ill-reasoned and unfair to the candidate, voters and those of us who are charged with applying the law," Lampkin wrote. The decision "disenfranchises not just this particular candidate but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him."

That would be 44 percent of them, based on the latest Tribune poll. Voters, whether they support Emanuel or another candidate, clearly aren't concerned about his residency.

Three days of testimony before the elections board determined that Emanuel was a longtime resident of Chicago and that he didn't abandon that status while serving as chief of staff to President Barack Obama. That should have been the end of it.

Instead, the two appellate justices twisted themselves into a pretzel to come up with an argument to disqualify him. Insisting that they had "no Supreme Court directive" on which to rely and hanging their hat on an interpretation found in a case they acknowledge "lacks precedential force," the justices decided that the phrase "resided in" has one meaning when applied to voters and another when applied to candidates.

This distinction, Lampkin notes, "is a figment of the majority's imagination" and "a standard that the majority just conjured out of thin air." In the process, the justices disregarded a case that has guided residency rulings for 122 years, she wrote.

"An opinion of such wide-ranging import and not based on established law but, rather, on the whims of two judges, should not be allowed to stand," Lampkin wrote. Amen.

The tortured logic employed here to deny Chicago voters a full slate of candidates raises the question: Is this about law or politics? It's a question that will grow louder as the case heads to the Supreme Court, where every justice owes his or her election to political supporters. Justice Anne M. Burke is married to Chicago Ald. Ed Burke, 14th, who is backing mayoral candidate Gery Chico.

Anne Burke should not duck this case, though. A recusal that led to a 3-3 tie on the court would essentially be a vote to uphold the appellate court decision.

On a conference call Monday, elections board chairman Langdon Neal said it's not certain the Supreme Court will even take up the case. That would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

But the picture is complicated even if the court eventually rules in Emanuel's favor. The board can't wait any longer, Neal said, and has ordered 2 million ballots without Emanuel's name; it's also going forward with touch-screen early voting beginning Monday and mailing out absentee and military ballots. If the court orders Emanuel reinstated and the ballots reprinted, it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars — and ballots that have already been cast cannot be redone. It's a mess.

All of which makes one thing clear: The Supreme Court must set this right, and fast.

(01-24-2011 11:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  The Trib's editorial sums it up:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...8590.story

Quote:Judicial arrogance

With startling arrogance and audaciously twisted reasoning, two appellate judges ignored more than 100 years of legal precedent, invented a new definition of "residency" and ordered Rahm Emanuel off the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot.

With the election just four weeks away, the appellate panel voted 2-1 to reverse the decisions of the Chicago Board of Elections and a Circuit Court judge. It's an adventurous, flawed ruling that has immediate and profound consequences. The case is headed to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the ballots are headed to the printer — without Emanuel's name. Early voting begins Monday.

In a blistering dissent, Appellate Justice Bertina E. Lampkin accused her colleagues, Thomas E. Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall, of "careless disregard for the law," and harshly criticized them for refusing to ask the Supreme Court for an expedited review.

Lampkin accused the majority of ignoring case law that clearly supported Emanuel's argument —including a significant case in which Hoffman prevailed.

"The majority's new standard is ill-reasoned and unfair to the candidate, voters and those of us who are charged with applying the law," Lampkin wrote. The decision "disenfranchises not just this particular candidate but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him."

That would be 44 percent of them, based on the latest Tribune poll. Voters, whether they support Emanuel or another candidate, clearly aren't concerned about his residency.

Three days of testimony before the elections board determined that Emanuel was a longtime resident of Chicago and that he didn't abandon that status while serving as chief of staff to President Barack Obama. That should have been the end of it.

Instead, the two appellate justices twisted themselves into a pretzel to come up with an argument to disqualify him. Insisting that they had "no Supreme Court directive" on which to rely and hanging their hat on an interpretation found in a case they acknowledge "lacks precedential force," the justices decided that the phrase "resided in" has one meaning when applied to voters and another when applied to candidates.

This distinction, Lampkin notes, "is a figment of the majority's imagination" and "a standard that the majority just conjured out of thin air." In the process, the justices disregarded a case that has guided residency rulings for 122 years, she wrote.

"An opinion of such wide-ranging import and not based on established law but, rather, on the whims of two judges, should not be allowed to stand," Lampkin wrote. Amen.

The tortured logic employed here to deny Chicago voters a full slate of candidates raises the question: Is this about law or politics? It's a question that will grow louder as the case heads to the Supreme Court, where every justice owes his or her election to political supporters. Justice Anne M. Burke is married to Chicago Ald. Ed Burke, 14th, who is backing mayoral candidate Gery Chico.

Anne Burke should not duck this case, though. A recusal that led to a 3-3 tie on the court would essentially be a vote to uphold the appellate court decision.

On a conference call Monday, elections board chairman Langdon Neal said it's not certain the Supreme Court will even take up the case. That would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

But the picture is complicated even if the court eventually rules in Emanuel's favor. The board can't wait any longer, Neal said, and has ordered 2 million ballots without Emanuel's name; it's also going forward with touch-screen early voting beginning Monday and mailing out absentee and military ballots. If the court orders Emanuel reinstated and the ballots reprinted, it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars — and ballots that have already been cast cannot be redone. It's a mess.

All of which makes one thing clear: The Supreme Court must set this right, and fast.

Very one sided summary. Rahm is out, ballot printing starts Tues. Better luck next term, Rahm

Laws says you have to live there. He didn't. Pretty clear cut. Spin it all you want.

Isn't it just peachy when two factions of the same corrupt group have to fight it out in court to see who gets to continue screwing their constituents.

(01-25-2011 12:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Laws says you have to live there. He didn't. Pretty clear cut. Spin it all you want.

The law says nothing about "live". It says "maintain residency". From a legal definition standpoint, the two are not necessarily the same.

He served as a Congressional candidate for several years, owns a residence, kept possessions in Chicago, is registered to vote in Chicago, registered his car to his Chicago address, paid taxes in Illinois, etc. All of those are indicators that his intent was to return to Chicago after serving his term, which is what the legal precedent for which residency has always been based upon.

He went through a 3 day/12 hour hearing with the Board of Elections (with both sides presenting their case) and was cleared. That decision was further upheld by the Cook County Court. The appellate court has decided to take your strict translation of residency to equal "live", which does not have precedence.

Now, was he a resident of Chicago, or Washington DC?

Can you be both?

(01-25-2011 01:05 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 12:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Laws says you have to live there. He didn't. Pretty clear cut. Spin it all you want.

The law says nothing about "live". It says "maintain residency". From a legal definition standpoint, the two are not necessarily the same.

He served as a Congressional candidate for several years, owns a residence, kept possessions in Chicago, is registered to vote in Chicago, registered his car to his Chicago address, paid taxes in Illinois, etc. All of those are indicators that his intent was to return to Chicago after serving his term, which is what the legal precedent for which residency has always been based upon.

He went through a 3 day/12 hour hearing with the Board of Elections (with both sides preseRnting their case) and was cleared. That decision was further upheld by the Cook County Court. The appellate court has decided to take your strict translation of residency to equal "live", which does not have precedence.

The law says a person must "reside in". Having residency denotes a physical location such as a house, which was not the legislative intent. Intent was for a local person tied to the constituents of that community.

(01-24-2011 06:42 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  It will go to the Supreme Court, its already being appealed.

My favorite bit from the dissent: "It is patently clear that the majority fails to even attempt to define its newly discovered standard because it is a figment of the majority’s imagination."

People outside Chicago seem to be having a field day with all this, which is strange since regardless of who wins, it will have little effect on their day to day lives. Whereas it will have a very real effect on if my trash gets picked up, streets get plowed, trains run on time, etc.

The other candidates are FAR worse than Emanuel.

Wah, wah, wah. You play with fire, you're gonna get burned. There's a reason it's called Shitcago.