Rahm Emanuel Case

Interesting that the statute uses residence instead of the broader legal term domicile. I haven't read the opinion, nor have I done any research on the statute. Clearly domicile doesn't require actual residence. However, under most State's laws, you can be a resident even if you rent your home or, as the first President Bush did, list a hotel as your residence. Residence, albeit to a lesser degree than domicile, is usually a matter of intention, not physical presence.

And as was pointed out, ambiguous statutes are usually interpreted to maximize voter choice in election law cases. Emanuel it seems to me could hardly be construed as a resident of any other State (or even the District of Columbia). His presence there seemed to clearly be temporary, as evidenced by his keeping ties to Chicago including his home. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The Appellate Court distinguished the rules of residency for a candidate from the rules of residency for a voter in order to take Emanuel's name off the ballot. The dissent, of course, disagreed and pointed to IL SCT case law that said the opposite. There is an exception in the residency statute for persons who are absent from the state "on the business of the state or the United States." The Court conceded that Emanuel fit the exception, but concluded (IMHO thru convoluted reasoning), that the exception did not exist for a candidate (as opposed to a voter). BTW, the opinion is about 42 pages.

In any event, the IL SCT has issued a stay and granted cert. Stay tuned. You couldn't write this stuff.

It seems some things are destined to never change.

For a time before 1785, in order to be a voter or office holder in Virginia, one had to own at least 25 acres of land with “a dwelling.” Before 1785 the size of the dwelling was not specified in law, and many took advantage of that oversight. For instance, in 1762 Thomas Payne met the property requirements to vote in Elizabeth City County, VA., with a dubious house. “On the Saturday before the election Payne had purchased ‘for the Value of 10 s. [shillings] a small House, about 4 and Half Feet Pitch, 4 or 5 Feet long, and 2 or 2 and a Half Feet wide, floored or laid with Plank in the midst of its Height, to put Milkpans, or other Things, on; and . . . he had the same removed in a Cart, with one Horse, with the Assistance of 7 or 8 Men, and placed on his said Lot, on Purpose (as he acknowledged) to qualify him to vote at that Election.’ After the election was over, the woman, from whom he purchased this little structure, ‘being in Doubt, whether she should get her Money of him for the said House, had the same removed Home again’” (p. 25, American Revolutionaries in the Making, Charles Sydnor)

from WTF: I agree, let the voters decide.

LOL This is Chicago we're talking about. The voters will decide nothing!

LOL This is Chicago we're talking about. The voters will decide nothing! Originally Posted by John Bull

Yeah, it's widely believed that tombstones and fence posts vote in Chicago elections.

Best argument I heard in favor of letting him run: he paid Illinois and Chicago taxes both years. Originally Posted by discreetgent

“In a circumstance where there is uncertainty” about the interpretation of an election statute, Mark D. Rosen, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law said, “basic democratic principles would suggest you would construe the uncertain statute to expand voter choices rather than contract them.” Originally Posted by WTF

LOL This is Chicago we're talking about. The voters will decide nothing! Originally Posted by John Bull

I support a local government to make whatever requirements around running for office (or voting for that matter) so long as they are consistently applied.

That said in this day and age of mostly tranparent media, why not let anyone run for any race they want & the voters get the representation they deserve. I mean if Candidate X moved to State Y a month before the election, it's not like his opponent won't bring it up.

I realize NY & Chicago are different with different requirements, but seriously, the electorate voted for Hilary for Senate and they knew she wasn't a New Yorker & they got got what they wanted. The electorate wasn't duped.

Illinois Supreme Court ruled he can run for mayor.

Were you watching Fox? I just heard the same thing.

Nah, nytimes.com. I only watch Fox when Democrats win major elections lol

Nah, nytimes.com. I only watch Fox when Democrats win major elections lol Originally Posted by discreetgent

I figure you would have had the channel blocked.

I figure you would have had the channel blocked. Originally Posted by Ansley

I am not a big believer in censorship.

Nah, nytimes.com. I only watch Fox when Democrats win major elections lol Originally Posted by discreetgent

+1

Prety predictable ruling, and likely correct. Generally Courts construe ambiguous laws of this sort to be more inclusive, not less, as noted earlier.