The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the Illinois Appellate Court has determined that Rahm Emanuel is not eligible to appear on the mayoral ballot:
Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 Chicago mayoral ballot, according to a ruling issued by the state appellate court this morning. (READ the ruling here.)
Two of the three judges on the panel said Emanuel does not meet the residency requirement. The judges reversed an earlier decision by the Chicago Board of Elections that determined Emanuel was eligible.
Next stop, Illinois Supreme Court. They’ll need to produce the ballots on Etch-a-Sketches.
As I read the decision the court distinguishes between voter residency requirements, which Mr. Emanuel has met, and candidacy residency requirements, which he has not. It will be interesting to see what the IL Supreme Court thinks of this interpretation.
I’m surprised, and possibly want to re-think my prediction that Emanuel will be your new mayor.
I’m at least persuaded by the majority opinion, more than the dissent.
Personally, the interesting part is that the requirement that Emanuel “reside in” the municipality is largely defined by a case from over 100 years ago, where the purpose was explained:
“Sound public policy requires that those who represent the local units of government shall themselves be component parts of such units. The purpose of these statutes is to effectuate this wise policy. And this purpose can only be truly served by requiring such representatives to be and remain actual residents of the units which they represent, in contradistinction from constructive residents. A mere constructive resident has no better opportunities for knowing the wants and rightful demands of his constituents, than a non-resident, and is as much beyond the wholesome influence of direct contact with them.”
Suprisingly, the statutory language has not been changed since the 19th century.
The part that I found interesting was the remark in the majority opinion that immediately followed the citation of that statute to the effect that technology had largely obviated the necessity for such a requirement.
In my opinion it’s exactly the reverse: technology has obviated the necessity for a legislator to travel outside his home district to fulfill the business of the U. S. government.,
Dave, I don’t think I read that reference that way. I think the majority is basically saying that the term they are interpreting dates back to when Lincoln was in politics, and despite all of the technological changes it is still here and the legislature never amended it. At least one technological change that comes to mind are secret ballots. But basically I read it as a somewhat self-depricatory claim to historic continuity and deference to the legislature.
I think mass communications makes it possible for someone to absent themselves from their community, yet have people still feel that person is present. I’m guessing that the average Chicagoan knows more about what Emanual has been up to the last year than they do Mosley-Braun.
What and make it harder to dip into that honey pot up on K Street? Perish the thought!!
Sniff. Sniff Sniff. My nose is getting wafts of something faint, not sure what it is…………
Wait, can you say Ed Burke?
An Illinois court that finds against a machine-backed pol? What the hell is going on in your state, Dave?
Yeah, did Rahm forget to make some payments?