Now, isn’t this special?
Posted: January 24, 2011 Filed under: Breaking News, U.S. Politics | Tags: Chicago mayor race, Rahm Emanuel eligibility 66 Comments
Breaking News:
Rahm Emanuel booted off ballot in 2-1 Appellate Court decision
Rahm Emanuel was thrown off the ballot for mayor of Chicago today by an appellate court panel, a stunning blow to the fund-raising leader in the race.
An appellate panel ruled 2-1 that Emanuel did not meet the residency standard to run for mayor.
Appellate judges Thomas Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall ruled against Emanuel. Justice Bertina Lampkin voted in favor of keeping President Obama’s former chief of staff on the Feb. 22 ballot.
“It’s a surprise,” said Kevin Forde, the attorney who argued on Emanuel’s behalf.
Emanuel’s attorneys are expected to use Lampkin’s dissenting opinion to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.
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.”
Notable Tweets:
ThePlumLineGS Greg Sargent
RT @brianbeutler BREAKING: Chicago fish-markets experience unprecedented Monday sales. #rahm
daveweigel daveweigel
Money well spent, Rahm donors!
daveweigel daveweigel
Can’t Obama just take over the city and make Rahm the Chicago Czar?
@PachacutecVA Pachacutec
Somewhere, Nancy Pelosi is trying not to smile in public #rahm
Update:
Rahm at a just held presser. Some how I think we need a caption contest for this. He looks like the pissed off Staypuft marshmallow man to me
Jessica Yellin at CNN:
Emanuel is expected to appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, and a federal appeal could follow.
According to a recent Chicago Tribune/WGN survey, 44 percent of the city’s voters backed Emanuel, 21 percent backed former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and 16 percent backed former Chicago Board of Education president Gery Chico. City Clerk Miguel del Valle received seven percent and nine percent remained undecided.
Emanuel is expected to speak at 2:30 p.m. ET. Moseley Braun is expected to make a statement at 3:30 p.m. ET Monday.
The source close to the Emanuel campaign told CNN his legal team anticipated there was a chance the court would rule against them and they have an emergency appeal already written.
peej
Carissa
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
grayslady
mablue2
NW Luna
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
I’ll say!
Since when is anybody righteous about rules in Chicago?
Hilarious.
Well, let’s see what the Illinois Supreme Court does. There is surely an expedited appeal already in the works and all will soon be well again in crooked Chicago town.
Four words: Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts
Yup.
Hinges on what the definition of “reside in” is.
Zal:
I think “reside in” means “I’m Rahm Emanuel and I can do what I want.”
I’d have to poke around but I don’t think the decision can go to the Supreme Court because IL state court would have jurisdiction over election rules.
One of the reasons Rahm et al may have ‘expected’ an adverse ruling is that this is a state appellate court, not a city court/city decision boy. The rest of the state is not so in love with the Dems of Chicago. I mean, I’m sure Rahm knows lots of power people outside of Chicago proper, but at the state level the flavor of political power may not be as amenable to his tastes.
And how happy is Carol Moseley Braun today?
She’s definitely doing the snoopy dance in those high heels!
I would love a Carol Moseley-Braun comeback.
Karma is so interesting to observe.
It just seems like so much is imploding – I don’t know whether to laugh uproariously at the cosmic insignificance of it all or just start weeping. I’ve seen that “lolsob” and I guess I now know what it might mean.
Those tweets are hilarious!
They’re ripping it up out there in the twitterverse!
Love the one about the fish markets.
says he was only living in Washington at the “request” of the president. oh boo hoo. The powers that be will get this overturned… but it is fun to watch.
washingtonpost The Washington Post
Sources confirm Rahm Emanuel will appeal to Illinois Supreme Court over eligibility for Chicago mayor http://wapo.st/e7wYS8
Ha ha ha! Yeah, this is choice! First the Bears lose, and now this…
LOL… if Monday is setting the note, this week in US politix is going to be fun…
I just pasted something about Michelle batshit crazy Bachmann on the morning thread. Just having her and a few others plaguing the Republicans for awhile should send us all out for extra popcorn supplies.
She is beginning to become “one of my favorites” to ridicule. Vapid, ignorant, mendacious all rolled into one.
In the words of Ethel Merman: Who could ask for anything more? Can’t wait for her SOTU rebuttal. Good times!
I know, it’ll be like shooting fish in a barrel. She is the gift that keeps on giving.
What is she carrying on about?
Hurry, hurry, hurry…get your Michelle Bachmann quote generator right here:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-michele-bachmann-quotes.htm
where do you find these things!??!
LOL! I forget now exactly what led me to that place, but things like that and the Barack Bingo are what keep me somewhat sane when it comes to what politics is today. 🙂
The tweetsphere is now discussing Rahm as Write-in candidate and they’re planning a rally tonight.
I’m thinking I may send flowers to Carol Mosley Braun and a funeral wreathe to Rahm.
BobBrigham Bob Brigham
by AmandaMarcotte
It is an absolute fact that Emanuel hasn’t resided in Chicago since February 22, 2010, which is a requirement to be allowed on the ballot.
The fact that the election commission and a lower court said otherwise only showed the how little facts and reality have to do with political decisions.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
I know a term that describes ole Rahmie’s expression. It’s the Italian word for shower followed by the word “bag,” and I don’t think I can use it on here.
That update is hilarious. A pissed off Staypuff Marshmallow Man, well…”Who you gonna call?”
My contribution to the game…
roflmao!
Brava!!!
Translation: They couldn’t buy these judges.
Not exactly sure how a federal appeal would work. Isn’t this Illinois election law? Is Rahm going to claim the residence requirement is somehow unconstitutional? Where’s the federal question?
you got me … I can’t imagine how the local definition of residency is a germane to federal law or for that matter what limitations that can place on different offices.
I’m guessing he will make some kind of BS due process claim.
Is a federal question needed? They can just make one up, as Bush did in Bush v. Gore.
The Supremes stepped in doodoo on that one.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
If the Supremes do a Bush v Gore with Rahm v Residency Requirements, their argument will be that Rahm will suffer irreparable harm if considered a non-resident.
And never mind the irreparable harm to voters (in either case).
Meanwhile, too, too bad for Rahm. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
Well, not to defend the SCt on that travesty, but Bush v Gore was at least about a federal election.
The only change he’d have is to claim the residency restriction is unconstitutional somehow (which is a stretch since it’s a pretty ordinary law, and it’s not the requirement is that he had to live in the city for 20 years straight or anything).
Did the original case turn on a question of fact, at all? Usually upper courts will defer to trial-level or equivalent on facts.
???
Who says this will go before a Federal court?
It’s a state matter and the next step is the State Supreme Court. Won’t that be the final decision?
The stuff from Jessica Yellin at CNN. That’s what I was responding to.
Thanks – I totally missed that, above.
I agree with you, can’t see how it becomes a Federal issue.
OK, I read the decision. Briefly, there are two codes. The Election Code sets forth residence requirements for voting in Illinois (traditional residence rules). The Municipal Code, as interpreted by the court, sets forth the requirements for running for office in a municipality: (1) the Election Code residency rules for voting AND (2) the candidate must actually live in Chicago for one year before running for mayor. Rahm satisfies the Election Code exemption for voting if one is absent on the “business of the United States.” According to the court, however, that exemption does not apply to a candidate running for a municipal office.
Public policy would certainly favor requiring a candidate actually to live (not just have a home) in the city where he is running for mayor for at least one year prior to running.
However, I suspect, even though the ruling is well reasoned, the Illinois Supreme Court will reverse on one of two grounds: (1) there is no requirement that a candidate actually “live” in the city where running for office, residency for voting purposes being enough, or (2) Rahm is “exempt” because he was doing the “business of the United States.”
Any thoughts?
Thank you for looking into that mjames, I think the part about business of the US is something that will definitely be interesting. He was not in the military and sent away from Chicago, like those who are in the Reserves and get called up. He was in a volunteer position. (Meaning that he was not forced into that job in DC, if you understand my convoluted way of writing.) Does “business of the United States” have any stips as far as capacity of “business.”
So, he’s going to argue it was like he was in the miltary on duty in Afghanistan? That’s the angle?
Well, he’s already argued that, and the court concedes that point, but only in the context of the Election Code and qualifying to vote in Illinois. His intention was to return to Chicago. That’s legit. He kept his home. He voted in Illinois with no problem while living in D.C. As do most who work in D.C. probably. He clearly satisfies the voter requirements of the Election Code.
The glitch is with the Municipal Code and the interpretation of its residency requirements. The court does not agree with Rahm on that point. Under the Municipal Code, Rahm must satisfy the Election Code residency requirements for voting (which he does, via the Election Code exemption for “business of the US”) and the requirement of the one-year residency in the municipality before running for office. The Municipal Code does not have the exemption (which the court argues applies to the right to vote only, since it’s in the Election Code under “voter requirements”).
I would argue why did the legislature add the additional residency requirement for running for office, if it does not impose an additional requirement: actually living there!
mjames, I’m not well-informed enough to judge, but do you think this was fair decision regardless of whether it applies to Rahm or to anyone else?
votermom,
I’m not well enough informed on Illinois law. The opinion seems well thought out and logical, that is, to run for office requires more than simply being allowed to vote, but there is a dissent and it appears the Illinois Supreme Court has never ruled directly on this point. I’ll be able to judge more when I read the high court decision. I don’t have the time to do independent research myself, but,as you can see, I am quite interested, law-wise. I just can’t believe the decision will stand.
mjames, I’ll be interested in your take on the IL SC ruling. Thanks!
votermom:
Yes it was a fair decision.
As I said above the whole thing hangs on how the Judges define “resided in.”
Under the state’s municipal code, candidates for mayor in Illinois must have “resided in” the city where they are running for a year before Election Day.
“Resided in” would be reasonably defined as actually living there, rather than the broader definition of “residency” used for voting in elections wherein one can maintain “residency” with a local address but actually live somewhere else, as Emanuel has done the past two years.
The intent of the law seems to be that candidates for mayor actually have lived in the city they want to run for at least a year.
Zaldonis said: As I said above the whole thing hangs on how the Judges define “resided in.”
Or, it all depends on what the definition of *is*, is…
Mjames, thank you for your insight into the law. It is appreciated.
Yaay!!
Hillary 2012
OT: Oprah reunited with her half-sister she never knew she had… on Oprah now.
When I heard Oprah was getting a half-sister I thought maybe everybody in the audience would be getting one.
“Look under your seats! Everybody gets a sisssssttttttaaaaaahhhhhhhh!”
That is hilarious Zal!
😆 Too, much, and well she knew since November which makes me go hemmmm….
“Watch yourself sister, everything in these woods’ll either bite ya, stab ya, or stick ya”
Luv it, drive him nuts in his own game.
Obama has a half brother too and an aunt that he didn’t know was here living illegally on the public dole. What a coincidence.
LOL – way to tie the thread together!
Oprah found a way to tie in her half-sister to her movie Beloved, lol
Impressive!
Surprised she didn’t tie it into her new network, OWN!
Oh, well, just look at her support of the first female candidate for president…NOT! Yup, it is all for show, I don’t believe any of it any more. Same thing, with the bonding and caring when she interviewed Elizabeth Edwards and then went on and said HUNTER was smart 😯 !?! Had Elizabeth Edwards known it was all about the ratings she never would have done the Oprah interview…hell, I felt betrayed when she was doing all the promos on Hunter.
Mark is a true Liberal and a volunteer and no teleprompter. He advocates for those who are suffering from domestic violence or are survivors of domestic violence. His mother, his brother and Mark lived with domestic violence and NO he didn’t write a book about ‘Dreams’ his father had. In fact he only in recent years began using his fathers last name again due to the memories of his past.
I like Mark, he lives his life in action of his convictions, having worked in orphanages and other social orgs that work to better communities throughout the world. Go Mark GO!
But, but, but, Obama got them to not count one state and got them to count the other voters to be counted as HALF a PERSON…to win….WHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Someone, get him a dead fish and cheer ’em up!
Wow, they don’t always get what they are promised, or what they want.
That Rahm, he’s a f*ckin’ retard.
😉