What does Chicago think? UPDATE 2 Now we know
The Illinois Appellate Court removed Rahm Emanuel from the Chicago mayoral ballot yesterday because he didn’t meet the one-year residence requirement. Today the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in an expedited manner. The Chicago Tribune has this story.
My first and only reaction was that someone decided to give Emanuel his “comeuppance” for stepping out of the queue. I’d guess he’ll be on the ballot when voting begins. But Chicago, what do you think?
Update 1. Illinois State Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke declines to recuse herself from deciding whether Rahm Emanuel is on the mayoral ballot or not. Her husband, a Chicago alderman, supports another candidate. “Aren’t we beyond that? Women have minds of their own. We have spouses in every kind of business,” Justice Anne Burke said Wednesday. Good for her!
Update 2. The Illinois Supreme Court: “”So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear,” the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling today. “This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous.” There you have it!
I agree with the Tribune editorial board: bad ruling. And, hey, look at that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/rahm-emanuel-ruling-judge_n_813771.html
As an aside, the Ann Burke mentioned in the HuffPost and Tribune editorial pieces is the same one who gained fame as a member of the Dallas Charter Review Board.
Electing judges is a really bad idea.
In a contest between a conspiracy and incompetence, I usually go with incompetence. In this case, it seems the Appellate Court ignored precedent. I think it was a dumb ruling; the dissent was pretty blistering. Rahm is back on the ballot temporarily and the Supreme Court will hear the case without oral argument. I hope they keep him on.
I’m not a Chicagoan, but I am an American who had to watch as Rahm Emanuel became Obama’s hatchetman. I don’t think anyone should be crying for him. Let him go into the oblivion he richly deserves, cursing all the way.
Jim, what has Ann Burke, who was on the Review Board and who has been deeply critical of your cardinal about honesty and the abuse of children, got to do with why electing judges is a bad idea??
As an outsider, I think large city politics is fascinating and Chicago is an excellent example.
At least the chinese love the outgoing mayor.
I think Eugene is a little harsh on Rahm, who probably was a mixed bag, but that’s a different question from whether the Appellate Court and now the Supreme Court acts with a clear picture of “fairness.”
Eugene is exactly right. Looking at it from an outsider Rahm was the worst possible pick for Obama.
He totally dropped the ball on health care. Pelosi delivered in a big way there.
Obama got more done in the lame duck session negotiating head to head with Republican leaders himself than he did in two years.
What does that tell you? Problem is not with Obama – problem was with his messenger Rahm.
Overrated guy.
Bob – the comment about Ann Burke and the comment about electing judges are two separate comments.
Rahm should not be penalized for having left town temporarily to serve his country.
Should a woman/man who has been fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan be denied the chance to run for office when s/he comes marching home?
Here’s the link to the editorial Grant mentions: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-rahm-20110124,0,848590.story
I read the majority decision which turns on the issue of what it means to reside. There’s a lot of parsing and tooing and froing, but frankly it reads like a lot of other court decisions I have had the amateur honor of reading. The judges distinguish between voters and candidates in the matter of residing as the Tribune editorial says. But they also cite laws that seem to say that exception to the one-year residency rule include only those serving in Congress and those serving in the military, and not those serving the president. So…. here’s the decision (It’s linked in the story–a PDF). http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/01/didnt-see-this-coming-either-emanuel-loses-in-the-state-appellate-court.html
Although even a Chicago election is not necessarily a sure thing, friends at City Hall were telling me that they were already learning Rahm’s favorite colors so they would know what kind of rose petals to strew about upon his first august approach. Daley seems like he has been there forever and there are lots and lots of appointed officials there (I have a minor appointment myself) who would normally be in a panic that the new guy would be lopping off heads. But only if the new guy was a local who knew which heads to lop off. Rahm is no machine local and for this reason alone is probably the sentimental favorite of those who want to keep their jobs.
Unagidon: Are you a precinct captain?
No, it’s one of the cultural committees.
Btw – as of yesterday (Tuesday), he’s back on the ballot – the Illinois Supreme Court issued an injunction preventing the removal of his name from the ballot, pending their hearing (which could be as soon as Thursday).
The election is just a few days away, so the ballots are at the printer this week. Thus, in the wake of the appellate court ruling, the ballot printer began printing ballots without Emmanuel’s name on it. They had about 300,000 printed when the Supreme Court injunction was issued. They’ve quarantined those ballots, and started a new run with Emmanuel’s name back on the ballot. It sounds as though that run should be complete sometime today or tomorrow.
Therefore, regardless of whether Emmanuel ends up on the ballot, two different versions of the ballot are in existence: one with his name on, and one without his name on. What are the chances that the wrong version of the ballot will somehow find its way to some precincts? In Chicago, nothing is impossible.
JP: “In Chicago, nothing is impossible.” Must be heavenly!
Are you suggesting that apart from human error, someone(s) would send the wrong ballots?
I would say, not a chance. Rahm is the Machine Candidate. And the Machine controls the ballots.
You mean Chico is not a Machine candidate?
Many are looking at this election to elect a Black or Hispanic mayor. Blacks are the majority in the city and this would make sense. But the situation has changed quite a bit since the Harold Washington days. At that time, Blacks were heavily excluded from power. Now they are part of the power structure. In a sense one might say that Washington was the result of a badly needed power upset. Now, however, people want to keep the balance that was made under Daley. Remember that Daley would probably have served for life if he had wanted to.
Yes, there are all sorts of people and groups that would love it if their person won the election. But City Hall is actually very conservative when it comes to the transfer of power. Things could go up for grabs if by some miracle Rahm is kept off the ballot. But short of that, he is going to win.
“You mean Chico is not a Machine candidate?”
Most of the candidates are probably Machine candidates. But there is a difference between being A Machine candidate and being THE Machine candidate. Remember, sometimes the Republican who is running against the Machine in Chicago is more or less a “Machine candidate” if you know what I mean…
Republicans? Running for mayor? Didn’t know that.
There are two in the City at any one time and they do rock, scissors, paper to decide who is running.
There’s no real two-party primary held in a Chicago mayoral election; this makes it easier since there are so few actual Republicans. We do like to be practical. If whoever wins the February election gets more than 50% of the vote, that person wins the mayoral election. If not, there will be a runoff election between the top two candidates on April 5th.
“I would say, not a chance. Rahm is the Machine Candidate. And the Machine controls the ballots”
unagidon, oh ye of little conspiratorial suspicion. If the Illinois Supreme Court upholds the appellate court, then the Machine will have every incentive to “accidentally” deliver the ballots with Emmanuel’s name on them to the voting booths!
And like Lisa Murkowski and what’s his name in Alaska they could have a court battle over the electorate’s real intent.
Oh sorry, Jim. I thought you were suggesting that someone would have an interest (and the ability) to deliver Rahm-less ballots should he prevail in court.
Yes, the possibility of “understandible mistakes” being made as you suggest if probably rather high.
Chicago politics and municipal law aside, I think no one should be disqualified from running for local office if, as in Rahm Emanuel’s case, s/he has served in a presidential appointment that, of necessity, has required said individual’s full- or nearly full-time presence in Washington, DC. A term limit might be appropriate in such cases.
Anne Burke’s critics can eat crow.
JJ: Just a question on the residency issue: Apart from the merits of the candidates, did you think it was good politics, in the sense of representation, when Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton ran for Senate from NY with shaky questions of residency?
What if Michelle Bachman decided she was going to run from New York for Congress in 2012. Should residency requirements come into play?
Grant: any record of how the judges on the Supreme Court voted?
Decision: looks like it was unanimous.
Don’t be too surprised if the election turns out the same way…
I had a problem with Hillary running for Senate in NY. What did she do for the people of NYS in the short time she lived here and served as our Senator.?
Sorry, Peggy–should have said that it was 7-0.
Reasonable residency requirements remain important, especially as local elections receive more and more national coverage. I don’t think Emanuel and Clinton are comparable. He served the U.S. House representing the fifth district of Illinois from 2003 to ’09. He was born and raised and educated in Chicago (then Wilmette, a near-north suburb). Clinton moved to New York because in ’98 Moynihan announced he’d retire in 2000 at the end of his term. Everyone knew that’s why she moved here. She satisfied the state’s residency requirement. New Yorker’s elected her anyway. Twice.
Apart from the Rahm Emanuel situation, it seems to me residency requirements have some purpose; i.e., those elected to represent us have real information and experience of those they purport to represent. [That begs the question, of course, of whether many "representatives" don't simply represent their biggest donors and the most powerful lobbyists rather than the people who elected them.] Nationally known candidates like Clinton, Kennedy (and Bachman should my hypothetical pan out) do seem to get a pass on this. And, of course, I thought Bill Clinton could easily win a mayoral election in NYC with or without residency.
“Nationally known candidates like Clinton, Kennedy (and Bachman should my hypothetical pan out) do seem to get a pass on this.”
I find this worrisome. It is better for the country if those with national brands aren’t able to swamp what are intended to be local community decisions. Fortunately, locales do seem to retain their sense from time to time, as happened in Illinois with the absurd Alan Keyes.