As anyone who has followed Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit growing out of the November 2009 Coeur d’Alene city election knows, “residency” as a qualification to vote in the city election was a significant factor.
Today’s news is reporting that an Illinois appeals court has determined that during his service as the President’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel did not actually reside in Chicago as required by the Illinois Municipal Code and is therefore not eligible to be on the ballot for the upcoming Chicago mayoral election. Here is a link to the appeals court decision. Most expect this decision to be appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Keep in mind that the law applied in the Illinois case was Illinois law. Unlike some Idaho district court judges, it appears that Illinois judges understand and follow their own state’s laws.
Addendum on 01-25-2011 at 11:52 a.m.: The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to stay the ruling of the Illinois Court of Appeals. The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to consider the issue based on the briefs already filed with the Appeals Court and will not hear oral argument. Until the Illinois Supreme Court rules, that Court has ordered that Emanuel’s name appear on any ballots printed.
When I think about how Kennedy smoozed over the public into thinking that he was living in a basement of sorts away from his wife and kids while his house was being built – in order to be compatible with his job, I just balk – because that is how it has always been done and I didn’t catch it. So many of us don’t see the legality or truth of it – it’s the lie that is spread throughout the community that wins. It works in Bonner County as well – one of the prosecuters – Tevis Hull – lived with his parents away from his wife who was in Kootenai County so he could establish residency much the same way.
Comment by Stebbijo — January 24, 2011 @ 5:35 pm
“We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes…,”
Comment by justinian — January 24, 2011 @ 6:01 pm
Here’s what I wrote on the Open Session earlier today:
Did you notice the new headline on the Drudge Report that Rham Emanuel has been taken off the ballot for Mayor of Chicago? The Appeals court said this:
Maybe Rahm needs to come to Idaho, where you can run for office after saying that rather than living with your family in your home outside the city limits, you have lived in a city friend’s basement bedroom for a month. And Idaho is also a state where you can vote in our city election even if you’ve been living in Canada for 20 years.
Chicago’s rules make way more sense than ours!
Comment by mary — January 24, 2011 @ 9:48 pm
Actually Mary, Chicago’s mob just has more ethics than our own city council.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 25, 2011 @ 6:43 am
The Maksym decision cited in the post is really worth reading for its majority opinion and dissent opinion discussions of residency versus domicile.
Notably absent from the Maksym decision was any reference to any federal voting laws like UOCAVA. Nowhere in the decision or dissent could I find any citation to any statutory or case law other than Illinois. Wow! What a concept! Deciding a state case based on your own state’s statutes and cases.
Obviously, Illinois law does not apply in Idaho (unless an Idaho district court judge seeking to make a socially or politically expedient decision decides it does). Still, the Illinois Appeals Court reasoning process in both the majority and dissenting opinions is worth reading.
Comment by Bill — January 25, 2011 @ 7:17 am
Kennedy: “…but I think an out-of-state voter isn’t as important as a resident of Coeur d’Alene in my mind,” Hmmm.
Comment by Happy Trails — January 25, 2011 @ 8:44 am
But from the news talking heads, the prediction is that the Illinois Supreme Court will rule in favor of Rahm because of his political party and his connections. Too bad, if it happens, because I was excited that the state with the worst corruption reputation was finally acting in a fair manner.
Comment by mary — January 25, 2011 @ 8:46 am
Happy Trails,
I assume you’re talking about Kennedy’s comment in this article in today’s Press.
Who was it from the county who said “Residence is a state of mind,” or something like that?
Comment by Bill — January 25, 2011 @ 9:00 am
Mary,
I don’t know. Both the majority and dissenting opinions seemed very well-reasoned. If anything, the differing opinions by the justices suggest Illinois and other states have suddenly recognized that “residence” and “residency” are important when it comes to municipal elections. The Illinois Appeals Court seemed to say that where a person actually lives, not just owns real property and stores personal property, is an important point in deciding eligibility for both voting and candidacy. If the Court’s majority opinion is correct, Illinois distinguishes between residency for voting and residency for candidacy.
Comment by Bill — January 25, 2011 @ 9:13 am
Now that the Illinois Supreme Court has ordered Emanuel’s name to be included on the ballot, what happens if the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately decides the Illinois Appeals Court decision was correct? What will happen to the votes of those who may have received absentee ballots and voted for Emanuel?
Look at it a different way. What if the Appeals Court decision had favored Emanuel and ordered his name included on the ballot, but the Supreme Court then decided to overturn that Appeals Court decision? How would the votes for him have been un-voted?
Comment by Bill — January 25, 2011 @ 12:01 pm
Why are they even bothering? Just hand the creep the crown already.
Comment by Dan — January 25, 2011 @ 12:33 pm