PDA

View Full Version : Experts say Rahm Emanuel not a legal resident of city



Eric Johnson
10-04-2010, 03:24 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2769580,CST-NWS-vote04.article

http://tinyurl.com/2962qbp

Courts may disagree

October 4, 2010

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com
The first question isn't: Can Rahm win? It's: Can Rahm run?

Sunday, Rahm Emanuel announced in a video posted on a website that he is preparing to run for mayor of Chicago. But two of Chicago's top election lawyers say the state's municipal code is crystal clear that a candidate for mayor must reside in the town for a year before the election.

That doesn't mean they must simply own a home in the city that they rent out to someone else. They must have a place they can walk into, keep a toothbrush, hang up their jacket and occasionally sleep, the lawyers say.

-more-

Buzz
10-04-2010, 03:40 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2769580,CST-NWS-vote04.article

http://tinyurl.com/2962qbp

Courts may disagree

October 4, 2010

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com
The first question isn't: Can Rahm win? It's: Can Rahm run?

Sunday, Rahm Emanuel announced in a video posted on a website that he is preparing to run for mayor of Chicago. But two of Chicago's top election lawyers say the state's municipal code is crystal clear that a candidate for mayor must reside in the town for a year before the election.

That doesn't mean they must simply own a home in the city that they rent out to someone else. They must have a place they can walk into, keep a toothbrush, hang up their jacket and occasionally sleep, the lawyers say.

-more-

I assume that this means that he still has time.

And I doubt that he even has to buy a home. Can't you have an apartment and still be considered a resident?

I doubt that Rahm would be dumb enough to quit his day job before he understood eligibility requirements.

luvmylabs23139
10-04-2010, 03:44 PM
Chicago's election for mayor is Feb 22, 2011.

road kill
10-04-2010, 03:47 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2769580,CST-NWS-vote04.article

http://tinyurl.com/2962qbp

Courts may disagree

October 4, 2010

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com
The first question isn't: Can Rahm win? It's: Can Rahm run?

Sunday, Rahm Emanuel announced in a video posted on a website that he is preparing to run for mayor of Chicago. But two of Chicago's top election lawyers say the state's municipal code is crystal clear that a candidate for mayor must reside in the town for a year before the election.

That doesn't mean they must simply own a home in the city that they rent out to someone else. They must have a place they can walk into, keep a toothbrush, hang up their jacket and occasionally sleep, the lawyers say.

-more-

These "EXPERTS" must not be familiar with Chicago style politics!!:D



RK

Eric Johnson
10-04-2010, 03:52 PM
Nope. The election is Feb 22, 2011. He doesn't have a year by any stretch. That's what is going to make the process/decision so exciting to watch. He won't even be close to the residency time requirement.

Eric

YardleyLabs
10-04-2010, 04:05 PM
From s legal perspective, the situation does not appear at all clear. If his time in Washington is viewed as a temporary assignment and he otherwise lived as a resident (paid resident taxes, maintained a resident driver's license and voter registration, etc.), there would be a good argument that his residency was continuous. Thus, it you were a university professor on e sabbatical and spent a year in Australian during which you rented out your house, you would normally still be considered a resident since you still owned your house, were engaged in a transitory assignment, and otherwise maintained your residency. At an easier extreme, if you did a house swap with another person during which you rented their house and they rented yours for a period of a 2-3 weeks, no reasonable person would consider that to be an interruption of residency. There are many situations where residency is not affected by temporary periods during which an individual is residing in another location (e.g. a reservist on assignment in Iraq who does not maintain a residence). Unless specific guidelines are provided in the law, it becomes a judgment call that could go either way.

david gibson
10-04-2010, 04:30 PM
From s legal perspective, the situation does not appear at all clear. If his time in Washington is viewed as a temporary assignment and he otherwise lived as a resident (paid resident taxes, maintained a resident driver's license and voter registration, etc.), there would be a good argument that his residency was continuous. Thus, it you were a university professor on e sabbatical and spent a year in Australian during which you rented out your house, you would normally still be considered a resident since you still owned your house, were engaged in a transitory assignment, and otherwise maintained your residency. At an easier extreme, if you did a house swap with another person during which you rented their house and they rented yours for a period of a 2-3 weeks, no reasonable person would consider that to be an interruption of residency. There are many situations where residency is not affected by temporary periods during which an individual is residing in another location (e.g. a reservist on assignment in Iraq who does not maintain a residence). Unless specific guidelines are provided in the law, it becomes a judgment call that could go either way.

you are wasting your breath. its chicago style politics, it has nothing to do with any legal stipulations or formalities....

subroc
10-04-2010, 04:31 PM
this is rich...he filmed his "I'm glad to be home" message in Washington.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Glad_to_be_home__but_where_is_that.html?showall

road kill
10-04-2010, 04:34 PM
Not only will Rahm win, I am predicting right now he carries 100% of the dead voter block!!!:shock:


RK

Marvin S
10-04-2010, 04:36 PM
From s legal perspective, the situation does not appear at all clear. If his time in Washington is viewed as a temporary assignment and he otherwise lived as a resident (paid resident taxes, maintained a resident driver's license and voter registration, etc.), there would be a good argument that his residency was continuous. Thus, it you were a university professor on e sabbatical and spent a year in Australian during which you rented out your house, you would normally still be considered a resident since you still owned your house, were engaged in a transitory assignment, and otherwise maintained your residency. At an easier extreme, if you did a house swap with another person during which you rented their house and they rented yours for a period of a 2-3 weeks, no reasonable person would consider that to be an interruption of residency. There are many situations where residency is not affected by temporary periods during which an individual is residing in another location (e.g. a reservist on assignment in Iraq who does not maintain a residence). Unless specific guidelines are provided in the law, it becomes a judgment call that could go either way.

I guess this would be a lot like being qualified to be Treasury Secretary when you fail to pay your taxes :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :).

Eric Johnson
10-04-2010, 07:24 PM
From s legal perspective,...

Are you an attorney...particularly one admitted to the Illinois Bar....and specifically specializing in election law? If not, your arguments are merely conjecture and don't have the weight of a legal perspective.

Illinois law is different from Pennsylvania law which is different from Alabama law which is different from.... This is especially true in the area of election law where each state specifically sets it's own rules. Witnesss Florida in 2000 and 2004 and Minnesota in 2008. The quoted persons in the story are in fact Illinois lawyers and may very well be election law specialists. For instance, there may be a difference in residency for election to office vs residency for voting, paying taxes, and everything else. Dunno.

Eric

YardleyLabs
10-04-2010, 07:39 PM
Are you an attorney...particularly one admitted to the Illinois Bar....and specifically specializing in election law? If not, your arguments are merely conjecture and don't have the weight of a legal perspective.

Illinois law is different from Pennsylvania law which is different from Alabama law which is different from.... This is especially true in the area of election law where each state specifically sets it's own rules. Witnesss Florida in 2000 and 2004 and Minnesota in 2008. The quoted persons in the story are in fact Illinois lawyers and may very well be election law specialists. For instance, there may be a difference in residency for election to office vs residency for voting, paying taxes, and everything else. Dunno.

Eric
And, from the story you posted,
Actually, Chicago Board of Elections officials have said, with the caveat that they cannot comment on specific cases and they won't know what objections will be raised against mayoral candidates until Nov. 29, that they start with the presumption of intent if a candidate maintains a home in Chicago and votes absentee there.
"It's the sense of the election board that if you keep ownership of the property, keep your registration there, you've voted absentee, as far as we know he hasn't registered anywhere else, it's just like members of the military who serve overseas in Iraq -- we don't deny them the right to vote; people who take corporate assignments overseas, and lease out their home as a fact of life, it doesn't mean they've left permanently," Chicago Board of Elections spokesman Jim Allen said.
I think that is pretty much what I stated. As I noted, it will come down to the specifics of the Chicago law. My own experience with residency questions is based on my own experiences and my parents' experiences as non-resident US citizens. My father actually moved from Tennessee to Europe wit his employer in 1960. He remained out of the country in various positions around the world until he retired in 1987, at which point he moved back to Tennessee. Because he never established residency in any other state during that 27 year period, maintained a Tennessee drivers license, and voted absentee in Tennessee, the state considered him to be a resident for that entire time. Their logic was very much that described in the posted article.

Eric Johnson
10-04-2010, 07:46 PM
Well, here is what I think they are referring to....

(65 ILCS 5/6‑3‑9) (from Ch. 24, par. 6‑3‑9)
Sec. 6‑3‑9. Qualifications of mayor, city clerk, city treasurer and aldermen ‑ Eligibility for other office.
No person shall be eligible to the office of mayor, city clerk, city treasurer or alderman:
(1) Unless he is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided therein at least one year next preceding his election or appointment; or
(2) Unless, in the case of aldermen, he resides within the ward for which he is elected; or
(3) If he is in arrears in the payment of any tax or other indebtedness due to the city; or
(4) If he has been convicted in Illinois state courts or in courts of the United States of malfeasance in office, bribery, or other infamous crime.
No alderman shall be eligible to any office, except that of acting mayor or mayor pro tem, the salary of which is payable out of the city treasury, if at the time of his appointment he is a member of the city council.
(Source: P.A. 76‑746.)

Now, the residency requirement for voting is a mere 30 days.

Eric

depittydawg
10-04-2010, 07:48 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2769580,CST-NWS-vote04.article

http://tinyurl.com/2962qbp

Courts may disagree

October 4, 2010

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com
The first question isn't: Can Rahm win? It's: Can Rahm run?

Sunday, Rahm Emanuel announced in a video posted on a website that he is preparing to run for mayor of Chicago. But two of Chicago's top election lawyers say the state's municipal code is crystal clear that a candidate for mayor must reside in the town for a year before the election.

That doesn't mean they must simply own a home in the city that they rent out to someone else. They must have a place they can walk into, keep a toothbrush, hang up their jacket and occasionally sleep, the lawyers say.

-more-

For some reason, I can seem to generate much concern over who Chicago elects for their mayor. At least the scumbag isn't in Washington anymore.

dnf777
10-04-2010, 07:51 PM
For some reason, I can seem to generate much concern over who Chicago elects for their mayor. At least the scumbag isn't in Washington anymore.

Hey....its local politics. If they elect him...then they deserve him. I say give Chi-town Rham.....give DC Marion Barry....give NOLA Nagin.
Nah, I take that back. NOLA deserves much better. thank goodness he's outta there.

Buzz
10-04-2010, 09:45 PM
Chicago's election for mayor is Feb 22, 2011.

I had no idea, which could be an indication of how interested I am in that race.;-)

M&K's Retrievers
10-04-2010, 11:29 PM
Washington's gain is Chicago's loss.

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 06:45 AM
Well, here is what I think they are referring to....

(65 ILCS 5/6‑3‑9) (from Ch. 24, par. 6‑3‑9)
Sec. 6‑3‑9. Qualifications of mayor, city clerk, city treasurer and aldermen ‑ Eligibility for other office.
No person shall be eligible to the office of mayor, city clerk, city treasurer or alderman:
(1) Unless he is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided therein at least one year next preceding his election or appointment; or
(2) Unless, in the case of aldermen, he resides within the ward for which he is elected; or
(3) If he is in arrears in the payment of any tax or other indebtedness due to the city; or
(4) If he has been convicted in Illinois state courts or in courts of the United States of malfeasance in office, bribery, or other infamous crime.
No alderman shall be eligible to any office, except that of acting mayor or mayor pro tem, the salary of which is payable out of the city treasury, if at the time of his appointment he is a member of the city council.
(Source: P.A. 76‑746.)

Now, the residency requirement for voting is a mere 30 days.

Eric


That could be a problem for someone from the O administration!;)

road kill
10-05-2010, 06:53 AM
Are you an attorney...particularly one admitted to the Illinois Bar....and specifically specializing in election law? If not, your arguments are merely conjecture and don't have the weight of a legal perspective.

Illinois law is different from Pennsylvania law which is different from Alabama law which is different from.... This is especially true in the area of election law where each state specifically sets it's own rules. Witnesss Florida in 2000 and 2004 and Minnesota in 2008. The quoted persons in the story are in fact Illinois lawyers and may very well be election law specialists. For instance, there may be a difference in residency for election to office vs residency for voting, paying taxes, and everything else. Dunno.

Eric

He is not....he just knows everything.

Don't believe me??

Ask him!!:D


RK

YardleyLabs
10-05-2010, 07:52 AM
Well, here is what I think they are referring to....

(65 ILCS 5/6‑3‑9) (from Ch. 24, par. 6‑3‑9)
Sec. 6‑3‑9. Qualifications of mayor, city clerk, city treasurer and aldermen ‑ Eligibility for other office.
No person shall be eligible to the office of mayor, city clerk, city treasurer or alderman:
(1) Unless he is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided therein at least one year next preceding his election or appointment; or
(2) Unless, in the case of aldermen, he resides within the ward for which he is elected; or
(3) If he is in arrears in the payment of any tax or other indebtedness due to the city; or
(4) If he has been convicted in Illinois state courts or in courts of the United States of malfeasance in office, bribery, or other infamous crime.
No alderman shall be eligible to any office, except that of acting mayor or mayor pro tem, the salary of which is payable out of the city treasury, if at the time of his appointment he is a member of the city council.
(Source: P.A. 76‑746.)

Now, the residency requirement for voting is a mere 30 days.

Eric
As I noted in my answer, I do not think the question of residence is clear one way or the other and could see courts ruling in either direction with justification. It becomes interesting when you look at how the state itself treats questions of residency for income tax purposes. Persons living in Illinois on a temporary or transient basis are not residents and Illinois residents living temporarily or as transients in another location remain Illinois residents.


Temporary or transitory purposes. Whether or not the purpose for which an individual is in Illinois will be considered temporary or transitory in character will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. It can be stated generally, however, that if an individual is simply passing through Illinois on his way to another state, or is here for a brief rest or vacation, or to complete a particular transaction, or perform a particular contract, or fulfill a particular engagement, which will require his presence in Illinois for but a short period, he is in Illinois for temporary or transitory purposes, and will not be a resident by virtue of his presence here. If, however, an individual is in Illinois to improve his health and his illness is of such a character as to require a relatively long or indefinite period to recuperate, or he is here for business purposes which will require a long or indefinite period to accomplish, or is employed in a position that may last permanently or indefinitely, or has retired from business and moved to Illinois with no definite intention of leaving shortly thereafter, he is in Illinois for other than temporary or transitory purposes, and, accordingly, is a resident taxable upon his entire net income even though he may also maintain an abode in some other state.
There is no fixed definition or the length of an assignment that would qualify as permanent rather than temporary. Similarly, in defining domicile, the state places great weight on long term intent. If a person owns a residence, has lived in it, and leaves it for a period of time with the intention of returning ultimately, the residence remains their domicile whether or not they live in it during a particular period. Thus, a temporary lease of a house would not mean that house is no longer a domicile for the owner unless it were done in a manner that made it clear that the long term intent was to leave.

Obviously, accepting a potentially multi-year temporary assignment in Washington pushes the limits. However, I don't think there was ever any question that Rahm was a resident of Chicago before going to Washington, that his work in Washington was temporary in nature, and that his long term intention was to remain a Chicago resident and return on conclusion of his work in the White House.

The courts will have to make a judgment based on the facts of the specific case. However, the law does not clearly dictate what that judgment would be. This is clearly what is also said in the "expert" comments made in the articles you cited. It could go either way and will depend on fuzzy questions such as evidence of intent, and not simply be answered by physical location during the prior year or by the fact that the house was leased to someone who would like to stay there.

Eric Johnson
10-05-2010, 08:32 AM
What you don't seem to recognize is that the law I cited is quite specific concerning the qualifications for election...not taxes or voting. I've been both a transient and a permanent resident of Illinois and in both status I resided both within and outside the state. I fully understand the stand on Illinois taxes and residency. It's all meaningless. We're talking about elections which are a different kettle of fish and dealt with very specifically in the law.

Interpret for me what this means....

"(1) Unless he is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided therein at least one year next preceding his election or appointment; or ... "

That's the law. The election folks were not being coy or clever. They simply don't rule on hypotheticals. Come November, they'll rule if Mr. Emmanuel submits the papers to qualify for the election.

Eric

YardleyLabs
10-05-2010, 08:59 AM
What you don't seem to recognize is that the law I cited is quite specific concerning the qualifications for election...not taxes or voting. I've been both a transient and a permanent resident of Illinois and in both status, resided both within and outside the state and I fully understand the stand on Illinois taxes and residency. It's all meaningless. We're talking about elections which are a different kettle of fish and dealt with very specifically in the law.

Interpret for me what this means....

"(1) Unless he is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided therein at least one year next preceding his election or appointment; or ... "

That's the law. The election folks were not being coy or clever. They simply don't rule on hypotheticals. Come November, they'll rule if Mr. Emmanuel submits the papers to qualify for the election.

Eric

Eric
Qualified elector means registered to vote. I assume he is registered to vote in Chicago. If not, I suspect he is SOL. "Resided" is defined by residency and the legal precedents in Illinois concerning what constitutes residency make it clear that it is not simply determined by where you were physically located. You are arguing that the term as used in the Chicago law means something different than what is meant in state voting and tax laws. However, nothing in the language you quote makes that evident. In the absence of very explicit definitions (such as are used, for example in New York State's tax codes), judges would be free to look at common usage of terms across all aspects of state law. This indicate a presumption of non-residence for someone absent for more than a year, but also make it clear that there are exceptions based on intent and context. The story you cited comments that some unidentified attorneys believe that law clearly excluded Rahm from running. I suspect that if those attorneys were identified, we would also find their names on complaints that will be filed. I also suspect that Rahm did not decide to quit his job and run without some competent legal advice suggesting that his candidacy would survive a legal challenge. I assume that there will be such a challenge and that there will be appeals. From a tactical perspective, if I were Rahm, I would actually initiate the litigation myself (obviously through a different voter) to avoid having legal challenges being delayed until the election is closer to ensure that there could be no final decision. The first line of argument is the administrative one -- the Chicago Board of Elections. With respect to them, it is clear that there is support for an argument for residency based on criteria other than physical presence.
"Two officials from the Chicago Board of Elections have clearly stated that the overriding legal issue is intent, and the fact that Rahm owns a home and votes in Chicago means he's a Chicagoan -- regardless of his opponent's old-style political efforts to limit the choice for voters," Emanuel spokeswoman Lori Goldberg said.
Actually, Chicago Board of Elections officials have said, with the caveat that they cannot comment on specific cases and they won't know what objections will be raised against mayoral candidates until Nov. 29, that they start with the presumption of intent if a candidate maintains a home in Chicago and votes absentee there.
"It's the sense of the election board that if you keep ownership of the property, keep your registration there, you've voted absentee, as far as we know he hasn't registered anywhere else, it's just like members of the military who serve overseas in Iraq -- we don't deny them the right to vote; people who take corporate assignments overseas, and lease out their home as a fact of life, it doesn't mean they've left permanently," Chicago Board of Elections spokesman Jim Allen said.
"If you are a registered voter and continue to vote from your residence, you establish what we consider the intent to be a resident of the city of Chicago," Chicago Election Board Chairman Langdon Neal told CBS2Chicago. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2769580,CST-NWS-vote04.article)
This is not a matter of "Chicago politics" as you imply, since similar arguments exist as established precedents in many areas of Illinois law. The nice thing about a court case is that everyone gets to put forward their own arguments, judges reach a decision, and that decision is subject to appeal. Obviously, there are times when such decisions are blatantly political (e.g. Bush v Gore in 2000 before the Supreme Court;-)). For the most part, however, such decisions reflect a lot of thought and attention to detail.

EDIT: I'm sure it's a coincidence, but the primary "expert" cited for this story is Burt Odelson, a Chicago based, politically active attorney who gained election law credentials in part through his work on the 2004 Florida recount for the Bush team. The Chicago Sun-Times story fails to mention this fact or the fact that Odelson is representing another candidate for mayor. The UPI, in a somewhat more balanced story, reports (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/04/Rahm-ramping-up-for-mayoral-run/UPI-81521286169987/):

"The guy does not meet the statutory requirements to run for mayor," Burt Odelson, an attorney representing another potential candidate for mayor, told the Sun-Times. "He hasn't been back there in 18 months. Residency cases are usually very hard to prove because the candidate gets an apartment or says he's living in his mother's basement. Here the facts are easy to prove. He doesn't dispute he's been in Washington for the past 18 months."
Other attorneys said Emanuel, who has yet to announce his intentions, could argue that he has maintained ownership of the home, completed an absentee ballot this year, pays property taxes, lists the address on his driver's license and always intended to return.

M&K's Retrievers
10-05-2010, 09:29 AM
Really, who cares as long as he is gone from Washington? One more down.

Bayou Magic
10-05-2010, 10:19 AM
Really, who cares as long as he is gone from Washington? One more down.

EXACTLY! Besides, does anyone really think he doesn't already know the outcome of any potential court challenge?

fp

Julie R.
10-05-2010, 11:05 AM
The courts will have to make a judgment based on who gives the judge the most money. However, the law does not clearly dictate what that judgment would cost. This is clearly what is also meant in the "expert" comments made in the articles you cited. It could go either way and will depend on cash, and not simply be answered by physical location during the prior year or by the fact that the house was leased to someone who would like to stay there.


There, fixed it for ya. ;) As I've said before, Illinois has the best politicians money can buy.

Eric Johnson
10-05-2010, 11:29 AM
No Jeff. I presented the State law....the Illinois Municipal Code to be exact. This is a state statute and has been in effect for quite some time.

"(1) Unless he is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided therein at least one year next preceding his election or appointment; or ... "

... has nothing to do with Chicago "law". It has not a whit to do with taxes. If you would read the entire chapter you would find that the only reference to "tax" is the requirement that he not be in arrears on any tax found in sub-paragraph (3) of the same section. IOW, it too is a qualification for running for office. Other than that, there's no reference to tax.
Note that in the quotes from the Board of Elections officials, they refer to residency....not taxes.

It is purely a residency issue and one that we'll just have to wait and see how the BoE rules.

Eric

tom
10-05-2010, 11:54 AM
Just because a person is working in Washington, doesn't mean that Chicago isn't their legal residence.
Would be nice tho', that way we would have the ability to kick every damn one of those senators out of office.
Running for Mayor of Chicago, is no different than running for US Congressman from that district. The Congressman works in Washington too.