Has it become national news that Rahm Emmanuel is off the ballot for Mayor of Chicago? Turns out there is some technicality of a problem with his residency status in Chicago.
So we live in a world where Hillary Clinton can be Senator from New York when she is *only* technically a New Yorker, while Rahm Emmanuel can't be Mayor in Chicago because, while he is clearly a Chicagoan, he missed some detail that fit the letter of some law never intended to bar someone in this circumstance.
I'm annoyed.
Perpetually.
So we live in a world where Hillary Clinton can be Senator from New York when she is *only* technically a New Yorker, while Rahm Emmanuel can't be Mayor in Chicago because, while he is clearly a Chicagoan, he missed some detail that fit the letter of some law never intended to bar someone in this circumstance.
I'm annoyed.
Perpetually.
2 comments:
I believe the Illinois Supreme Court stayed the effect of the Appellate Court decision. The latest I have is here:
http://howappealing.law.com/012611.html#040375
1. I am fascinated by this because a) Im from Chicago and steeped in the political culture of that town, b) Rahm is such a ... fascinating character, and c) the Obama connection really does make it legitimate news, at least to me.
2. As Jim noted the SCOTSOIL stayed the ruling and Rahm is on the ballot for them moment. The law itself is kinda interesting. Relevant statues are reviewed here a DKos, but in essence:
ILCS Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office.
(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment
and
10 ILCS 5/3-2
No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.
So the court ruled that Rahm the elector did not lose his residency and can vote, but Rahm the candidate did lose his residency. I find that tortured, personally, and apparently the IL Supreme Court also does. We will see...
3. Residency requirements for mayor are weird, when you think about it. I mean, if Bloomberg decided he was done in NYC, and wanted to move to Chicago as his next project, or if there was a really successful mayor of a medium-sized city who wanted to move up to the big leagues, wouldn't that be *good* to give the voters that choice? They certainly do that sort of thing with Police Chiefs and School Superintendents.
I would agree that residency requirements for federal office might make more sense, to ensure legislators actually represent their districts' interests. But they'd also still be answerable to their voters. But nobody is suggesting that Rahm might actually be a manchurian candidate who would actually be serving his evil overlords in Milwaukee...
Post a Comment