So here's the Rahm question, which we've been kicking
around at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/24/938538/-So,-whys-Rahm-off-the-ballot#c270.
The statute says candidate has to be someone who's "a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the
municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment."
Qualified elector, under the
statute, is resided in the state and in the district for the past 30 days, +
citizen >18yrs, and it's a status you don't lose if you or your spouse is
absent "on business of the United States, or of this State."
My question is this: why *doesn't* it make sense for it to be
tougher to run than it is to vote, and for the "business of the US" clause
to only apply to voter eligibility? In fact, isn't Emanuel's situation
precisely what the statute was getting at? Someone who just spent the
past eighteen months in DC heavily invested in another job isn't someone who's
still in touch with the day-to-day concerns of Chicagoans and can't just
parachute in to solve their problems. He may have maintained "a
residence" in Chicago, but he hadn't "resided in" there.
This may be a less-than-preferred policy outcome, but it does
have a rational basis and renders all the part of the statute meaningful. I
find myself surprisedly leaning towards this reading, anti-D Canon though it
may be.
Adam C. Bonin | Cozen
O'Connor
1900 Market Street | Philadelphia, PA,
19103 | P: 215.665.2051 | F:
215.701.2321
abonin@cozen.com |
www.cozen.com
Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:34 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] more news 1/24/11
"Let Rahm Run! The
Illinois Courts Should Let the Voters Decide Whether He'll Be Chicago's Next
Mayor"
I have written this piece for Slate. A
snippet:
Today's decision is wrong on many
levels. Whether Emanuel's move to D.C. for a year should affect his mayoral
chances is a question for the voters, not the courts, to decide. Emanuel's
residency is no secret--it has been a defining campaign issue. If Chicago
voters don't want to vote for Emanuel because they think he's a carpetbagger
(even though this strains credulity given his longstanding Chicago ties), they
can reject him at the ballot box. Now, in a nonpartisan election, they'll have
to choose among a long list of candidates, none of whom has polled as strongly
as Emanuel. Finally, should a politician really face a penalty like this for
serving the president? Is it really true that no good deed goes unpunished?