"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?

"House Lawyers Want Face Time With 9th Circuit"

Interesting oral argument coming up in Speech or Debate Clause case involving former Rep. Rick Renzi.

"The GOP's Campaign Finance 'Sneak Attack'"

Mother Jones offers this report.

"Build a Bigger House"

Dalton Conley and Jacqueline Stevens have written this NY Times oped.

"Independent Spending? Who Are We Kidding?"

Meredith McGehee blogs.

"Key questions surrounding the Rahm Emanuel residency case"

The Chicago Sun-Times offers this report. More from the Washington Post.

My initial thoughts about the ruling will appear soon at Slate.