Here's how the dissent characterizes the evidence. Still raises the possibility for me that Emanuel had a residence in Chicago but wasn't "residing in" Chicago.
---------
According to the record, the candidate testified that he intended to work in Washington, D.C., for no more than two years.
Consistent with that intent, he leased his Chicago home on a shortterm basis. Although he and his wife were initially reluctant to lease their Chicago home, they heeded the advice of their friend and real estate consultant to lease the home during their absence for safety purposes.
The candidate’s intent to work in Washington, D.C., for the limited time frame and then return to his home in Chicago was confirmed by the testimony of three personal friends.
The candidate initially rented an apartment in Washington, D.C., but later rented a home when his family joined him during the summer of 2009. The lease terms of both his Chicago residence and the Washington, D.C., home coincided with the school year of the candidate’s children in order to provide the least disruption possible to their education. Prior to the family’s move to Washington, D.C., the candidate’s wife and her friends filled 100 boxes with belongings that were then left in a locked storage area in the basement of the Chicago home. The candidate described the stored items as the family’s most valuable possessions, including his wife’s wedding gown, heirloom china, family photograph albums, an heirloom coat brought by the candidate’s grandfather when he immigrated to the United States, the clothes and birth outfits of the candidate’s children, and their school projects and report cards.
Additionally, the candidate’s family returned to Chicago two or three times for physician’s appointments and celebratory gatherings. The candidate’s wife maintained contact with the lessees of the Chicago home in order to facilitate repairs within the home and to schedule three or four occasions for the piano of the candidate’s family to be tuned in their absence.
Furthermore, the candidate never voted in Washington, D.C., never changed his driver’s license to Washington, D.C., never registered his car in Washington, D.C., never purchased property in Washington, D.C., never conducted personal banking in Washington, D.C., and never demonstrated an intent to sell his Chicago home.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger@yahoo.com]
Sent: Mon 1/24/2011 8:42 PM
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu; Election Law; Bonin, Adam C.
Subject: Rahm
The question the dissent asks is, "When did Rahm cease to be a resident?" For the first few months he worked for Obama, his wife continued to live in their home in Chicago. It is unlikely anyone would think that Rahm was no longer a resident of Chicago during that period. Surely he must have flown home to Chicago every weekend to see his wife and children.
And it would be odd if his ability to run depends on something his wife did.
People can have multiple residences.
Also, as the dissent notes, there is a strong old precedent from the Illinois Supreme Court that the majority attempted mightily to distinguish.
--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Bonin, Adam C. <ABonin@cozen.com> wrote:
From: Bonin, Adam C. <ABonin@cozen.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 1/24/11
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu, "Election Law" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:43 PM
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 <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
January 24, 2011
"Let Rahm Run! The Illinois Courts Should Let the Voters Decide Whether He'll Be Chicago's Next Mayor"
I have written this piece <http://www.slate.com/id/2282287/> 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?
Posted by Rick Hasen at 03:28 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018597.html>
"House Lawyers Want Face Time With 9th Circuit"
Interesting oral argument coming up <http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/01/house-lawyers-want-face-time-with-9th-circuit.html> in Speech or Debate Clause case involving former Rep. Rick Renzi.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:46 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018596.html>
"The GOP's Campaign Finance 'Sneak Attack'"
Mother Jones offers this report <http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-public-financing-cantor-corporation> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:43 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018595.html>
"Build a Bigger House"
Dalton Conley and Jacqueline Stevens have written this NY Times oped <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24conley.html> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:40 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018594.html>
"Independent Spending? Who Are We Kidding?"
Meredith McGehee blogs <http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=411:independent-spending-who-are-we-kidding-1-24-11> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:35 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018593.html>
"Key questions surrounding the Rahm Emanuel residency case"
The Chicago Sun-Times offers this report <http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2835963-418/emanuel-state-election-run-code.html> . More from the Washington Post <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/rahm-emanuel-ruled-ineligible.html> .
My initial thoughts about the ruling will appear soon at Slate <http://www.slate.com/> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:30 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018592.html>
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
rhasen@law.uci.edu
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law