Subject: Re: [EL] more news 1/24/11
From: Trevor Potter
Date: 1/24/2011, 6:35 PM
To: "rick.hasen@lls.edu" <rick.hasen@lls.edu>, Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

I agree with everything Rick says about Rahm E.. However, it seems to me Rick is arguing that there should not be residence statutes for candidates --that voters should decide whether someone has sufficient connection with a locality or district or state. But Illinois has made a different policy decision and created such a requirement-so we can't say "let the voters decide". If the statute doesn't let them . (I have no view on the statute as I have not read the case law noted on the list serve).
Trevor potter

Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rick Hasen [mailto:hasenr@gmail.com]
Sent:	Monday, January 24, 2011 06:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
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 <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document. _______________________________________________ election-law mailing list election-law@mailman.lls.edu http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law