Breaking: Illinois Supreme Court Grants Rahm a Stay
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Update: You can read the order here. The only interesting part is that they haven’t actually granted the appeal, only the stay.
Update (II): The Illinois Supreme Court will actually hear the case. And Huffpo has the inevitable attack on the integrity of the appellate judges. I won’t deny the possibility of corruption exists, but isn’t that all the more reason to ask judges to stick to the law?
They haven’t reached the merits, yet. But they have stayed the ruling below, meaning he will stay on the ballot, for now.
I will say that yesterday I was underwhelmed by the logic of the court below. I wasn’t ready to pronounce them wrong, but so far I was unconvinced. But I did find it interesting how many people normally in favor of judicial activism were complaining about… judicial activism.
Anyway, you can read about it, here. But the link pretty much tells you what I just told you.
Ballet dances for everyone!
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Is anyone surprised ? Nobody in Chicago is.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:01 amThe stay was granted pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 368(b):
It’s hard to see how the court could have denied the stay.
Aaron notes they didn’t reach the merits, but the order just issued did not even grant an expedited appeal.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:27 amWhen there is a dissent in the Appelate Court panel, the odds of the Illinois Supreme Court accepting the petition for leave to appeal tilt to the appelant, in my experience.
Additionally, the trial judge, Mark Ballard, is long known and respected. He is experienced, bright, and conscientious. The Illinois Supremes would want to know why his ruling was reversed.
nk (db4a41) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:49 amAnd just to put the specualtion aside,
Illinois has a substitution of judge rule. If either side thought Ballard would not give them a fair hearing, because of politics or no reason at all, they could have knocked him off the case.
nk (db4a41) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:55 am*substitution of judge without cause rule*
nk (db4a41) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:56 amnk, karl
thanks for the insights. what do you think of the actual opinion below? buy it? don’t buy it?
i am myself underwhelmed.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/25/2011 @ 12:01 pmI see a lot of distrust in the judicial system around Chicago, which is caused by the lack of honor of Chicago’s politicians and bureaucrats. It’s a shame that someone with the reputation nk’s describing is assumed to be playing politics.
It leads to a system of distrust where you hope for a corrupt leader who will at least be effective, because you assume someone who isn’t corrupt has no chance of making a difference. I think that’s whyh some people support Rahm.
I don’t understand why the eligibility standard for running for office has additional language to the standard for voting, unless the standards are actually different. I do think Rahm himself said he wasn’t a resident. The standard that is being applied seems unnecessary, but if that’s the law, then that’s the law until it is changed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2011 @ 12:12 pmYour analysis is as good as any, Aaron. I would not second guess either the election board or the trial judge. Whether the Supremes would agree with me ….
nk (db4a41) — 1/25/2011 @ 12:13 pmThe IL S CT has now granted an expedited appeal on the appellate court briefs, w/o oral argument.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/25/2011 @ 12:14 pmAaron,
I really can’t comment on the appellate court opinion.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/25/2011 @ 12:15 pmThe standards are different. The residency requirements to vote are more liberal. How can you live in the city when you don’t have a residence to physically live in? If Rahm gets on the ballot, expect to see challenges to the city’s residency requirements for city employees.
liontooth (ab09a0) — 1/25/2011 @ 12:27 pmNot that it’s relevant, since the residence requirement for candidates does not include this exception, but I don’t see why a job as a glorified secretary counts as “in the service of the United States” just because your employer happens to be the president. Is any job in the civil service to be counted for this exception? Why discriminate against private sector workers, who are actually productive, and in favour of government sector workers who consumer what others produce? I would have thought “in the service of the United States” to mean actual servicemen, i.e. members of the armed services, who standing “between their loved homes and wild war’s desolation” or the potential for it, but who maintain those “loved homes” in Chicago.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/25/2011 @ 1:37 pmI see a lot of distrust in the judicial system around Chicago,
Dustin, look up the undercover Federal sting operation known as Greylord, that will pretty much detail the history regarding court corruption here in Chicago. Granted, the court system is much better these days, but there’s still a long ways to go in most citizen’s opinions.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 2:03 pmI have no idea what the Il Supremes will do. But Rahm was a Chicagoan and a duly elected Congressman in the US House from the Chicago district where he also owns his home, until the very moment when he answered the call to become Obama’s COS. The seat he resigned had to be filled by a special election. Like him or hate him, there’s no question that had Rahm stayed in the House of Representatives, come back from D.C. to Chicago every few weekends, and then run for mayor this brou haha would not be happening. I think most reasonable people believe that common sense dictates neither he, nor anybody else for that matter, should in effect be penalized for serving a short and obviously temporary top post in the WH when a president asks–or thinks the residency law being fought over ever would have intended a personal penalty for such service.
elissa (2a3295) — 1/25/2011 @ 2:34 pmtoo bad the court didn’t grant Rahm a “roll over” or, better yet, a “play dead” instead of a “stay”…
8)
Lisa Murkowski (fb8750) — 1/25/2011 @ 3:01 pmLiontooth is right. If the law were the same for voting and running for office they could have made them the same. They didn’t.
And those against judicial activism are happy the law was followed and not interpreted in favor of the ruling class. Rahm is probably the best candidate but no man should be above the law. And if it means CMB is elected mayor, tough noogies.
MU789 (7df5ff) — 1/25/2011 @ 3:35 pm==And those against judicial activism are happy the law was followed and not interpreted…==
MU–I think the problem here is, that in this case “judicial activism” and “interpreted” is truly in the eye of the beholder. The residency law was reviewed and ruled on twice–in Rahm’s favor–before two Appellate judges ruled in the opposite way, accompanied by an unusually strong dissent from the other Appeals judge. And, some of the top lawyers in town who have no dog of their own in this fight whatsoever have been arguing about what the law says. That’s why it’s at the IL supreme court.
elissa (2a3295) — 1/25/2011 @ 3:55 pmAnd if it means CMB is elected mayor, tough noogies.
One question – do you live in Chicago? Because if you don’t, you’d never be so flippant about this issue.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 4:01 pmOne thing’s for certain – Chicago does not need an idiot for a mayor with the debt crisis coming up. They’ve already sold their seed corn a few times over.
luagha (5cbe06) — 1/25/2011 @ 4:13 pmDmac, googling Operation Greylord is amazing.
What a shame.
Anyway, you’re right that this is no laughing matter. A weak leader, over a corrupt culture, could avalanche, and no one wants a city the size of Chicago headed in the direction of Detroit.
And it’s not like that city’s problems don’t wind up affecting the entire country.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/25/2011 @ 4:37 pmelissa, the problem occurred not because Rahm took the White House job but because he decided he didn’t want to take the financial hit of maintaining two households, and leased out his Chicago home.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 4:41 pmSPQR–You’re absolutely correct that that is one of the complications, and one of the “interpretations”. But if the residency law were clear we would not all be waiting to hear from the Il Supreme Court.
elissa (2a3295) — 1/25/2011 @ 4:52 pmelissa, I found the appellate division opinion pretty clear and convincing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 4:56 pmSPQR
With all due respect – the leasing of one’s house while on extended assignment is not an unusual practice – rather it is an usual and ordinary occurence.
EricPWJohnson (c72be1) — 1/25/2011 @ 5:15 pmEricPWJohnson, I never said it was an unusual practice. I said it was inconsistent with claiming to be an actual resident of the city. He had no residence at which to reside.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 5:31 pmSPQR, although it’s been oft – stated many times, in this case Chicago law truly is an ass.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 5:57 pmBTW, here’s what has most of the city’s residents ticked – off regarding this ruling; in one corner we have the city law stating that if a resident leaves town via service to the government, he can still vote, no matter his resident status the past year. However, the same person cannot run for mayor if he hasn’t lived within the city limits the past year. Yeah, that makes sense – assinine doesn’t begin to describe the logic at work here.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 6:00 pmDmac – agreed it appears that the law is stupid, but there are avenues available to fix the Druid law, as opposed to ignoring it, no?
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/25/2011 @ 6:04 pmDmac, I don’t think so. I think that there is a legitimate purpose in requiring candidates for office to truly be recent, real residents of the area.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 6:08 pmDruid?! WTF? I typed stupid.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/25/2011 @ 6:21 pmI liked Druid much better, JD – there is indeed something very primeval about the law.
I think that there is a legitimate purpose in requiring candidates for office to truly be recent, real residents of the area.
OK, so we can disenfranchise them to run for office but franchise them to express their wishes at the ballot box. WTF?
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 6:40 pmThis law reminds me of some of those old laws dating back to the 18th Century here, ones that haven’t been followed for hundreds of years. Something along the lines of the local mayor having the services of a comely wench, for example.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 6:42 pmDmac, I’m having difficulty believing that you are that unable to see the rationale.
And prohibiting someone from running for office is not disenfranchising someone … by definition.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 6:45 pmElissa, I have family from Chicago and I spent the years before, during and after CMB’s time as senator going to Chicago 3 or 4 times a year. Unlike Obama, CMB actually spent her term trying to be a senator and failed spectacularly. I was in Chicago the day Washington died and am familiar with all mayors from Jane on.
But if the residency requirements are different to vote and run, the appeals court ruling can easily be defended. And for a city with such a large Hispanic and black population, it is amazing they keep electing corrupt white mayors when they can elect their own corrupt pols. The minority population and politicians still act like they did under the first Mayor D.
MU789 (7df5ff) — 1/25/2011 @ 7:17 pmYes, a “stay” is very apropos for an IL pol, isn’t it?
Rahm’s career path:
AD-RtR/OS! (54f08d) — 1/25/2011 @ 7:38 pmMayor….
Governor….
Felon!
I’m having difficulty believing that you are that unable to see the rationale.
No, I get it – but what we have now is the possibility of a panel of judges taking a candidate off the ballot that the majority of citizens favor (at least at the moment). Something seems quite wrong with that, IMHO.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 8:16 pmAnd for a city with such a large Hispanic and black population, it is amazing they keep electing corrupt white mayors when they can elect their own corrupt pols.
Are you suggesting that Harold Washington wasn’t corrupt? The guy was a machine hack for over three decades by the time he was elected, and neglected to pay his taxes for many years as well.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/25/2011 @ 8:17 pmLook, either say he was a machine Pol, or that he refused to pay his taxes…
Saying both is just redundant…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/25/2011 @ 8:19 pmAre you suggesting that Harold Washington wasn’t corrupt? The guy was a machine hack for over three decades by the time he was elected, and neglected to pay his taxes for many years as well.
No, I’m saying the Hispanics and blacks should be able to get their own corrupt pols in as mayor instead of electing the white corrupt pols. Does anyone really think the Daley machine has ever treated Hispanics or blacks fairly? Washington was a boy scout compared to some of the other aldermen and precinct chairmen. Cheating on taxes is almost a requirement for a politician there. It’s like NASCAR – if you’re not cheating you’re not trying.
MU789 (7df5ff) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:08 pmDmac, the popularity of the candidate is a reason to ignore residency requirements? If anything, that is one of the purposes of a residency requirement – to prevent “popular” people from carpetbagging into a political office.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2011 @ 10:16 pmCrimeboy will get his way, because the whole edifice of our society is now based upon what one can get away with, that formerly and still is viewed as some lowlife skumbag dirty, cheating, sick, twisted, should be illegal it’s only common sense, lie.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:05 pmOnly now, you can do it, and the skumbags everywhere celebrate their treachery, and the corrupted public goes along wildly shrieking victory.
—
You didn’t live there the past year, you don’t get to.PERIOD.”The common sense law of the formerly great USA.”
—
You can claim anything you want, be somewhere else, not be there, but prove you were a resident for the whole prior year, anyway. “The new, fascist, communist, crime nation, your sick as **** USA.”
I predicted this months ago when the issue of Ballerina’s eligibility was first raised.
It’s Chicago. The law means whatever a bunch of guys in a back room say it means.
Aren’t you people in Illinois tired of this crap?
Jones (72b0ed) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:12 pmSince Rahm was only a landlord and not a tenant according to the provision of ‘reside in’, the court overturning this is going to open a can of worms.
Currently, city workers like Firemen and Policemen are required to be residents of the city. If Rahm is deemed a resident, there will be a challenge so that other city workers can rent out their place and move to the burbs, WHERE TAXES ARE LOWER. If Rahm doesn’t need an expensive vehicle city sticker, why does a city worker who leaves? Chicago doesn’t need it’s higher paid workers fleeing.
Regarding “why don’t blacks and hispanics elect their own people” it’s very simple. First off, there has only been one white Mayor after Harold Washington, Daley. His not running was kind of unexpected, less than a year I think before the election.
The Chicago Hispanics are not a monolith. They are split between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans/ non-Mex hispanics. That’s why Gutierrez’s Cong. District is U shaped to link the 2 separate areas. Historically they haven’t turned out to vote.
The black community would be where a minority candidate would have a chance but for the last 20 years Daley has made sure to spread the wealth around so no major opposition would arise. Have you seen Jesse Jackson protesting against Daley, like he used to against Daley’s father? As an example Daley has a liaison to the black churches in Chicago.
liontooth (ab09a0) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:45 pmBTW one of the IL Supreme Court Justices is a Anne Burke. She is the wife of Chicago Alderman Ed Burke. One of the local political talk shows mentioned that behind the scenes Burke has been working for another candidate.
liontooth (ab09a0) — 1/25/2011 @ 11:52 pmThe sad truth is that no matter what happens with the Rahm ballot case, the “other” side will say from now into all eternity, “well, obviously the fix was in.” And they will most assuredly be right. For the politicians here it’s all about sides and old grudges and new connections and power and deals. For the citizens of the region who love Chicago, it’s about survival as a world class city. I’m sorry to burst any bubbles, or to offend, but anyone who believes this whole residency appeal thing is about the purity and sanctity of “the law”, when said law came out of the weak Illinois legislature or the Chicago City Council and when even the best judges all need patrons to get to the bench level at all and then to stay there, is being very naive.
elissa (26a465) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:35 amNo, I’m saying the Hispanics and blacks should be able to get their own corrupt pols in as mayor
That’s just swell – we have a black POTUS and yet you feel that racial mongering should still be a viable option in the President’s own hometown. Repeat after me – no candidate can win the mayoralty here without getting a share of the black, hispanic AND the white vote, and treating any constituency in the form of “they should elect one OF THEIR OWN” is precisely what we’re trying to get away from here, and have largely succeeded. Daley knew enough to pay them all off at various points during his time in office, hence his lengthy stay there.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:49 pmSupremes ruling: Rahm ON the ballot.
elissa (815e34) — 1/27/2011 @ 3:10 pmHere is today’s Il Supreme Court opinion and ruling on Rahm’s residency for anyone who’s interested.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf
elissa (815e34) — 1/27/2011 @ 3:18 pm