More

Chicago Voters: Let Rahm Emanuel Run For Mayor

TAMMY WEBBER and SOPHIA TAREEN   01/27/11 11:09 AM ET   AP

Rahm

CHICAGO — Chicagoans are having no trouble summing up their thoughts about the drama now before the Illinois Supreme Court over Rahm Emanuel's name appearing on next month's mayoral ballot. Some call it ridiculous and confusing. Others, just plain baloney.

But whether or not they had planned to support Emanuel, voters expressed two prevailing sentiments: Let the former White House chief of staff run so the voters can decide and, no matter how embarrassing or maddening the latest election spectacle has become, it's vintage Chicago politics.

"If we're not going to allow choice to happen, then we're really not a democratic society," said Dan Murphy, a coffee shop owner in Chicago's East Village who signed a petition to get one of Emanuel's rivals on the ballot but hasn't decided how he'll vote. "What can choice hurt?"

Emanuel – who's leading in the polls and has far more money than his competitors – has been fighting for two months to keep his name on the ballot after dozens of people claimed he didn't meet a requirement that candidates live in Chicago for the year before an election.

The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and a Cook County judge said he did, but on Monday an appellate court threw him off the ballot because he had been living for two years in Washington working for President Barack Obama. Emanuel, who moved back to Chicago in October to run for mayor, argues he's a resident because he owns a house here, votes and pays taxes here and was only away serving his country.

The issue now is in the hands of the Illinois Supreme Court, where a decision could be announced as early as Thursday.

The appeals court ruling caused serious disruptions for election officials hoping to start printing ballots, and possibly some uncertainty for those considering voting early or giving Emanuel money. But across the city Wednesday, many Chicagoans appeared less surprised by the city's latest political spectacle than upset at the perceived disruption to the democratic process.

"If he's got a house, he must be a resident," said 50-year-old West Side resident Robert Hill Jr., who calls Emanuel "an excellent choice" for mayor. "But you know Chicago is a political town and ... they're going to come at him."

Howard Noel, who's in the maintenance supply business, said he planned to vote for Emanuel and called the residency hearings "grossly unfair." He also said the ballot fiasco is "theater" that reinforces the stereotype that Chicago politics are crooked.

"Rahm is a get-it-done kind of guy," said Noel, 71. "I don't care if he's from Pittsburgh. If he can lead, let him lead. It's not like he was spending time in jail. It's an honor to work at the White House."

To be sure, a good number of voters probably don't think Emanuel should be on the Feb. 22 ballot to replace retiring Mayor Richard M. Daley.

"It's fair because he doesn't live here," said Celesteno Orta, a 60-year-old retiree who lives in the city's heavily Mexican Pilsen neighborhood and plans to vote for former Chicago schools chief Gery Chico.

The week's developments proved beneficial for some and downright confusing for others.

For Emanuel's main rivals – Chico, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and city Clerk Miguel del Valle – it was a chance to capitalize on his dilemma and try to convince voters to give them another look. Emanuel was the clear front-runner in a recent Chicago Tribune/WGN poll with 44 percent of all voters surveyed saying they would vote for him; he led among white, black and Hispanic voters.

For Chicago election officials who ordered 2 million ballots without Emanuel's name on them after Monday's appellate court ruling, it's been chaotic.

They literally had to stop the presses midday Tuesday when the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to take Emanuel's case and told them not to print ballots without his name. By then, nearly 300,000 invalid ballots had been printed; they resumed printing ballots with his name.

Now the confusion could extend to voters, with early voting starting Monday.

Chicago Board of Election Commissioners Chairman Langdon Neal said voters with any doubts should wait until the Supreme Court decision. If Emanuel doesn't end up on the ballot, any votes cast for him would not be counted – and there would be no do-overs.

Fifty-seven-year-old part-time waitress Mary Tomaszewski called the situation "just baloney" and said it never should have gotten this far.

"I think it's totally ridiculous because no person is ever going to want to take another job for fear if they come back to their home they aren't going to be able" to run for political office, Tomaszewski said. "To me it's like common sense, you know? This just looks childish."

Flora Gregg, a 57-year-old laid off bank worker who lives in President Barack Obama's South Side neighborhood, said if Emanuel isn't allowed on the ballot, she's ready to protest.

"What are they gonna do when the president comes back, not consider him a Chicago resident?" Gregg said.

Some have another take.

After two decades of relatively tame mayoral races in which Daley was a virtual shoo-in, the election spectacle may be maddening, but at least it's not boring.

"It's more interesting than having no point of contention in the race," said Murphy, the coffee shop owner. "Mayors are traditionally kind of like goofballs."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CHICAGO

CHICAGO — Chicagoans are having no trouble summing up their thoughts about the drama now before the Illinois Supreme Court over Rahm Emanuel's name appearing on next month's mayoral ballot. Some...
CHICAGO — Chicagoans are having no trouble summing up their thoughts about the drama now before the Illinois Supreme Court over Rahm Emanuel's name appearing on next month's mayoral ballot. Some...
Filed by Jen Sabella  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 51
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
shthar
An error (500 Internal Server Error) has occured
02:49 AM on 01/28/2011
People get the govt they deserve.
photo
pyradius
Microbiologist
07:28 PM on 01/27/2011
http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=006500050HArt%2E+3%2E1&ActID=802&ChapterID=14&SeqStart=33100000&SeqEnd=45700000

(65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1‑10‑5)
Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office.
(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1‑20‑25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1‑25‑75, Section 5‑2‑2, or Section 5‑2‑11.


http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=001000050HArt.+3&ActID=170&ChapterID=3&SeqStart=10200000&SeqEnd=11000000

(10 ILCS 5/3‑2) (from Ch. 46, par. 3‑2)
Sec. 3‑2. (a) A permanent abode is necessary to constitute a residence within the meaning of Section 3‑1. No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent homeless individuals from registering to vote under the provisions of this Act.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:11 PM on 01/27/2011
Thank you.
01:44 PM on 01/27/2011
Voters: "Give every citizen a million dollars and end taxes"!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:26 PM on 01/27/2011
SOLD,count me in
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
12:59 PM on 01/27/2011
What a weak article. You could write a counter argument too: Chicagoans don't want Rahm Emanuel. This is a country of laws, not a country of polls, let alone a country of anecdotes.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HeavingBoosom
01:03 PM on 01/27/2011
If you're so sure that Chicagoans don't want Emanuel, why are you so scared of having him on the ballot?
01:06 PM on 01/27/2011
Way to miss the point of the post.
08:20 PM on 01/27/2011
80%, about 150, of the people I know do NOT want Rham in Chicago, and we are quite vocal about it....I'm told and hear the murmuring of other pockets who feel the same way...Nobody has bothered to do a comprehensive poll.

Unfortunately the laws that were passed to ensure that minorities have the right to live wherever they wan(in theory) afford Rham the same luxury.

That said, could you imagine the uproar if a Muslim cleric decided to run for mayor of Lynchburg Virginia, the conservative majority would go insane, using every dirty trick in the book to ensure he couldn't and would have the full support of their fellow conservatives.

Whereas our supposed democratic allies at the national level are rooting for the freaken enemy. It's not rocket science to figure out why the Democratic party loses so many elections.
12:49 PM on 01/27/2011
Honest to God, folks. This really isn't this tough. It doesn't matter if 100% of those polled want him to be able to run, the law is clear. Let me say that I do think he's perhaps the most qualified person for the job, but that matters not. Just because he wasn't smart enough to play by the rules (although that's clearly a stretch for anyone in Illinois politics) doesn't mean he nor his supporters should be offered exceptions. HAD he done his homework, he would have known what it took to participate legally. Frankly, we should all be a little concerned that he nor his minions had the foresight to examine the parameters for being elected mayor of the third largest city in America. Facts are facts, the law states that he is not eligible. If you don't like the law, create a movement to change it; not one to circumvent it. By doing so you are participating in the shambles that is Illinois politics. It's embarassing at the very least.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
01:01 PM on 01/27/2011
F & F
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HeavingBoosom
01:04 PM on 01/27/2011
If the law is so clear, please explain why the Board of Elections and the Circuit Court interpreted it different from the Appeals Court?

If the law is so clear, why is the Appeals Court reversing a century of precedent by coming to some newfound conclusion that there are two kinds of residency?
12:46 PM on 01/27/2011
Why would you even want Rahm when you can have Moseley-Braun?
12:34 PM on 01/27/2011
I was wondering if there is any precedent for a situation like this.
photo
Aldyth
Advocating for those who cannot defend themselves.
12:27 PM on 01/27/2011
Anyone who has been paying attention had to know that this would end up in front of the Illinois Supreme Court. The people who oppose Rahm won't quit until all possibilities are exhausted and Rahm isn't going to quit until all of his possibilities are exhausted.

Meanwhile, this is providing a lot of entertainment for those of us who live outside of Chicago. We may not have a vote, but we have a stake in the outcome. Chicago is the 800 pound gorilla of Illinois.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
valhalladad
Justice went out of style too soon
12:07 PM on 01/27/2011
Who needs the law when you can have Rahm?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:07 PM on 01/27/2011
people,don't you understand that average people do not have a say in anything?now if you bribe...ahhhh,i mean hire a lobbyist to...let's say,grease somebodys palm,then things might happen.this is why we have these little message boards,now rant away,we hear ya
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ckdogs
12:02 PM on 01/27/2011
Rahm is a resident of the city. If he had sold his house - it would be murky, but he didn't. The two judges who made this decision are Burke/Chico guys. Someone is spending a lot of money to try to keep Rahm off the ballot. I don't know if he'll win - but the voters should decide.
01:47 PM on 01/27/2011
The law says you have to reside in the municipality for at least one year, not be a resident.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:15 PM on 01/27/2011
It would appear that the law says that being away from your domicile on business of your Government shall not constitute an abandonment of domicile. Therefore, it would appear he qualifies.
08:30 PM on 01/27/2011
The law is fairly specific about what residency means for good reason. Many wealthy Chicago families have multiple houses, and while they may claim the one in Chicago as their primary docile, that does not mean it's where they spend the majority of their time.

The reasoning behind the law is that elected officials should be integral members of the community, not "Legal", meaning on paper, residents.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thepoliticalcat
Eradicate your microbioflora
11:16 PM on 01/27/2011
Pyradius has posted the applicable laws, I believe. And while your legal domicile does not constitute your residence, the law also clearly states that an absence from your domicile on the business of your Government does not constitute a lack of residence.
tissa
Chicago Liberal /Sales/Marketing Director
11:50 AM on 01/27/2011
The fact of the matter is that Rahm is not that popular here. While this has nothing to do with this issue, it should be mentioned. He had such a hard time getting signatures--that was all over the news.
 
This article is making it sound like we Chicagoans just love him so much, not true.  It was Chicago Citizens who brought this lawsuit, and our own mayor did not endorse Rahm.
 
We don't really know who he is, he never really lived here in the city, he was a surbanite....
 
I am surprised at how many here are willing to dismiss the law, and just move on. That's not right.

If Rahm had maintained a residence and not rented it out, he wouldn't have a problem.  He probably thought Daley was going to run again.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HeavingBoosom
12:02 PM on 01/27/2011
He's so unpopular that he's leading in the polls by 20 points.

Your post is replete with things that are not true.

Rahm was born in Chicago and moved to Wilmette when he was 10.

He has lived in Chicago all of his adult life since attending Northwestern for graduate school in 1983.

He has owned a home in the Chicago district he represented in Congress for 15 years.

Obama won his Chicago district with 70% of the vote. So apparently, people know him just fine.
tissa
Chicago Liberal /Sales/Marketing Director
05:26 PM on 01/27/2011
That's just not true, you obviously don't even live in the city.
 
Wilmette is not Chicago, it is a suburb.  And, no he has not lived in Chicago his adult life. I know that, because I live here.
 
Also, he was a rep for only 6 years. 2003-2003 (he is young, next time when you l ie keep that in consideration)
 
The fact that his district voted for Obama, doesn't mean a thing, most people in IL did. OMG.
 
Stop blowing smoke.
 
tissa
Chicago Liberal /Sales/Marketing Director
05:27 PM on 01/27/2011
2003-2008 Rahm served as a rep.
12:30 PM on 01/27/2011
Chicago Citizens are not paying Olsen the lawyer challenging Rahm's residency. This whole appeal decision doesn't make any sense. It is funny that the two democratic judges on the court overturn the ruling in the lower court and the republican judge dissented. This is why judges should be appointed not elected, because just like politicians they are always looking for the money and the votes to stay on the bench.
tissa
Chicago Liberal /Sales/Marketing Director
05:27 PM on 01/27/2011
Yup, actually one Chicago Citizen is..and he is the one who brought the lawsuit.
11:46 AM on 01/27/2011
Run Rahm Run! Some of these laws are just so old. They are just useless these days.
tissa
Chicago Liberal /Sales/Marketing Director
11:54 AM on 01/27/2011
do you really want to go there useless laws we shouldn't follow......give me a break...the argumentcan be made for a lot of laws....that is why we vote and alderman help to change laws we don't want.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HeavingBoosom
12:03 PM on 01/27/2011
You don't want Chicagoans to have a choice because you know Rahm will win--despite your claim that he is so unpopular.

What are you so afraid of?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mimi66
11:04 AM on 01/27/2011
I love how they don't even mention the fact that the two appellate court judges who made the decision were slated by Ed Burke, Chico's biggest supporter.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HeavingBoosom
11:01 AM on 01/27/2011
Even people who don't plan to vote for Rahm think the appeals court is being underhanded in bumping him off the ballot.
11:17 AM on 01/27/2011
Yeh, god forbid we actually follow the law. Popular opinion should always trump the law, right?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HeavingBoosom
11:35 AM on 01/27/2011
The appeals court is the one not following the law.
11:42 AM on 01/27/2011
God forbid that we acknowledge that the law is nuanced.