When I worked outside the country, I was told that if I rented my house out, I would give up residency status and homestead status. I don't think I agree with that, but I don't think Rahm should be treated differently.i
My understanding of the the court's decision is that they said the situation you just described would be a valid exception for residency for VOTING purposes, but not candidacy purposes. They said the law is clear that voting and candidacy have separate residency requirements.
It depends on the particular state's law. If the law states I must physically reside in that house for a year prior to voting (or running for office), then I should not be allowed to vote, regardless of anything else. For example, I live in Minnesota and it has an estate tax. Assume the following: I buy a house in Texas. I have all my bank accounts in Texas. My mailing address is in Texas and I receive my mail in Texas. I physically am in Texas at that house I bought for 180 days a year. According to Minnesota law, I am still a resident of Minnesota, because I am in Minneosta more than Texas that particular year and if I die, my estate has to pay Minnesota taxes if applicable.
Seems like this is a gray area of the law, depending on specific location and which judge(s) are making what interpretations when and about whom. It'll go through the process and end up one way or the other, and the losing side will complain, but no one will be really right or wrong, in my opinion. That being said, shouldn't we address the real question - what would be best for citizens of Chicago? I'm not saying Emanuel is, but it's hard to argue that this is a guy that isn't qualified from a local perspective; he's CLEARLY a Chicagoan. If the people truly think Emanuel is their guy - as polling seems to indicate they overwhelmingly do - and he's clearly a "local", despite his brief hiatus... if he isn't allowed to run, wouldn't it be a case of the law actually not serving its purpose?
Should Schwarzenegger be allowed to run for president without the law being changed? He has been a U.S. citizen for almost 30 years. Whether or not he is the best choice for President, it would be hard to argue against him being a solid Republican candidate.
You were told wrong, at least as far as residency is concerned. All that is required is some form of presence in a state and intent to return/remain indefinitely, at least under federal law.
Not without the law being changed. I was just asking, does the law make sense? And perhaps there are little nuances you could nitpick here and there and say, sure, Arnold passes the test on all of those items, but we can't afford to look at each candidate individually and therefore need to keep the law in place to prevent that minuscule risk...which might be the right course. I don't have the answers, but I do think it is probably more useful to discuss the merits of the law and what they were intended to do, then whether or not this particular 2-1 decision was, by the book, right or wrong or will hold up on appeal or not. Because as with all (most) laws, no answer is legally entirely right (fundamentally our laws are reflective of the set of rules by which we want to govern ourselves and fundamentally people will differ on their opinions...hence the dissenting opinion)... and it will go through the appeal process and either hold up, or not. But should Emanuel be allowed to be Chicago's next mayor... fundamentally (as opposed to "legally"), seems the more appropriate question.
Those comments are like a train wreck. You know it's going to bad...real bad...but you look anyway. my second favorite...
here's the requirements Candidacy in Illinois: (Section 3.1-10-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code) 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. if the wording used for voter eligibility in Illinois is the same, would you agree that both should be interpreted the same?
Yes, but it isn't the interpretation of this requirement it's the interpretation of the exception as I understand it. The exception for national service is provided for in the voting residency requirement but not the candidacy requirement. At least that's what I heard.
(Section 3.1-10-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code) 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. From what I gathered after reading the dissent, the argument is made that one must meet the qualifications of prong 1, being an elector AND prong 2 residing a yr prior. And the exception for service...applicable to "elector" So the judge argues that in order for one to be "elected" one must fit eligibility requirements for "elector" first, and if your gonna take the "residing a year prior" as your reasoning, then you must also consider that Rahm as an "elector" still qualifies due to the exception, and therefore should be allowed to take that exception and transfer from elector to elected.
Just on this part right here, it seems there are two requirements to be eligible to run: 1) Be an eligible elector AND 2) live in the municipality at least one year prior to the election As there is an exception in place to be an elector if you were called to national service, that takes care of step 1 of the process, but not step 2 which is worded separately from the first requirement and joined with an AND. The word and would seem to mean that both requirements must be met. That part 2 is also a requirement for part 1 that you can get excused to vote doesn't mean it gets excused as a requirement to get elected. Anyway, I expect him to ultimately win this on appeal as I really doubt the Illinois SC wants to screw up Rahm running for mayor, and I'm sure there's word coming down from a lot of important people to make this happen. Ultimately I don't care either way since I don't live in Chicago and don't care who runs that corrupt city.
Let Rahm go back to be a shill for Wall Street. Keep him away from government. I'm glad to see this. Thank goodness he is not f******** up the Obama Admin anymore.
Rahm-ping back to the ballot with a unanimous decision (7-0) http://www.suntimes.com/3521480-417/court-emanuel-ballot-decision-election.html
