http://news.google.com/news/se…
What’s your spin?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Dems Save The Day, Government To Stay Open
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: Weld County Gerrymandering Case Pushes The Boundaries Of Home Rule
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: bullshit!
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I posted it in the Monday Open Thread. We discussed. That was it.
Why would anyone have spin on a mayoral race in Chicago?
.
but this seems wrong.
He has to be a resident somewhere, right ? Like a soldier on active duty, he should get to designate a Home of Record while federal service keeps him away.
Besides, I’d like to see Chicago hurt by a Rahm Administration, after all the damage he did nationally.
Payback.
.
But then, so does the law they were ruling on.
For those not up on the particulars, Adam B over at Daily Kos has a good legal summary. Essentially, the court ruled that the Illinois Legislature put two separate residency provisions in to being eligible to run for office.
First, that you have to be a valid elector. That means you have to “have residence” in the district for a set period of time. This provision has exceptions for being away “on the business of the United States”, which the court rules Rahm (and military personnel) clearly qualify under.
The second provision is that the candidate has to “reside” (word in the law) in the district for 1 year prior to the election. They ruled that “residing”, unlike maintaining residency, actually entailed living in the district for the year. So under this ruling, military personnel could not run for state or local offices in Illinois.
As I said, the ruling is a bit stilted. But I’m not going to say it was wrong (or right); the court may be deciding based on the law, not on “what’s right”. Given what I consider to be the vagueness of the law, I would hope that the IL Supreme Court would issue a more interpretive ruling that gave benefit of the doubt to the electorate and the candidate.
Ballots start printing this evening, and according to the Chicago BOE, they’re printing without Rahm’s name unless someone tells them RFN to hold the presses. The Illinois Supreme Court is out of session; no word yet on whether they’ll issue an emergency injunction to hold up the ballot printing.
b) Chicao Board of Elections rules him in, lower court agrees, appellate court says no, IL Supreme Court and SCOTUS yet to weigh in.
c) If he paid taxes and voted as a Chicagoan doing the business of the US, then he should be in.
d) see a).
substance-free “hey, something bad happened to a Dem” posts (Olberman, Emanuel…)
Got no problem with men crushing on men; just questioning L’s taste. Were I infatuated with male conservative pols, I’d be more of an Eric Cantor guy.
Illinois Supreme Court has stayed the appeals court ruling.
Ballots will be printed with Emanuel’s name on them.
No link yet, too soon. Check the Chicago Trib or Sun Times web sites soon.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun…
He was (obviously) able to prove irreparable harm, and the remaining standard is that he have a “substantial case on the merits”.
No word on whether the court will actually hear the case, but it was pretty much a no-brainer to issue the stay.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun…