Appeals Court Knocks Rahm Emanuel Off Mayoral Ballot

Rahm Emanuel is bound to appeal the decision, but it looks like that will be a way of taking it to the distance rather than giving up. I do not believe he has much of a chance at overturning the decision. The following analysis is an example of my less than stellar legal education and experience, so consult experts for better quality horse manure if you need more credibilie legal opinion.

There are two statues which discuss eligibility which are relevant to Emmanuel’s case. One deals with the eligibility to vote. The other deals with the eligibility to run for office. The first is far less strict. A resident of Chicago is eligible to vote if he has “constructive” residence. Even the appeals court agreed Emanuel passes the first test by owning a residence within Chicago even though he does not physically live there. The second statute dealing with eligibility to run for office is far stricter. One has to have been a literal resident of Chicago for one year before filing to run for municipal office. Emanuel fails this test because his Chicago residence has been nothing but storage for boxes of his stuff while he has been in Washington.

Emanuel’s lawyers argued that the statues mean the same thing. If he has been a constructive resident of Chicago for over a year under the first statute, then he ought to be considered a resident eligible to run for office in Chicago. They are arguing it is not reasonable to allow a resident to vote, but not be a candidate himself, when he qualifies for residency.

Emanuel, who is a speech therapist rather than a lawyer, is under the mistaken impression the law is always fair and statutes are not open to interpretation. The two statutes do not say the same thing. The first establishes residence for voting eligibility but the second statute requires voting eligibility plus residency for a year prior to filing for office. So it goes back to there being a lesser standard for residency for voting, in which he qualifies, than for running for office, which he does not qualify.

This makes since. Why have two statutes that say the exact same thing? The drafters of the statutes had to have intended for different standards for voters than candidates in residency requirements. So emanuel can vote in the mayoral election because he owns a residence and has some connection there, but cannot run in the election because he has not actually lived there within a year before making the ballot.