Breaking: Illinois Supreme Court Orders Rahm Emanuel Back on Ballot

R

RockX

Banned
:rofl:

The Illinois Supreme Court, which has issued a stay to keep Rahm Emanuel on the Chicago mayoral ballot, now says it will hear his challenge of an appeals court ruling denying him a spot, the Associated Press reports.

The court earlier today had issued a stay, but did not say definitely at that time whether it would hear the case.

In any case, the stay blocked a decision by the the appeals court that ordered Emanuel off the ballot because, the court ruled, he did not meet one-year residence requirements to run for mayor.

As a result, the ballots were intially being printed today for the Feb. 22 without his name. The stay meant that his name will stay on the ballot, although a final ruling in the case could yet disqualify him.
 
Not yet. We'll see how they rule. I don't see how he could possibly be a resident of the city while he was in D.C. and so obviously so the whole time. He would not be eligible to run for county commissioner out here. But there may be "resident" definitions in the law that could give him a shot. Sometimes even the most obstinate court cannot find a way to twist what they want out of the law.
 
Damocles said:
Not yet. We'll see how they rule. I don't see how he could possibly be a resident of the city while he was in D.C. and so obviously so the whole time. He would not be eligible to run for county commissioner out here. But there may be "resident" definitions in the law that could give him a shot. Sometimes even the most obstinate court cannot find a way to twist what they want out of the law.
Click to expand...


How is a voter's "residence" determined under Colorado election laws?
 
AssHatZombie said:
So much for the rule of law....
Click to expand...

actually, the supreme court is correct to issue a stay. if it is determined later by the court that rahm should be on the ballot, he would be irreparably harmed by not being on the ballot. hopefully the court will issue a ruling before the election. as to those who continue to give $$ to rahm, they do so at their own risk, unless he has to give the money back should the SC uphold the appellate decision.
 
NigelTufnel said:
How is a voter's "residence" determined under Colorado election laws?
Click to expand...
By you living there for more than six months of the year. So owning a property, not enough. You, or your family in the case of soldiers or congresscritters etc., would actually have to be there for at least one day more than six months of the year.

If his family lived there and he visited on weekends, a resident he would be.
 
Damocles said:
By you living there for more than six months of the year. So owning a property, not enough. You, or your family in the case of soldiers or congresscritters etc., would actually have to be there for at least one day more than six months of the year.

If his family lived there and he visited on weekends, a resident he would be.
Click to expand...


Could you link that up for me because it seems very much at odds with this:

1-2-102. Rules for determining residence. (1) The following rules shall be used to determine the residence of a person intending to register or to vote in any precinct in this state and shall be used by election judges in challenge procedures:

(a) (I) The residence of a person is the principal or primary home or place of abode of a person. A principal or primary home or place of abode is that home or place in which a person's habitation is fixed and to which that person, whenever absent, has the present intention of returning after a departure or absence, regardless of the duration of the absence. A residence is a permanent building or part of a building and may include a house, condominium, apartment, room in a house, or mobile home. No vacant lot or business address shall be considered a residence
Click to expand...


I don't see squat in there about living there for one day more than six months. In fact, the statute says that you can leave for as long as you like so long as you have a present intention of returning after the departure.

Given that, I find it odd that you cannot understand how Rahm could be considered to be a resident of Chicago. If it were Denver instead of Chicago there doesn't seem to be much question that, at least for voting purposes, Rahm would be a resident of Denver under Colorado's election laws.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Could you link that up for me because it seems very much at odds with this:




I don't see squat in there about living there for one day more than six months. In fact, the statute says that you can leave for as long as you like so long as you have a present intention of returning after the departure.

Given that, I find it odd that you cannot understand how Rahm could be considered to be a resident of Chicago. If it were Denver instead of Chicago there doesn't seem to be much question that, at least for voting purposes, Rahm would be a resident of Denver under Colorado's election laws.
Click to expand...
Oh, you're talking about voting residence, not that of candidate. Sorry. Yeah, so long as you don't register elsewhere and plan on returning your residence to vote is your house.

However, candidacy is different. And the rules of the party, agreeable to the state, apply. He would have to either be here at least one day more than six months, or his family would.

Rahm, living with his family in DC would establish that as "residence" per those rules.
 
Another way he could establish residence in CO would be to have a physical address to which mail is delivered and received. A PO box wouldn't do. It would be how you would establish that you were "here" during that period.

So, like I said. It depends on the law and what they require to establish "residence" for candidates.
 
Damocles said:
Oh, you're talking about voting residence, not that of candidate. Sorry. Yeah, so long as you don't register elsewhere and plan on returning your residence to vote is your house.
Click to expand...

I used the voter requirements because I could easily locate them just to make the point that it is perfectly reasonable for a court to conclude that Rahm is a resident of Chicago.

Damocles said:
However, candidacy is different. And the rules of the party, agreeable to the state, apply. He would have to either be here at least one day more than six months, or his family would.
Click to expand...

So the parties define residency how they wish for party offices. How is residency determined for candidates for state or federal office?
 
Yurt said:
actually, the supreme court is correct to issue a stay. if it is determined later by the court that rahm should be on the ballot, he would be irreparably harmed by not being on the ballot. hopefully the court will issue a ruling before the election. as to those who continue to give $$ to rahm, they do so at their own risk, unless he has to give the money back should the SC uphold the appellate decision.
Click to expand...

You're out of order, he's out order, this whole courtroom is out of order.


al-pacino.jpg
 
NigelTufnel said:
Why is it irrelevant? Because you say so? I say it is indeed relevant.
Click to expand...

the "because i say so" debate tactic...

:rolleyes:

care to explain your reasons or is this like eating a bowl of hair? because though claiming that previously, you are now engaging in debate on the issue....:palm:
 
what do you think of this nigel:


But Attorney Burt Odelson, who is leading the charge to knock Emanuel off the ballot, said Saturday night that the fact that Emanuel filed the “non-resident and part-year resident’’ tax return shows even he acknowledged — at least initially — he wasn’t a resident in the last half of 2009 or for most of 2010 before he moved back to the state recently.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...-Part-Year-Residency-in-09.html#ixzz1C5maQC9l

oddly it was not addressed in the appellate decision
 
Yurt said:
what do you think of this nigel:


But Attorney Burt Odelson, who is leading the charge to knock Emanuel off the ballot, said Saturday night that the fact that Emanuel filed the “non-resident and part-year resident’’ tax return shows even he acknowledged — at least initially — he wasn’t a resident in the last half of 2009 or for most of 2010 before he moved back to the state recently.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...-Part-Year-Residency-in-09.html#ixzz1C5maQC9l

oddly it was not addressed in the appellate decision
Click to expand...


So, let me get this straight. Whether a person is a resident for voting purposes is irrelevant to whether a person is a resident for candidacy purposes but whether a person is a resident for tax purposes is relevant?

Doesn't make much sense, Yurt.
 
Yurt said:
what do you think of this nigel:


But Attorney Burt Odelson, who is leading the charge to knock Emanuel off the ballot, said Saturday night that the fact that Emanuel filed the “non-resident and part-year resident’’ tax return shows even he acknowledged — at least initially — he wasn’t a resident in the last half of 2009 or for most of 2010 before he moved back to the state recently.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...-Part-Year-Residency-in-09.html#ixzz1C5maQC9l

oddly it was not addressed in the appellate decision
Click to expand...


Having looked into it a bit, I would also conclude that Rahm Emmanuel is yet another Obama Administration official that fucked up his tax returns. Based on everything he testified to, Rahm Emmanuel is a full-time Illinois resident for tax purposes:

http://tax.illinois.gov/LegalInformation/letter/rulings/it/2003/IG030024.pdf
 
NigelTufnel said:
Having looked into it a bit, I would also conclude that Rahm Emmanuel is yet another Obama Administration official that fucked up his tax returns. Based on everything he testified to, Rahm Emmanuel is a full-time Illinois resident for tax purposes:

http://tax.illinois.gov/LegalInformation/letter/rulings/it/2003/IG030024.pdf
Click to expand...

lol...of course you would think that, his original intention and SIGNED statement is just a simple "mistake"....

:rolleyes:

he knew exactly what he was doing and he lied about the mistake, but you will apologize for your dems no matter what they do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top