Tag Archives: Cook County Appeals Court reversal

Rahm Emanuel ineligible, Cook County Appeals Court reversal, Residency requirement, One down one to go

Rahm Emanuel ineligible, Cook County Appeals Court reversal, Residency requirement, One down one to go

From the Chicago Tribune January 24, 2011.

“Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot, according to a ruling issued by a state appellate court today.

At a news conference, Emanuel said he would appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and ask the state’s highest court for an injunction so that his name will appear on the mayoral ballot.

“I have no doubt at the end we’ll prevail in this effort,” Emanuel said. “We’ll now go to the next level to get clarity.”

“I still own a home here, (I) look forward to moving into it one day, vote from here, pay property taxes here. I do believe the people of the city of Chicago deserve a right to make a decision about who they want to be their next mayor,” Emanuel said.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appellate panel said Emanuel does not meet the residency requirement of having lived in Chicago for a year prior to the election. The judges reversed a decision by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, which had unanimously agreed that Emanuel was eligible to run for mayor.

“We conclude that the candidate neither meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have ‘resided in’ Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement,” the majority judges wrote. “Accordingly, we disagree with the Board’s conclusion that he is eligible to run for the office of Mayor of the City of Chicago. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming the Board’s decision, set aside the Board’s decision and … order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or, if necessary, removed) from the ballot.”
The majority opinion was written by Appellate Justice Thomas E. Hoffman and concurred with by Presiding Appellate Justice Shelvin Louise Marie Hall.

Appellate Justice Bertina E. Lampkin wrote a dissenting opinion.”

Read more:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/01/appellate-court-says-emanuel-should-be-removed-from-ballot.html

From the court ruling:

“WALTER P. MAKSYM and THOMAS L.
McMAHON,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
THE BOARD OF ELECTION
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO, et al.,
(RAHM EMANUEL,
Respondent-Appellee).”
“JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Presiding Justice Hall concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Lampkin dissented, with opinion.”
“Subsection 3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code sets forth two
qualifications for candidates: it states that a candidate must be
“a qualified elector of the municipality and [must have] resided in
the municipality at least one year next preceding the election.”
65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008). These two qualifications are
stated separately and in the conjunctive.”
“As we have observed, the “reside in” requirement is stated
separately from, and in addition to, the requirement that he be a
qualified elector of Chicago in order to be a candidate for
municipal office. The fact that the two requirements are stated
separately and in the conjunctive leads to the inference that the
legislature intended that they be considered separately from, and
in addition to, each other.”
“Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that, under
subsection 3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code, a candidate must meet
not only the Election Code’s voter residency standard, but also
must have actually resided within the municipality for one year
prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate
unquestionably does not satisfy. Because the candidate does not
satisfy that standard, he may be eligible for inclusion on the
ballot only if he is somehow exempt from the Municipal Code’s
“reside in” requirement.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the candidate
neither meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have
“resided in” Chicago for the year preceding the election in which
he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the
requirement. Accordingly, we disagree with the Board’s conclusion
that he is eligible to run for the office of Mayor of the City of
Chicago. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming the
Board’s decision, set aside the Board’s decision, and, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb.
1, 1994)), order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or, if
necessary, removed) from the ballot for the February 22, 2011,
Chicago mayoral election.
Reversed.”

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/1stDistrict/January/1110033.pdf

One down, one to go.