Rahm Emanuel ineligibility to run as Mayor of Chicago (Time: lawyer, home)

[linicx]

Oh Heavens no Most states I lived in considered me a resident if I paid state income taxes or real estate taxes, plus I had a state ID, current utility bill with my name on it, or a vehicle titled and plated in the state. I did not think anyone who serves at the pleasure of the President was require to give up their state residency, but I could be wrong.

[Drover]

That said, city residency requirements may be more stringent than state requirements.

[Lookout Kid]

I think he'll be able to fend this off long enough to be through one or two terms as mayor before the legal battles are fully resolved.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Drover

That said, city residency requirements may be more stringent than state requirements.

Residency laws are pretty basic almost everywhere, and Chicago is no exception. There are no requirements for having a lease, owning property, or occupying a residence within city limits. If there was, it would mean taking rights away from active service members, college students, businessmen working abroad, etc.

The requirements are that you live in the city for a year and have at least one way to prove it - lease, homeownership, claiming primary residence on tax return, utility bill, etc. Once that is established (which he clearly did a long time ago) you remain a Chicago resident unless you register to vote somewhere else, or file tax returns claiming a different address as your primary residence. He has done neither, and continued to use his Chicago address from everything from car registration to voter registration, and so he is still a legal resident. By the letter (and intent) of the law he is still a resident. I'm not going to vote for Rahm, but the residency challenge will just be holiday present to some lawyers. Hell, Alan Keyes beat all of the challenges to his residency, I'm pretty sure Rahm is all set.

[Drover]

Uh, OK. So instead of speculating that the residency requirement is the same as "basically anywhere,", does anyone have the actual wording of the law?

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Residency laws are pretty basic almost everywhere, and Chicago is no exception. There are no requirements for having a lease, owning property, or occupying a residence within city limits. If there was, it would mean taking rights away from active service members, college students, businessmen working abroad, etc.

The requirements are that you live in the city for a year and have at least one way to prove it - lease, homeownership, claiming primary residence on tax return, utility bill, etc. Once that is established (which he clearly did a long time ago) you remain a Chicago resident unless you register to vote somewhere else, or file tax returns claiming a different address as your primary residence. He has done neither, and continued to use his Chicago address from everything from car registration to voter registration, and so he is still a legal resident. By the letter (and intent) of the law he is still a resident. I'm not going to vote for Rahm, but the residency challenge will just be holiday present to some lawyers. Hell, Alan Keyes beat all of the challenges to his residency, I'm pretty sure Rahm is all set.

Good points. Thanks. I'm just wondering if the fact that he has a tenant in his place and has no access to it might present a problem. The articles regarding the situation aren't very clear.

If the law states that you must have lived in the city for a year, he's good. If it states that you have to have been here during the year leading up to the election, that might be a problem.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Drover

Bet his opponents do too.

Which may mean they know he's legit and are just blowing smoke and trying to dirty him.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Drover

Uh, OK. So instead of speculating that the residency requirement is the same as "basically anywhere,", does anyone have the actual wording of the law?

Google is your friend.

Originally Posted by dewthedru

If the law states that you must have lived in the city for a year, he's good. If it states that you have to have been here during the year leading up to the election, that might be a problem.

Exactly. The law leaves some room for intepretation, but does not explicity say THE year prior. It is covered by Illinois Municipal code (65 ILCS 5/6-3-9).

No person shall be eligible to the office of mayor, city clerk, city treasurer or alderman:

(1) Unless he is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided therein at least one year next preceding his election or appointment; or

(2) Unless, in the case of aldermen, he resides within the ward for which he is elected; or

(3) If he is in arrears in the payment of any tax or other indebtedness due to the city; or

(4) If he has been convicted in Illinois state courts or in courts of the United States of malfeasance in office, bribery, or other infamous crime.

No alderman shall be eligible to any office, except that of acting mayor or mayor pro tem, the salary of which is payable out of the city treasury, if at the time of his appointment he is a member of the city council.

The lawyers challenging it will try to convince the Board of Elections, then the courts, that "at least one year next preceding his election" means the year immediately prior. Rahm's lawyers will argue that it means one year between the last election and the upcoming election. Intent always plays a large role in these decisions and the Board of Elections has already indicated that they will approve his candidacy. The state courts have also been lenient in their definition of residency, and a very unlikely to overturn the decision made by the Board of Elections.

[Manigault]

The first George Bush had as a legal residence a suite at a hotel in Houston. Just to be contrary, Democrats rented the suite. I would tell you that the second George Bush had a legal residence of Chicago (for tax purposes) but you probably would not believe it, even though it is true.

With that factual background, I don't think Rahm will have a problem. What's the utility of residency requirements, anyway?

[dewthedru]

i'm just wondering if rahm rented out his house thinking he'd be in DC for a much longer time and might be up a creek because he's got nothing here.