Chicago Mayoral Race thread

[Balta1701]

Then the legislators should change the law. We shouldn't rely on the Court's decision for that.

Trouble is...inertia. These sorts of laws don't get changed until someone gives a legislature a reason to change them.

[iamshack]

Then the legislators should change the law. We shouldn't rely on the Court's decision for that.

Yeah, I agree. I wasn't debating the law, nor the Court's decision. Was just asking a common sense question as to the spirit of the law.

[Jenksismyhero]

Trouble is...inertia. These sorts of laws don't get changed until someone gives a legislature a reason to change them.

 

Ok? Just because Emmanuel is going to get "screwed" doesn't mean we should allow the Court to change the law.

[BigSqwert]

Ok? Just because Emmanuel is going to get "screwed" doesn't mean we should allow the Court to change the law.

That's a pretty backwards way of looking at it. So keep an antiquated law in place for spite?

[Soxbadger]

I fail to see how this situation is one that the drafters of that legislation meant to exclude. He left town intending to work in DC for who knows how long. He might have intended to move back SOMEDAY, but clearly he moved back as soon as he heard Daley was leaving. Despite his connections and despite history, unless he was totally ignoring his responsibilities as chief of staff under Obama he missed out on a LOT of local issues that the people of the city were going through. Sorry, but this isn't some technicality, I think that's meaningful. The guy didn't step foot back in Illinois (save an Obama appearance here or there) during that time.

 

I still maintain that such a ruling opens the door for unconnected rich folk to basically gamble at future political office depending on what district they think might open up (didn't Hillary do this in NY? Basically claiming that she "resided" there because they owned an apt and office?). They buy a house in X state, live in it temporarily (months), leave some "personal items" in the home, leave to work elsewhere, and then state that you had always intended to return.

 

The problem here is that the term resides has different meaning in different contexts.

 

For example, if I was going to sue Rahm, I believe that I could sue him in Cook County and claim that this was his residence. I would argue that he had always lived here and that he had every intent of returning here. That DC/Virginia would be improper venue as those are merely temporary locations.

 

Thus we have a problem with the terminology "reside" as it is undefined in the statute and therefore is going to be based wholly on interpretation of other case law.

 

In my opinion the legislative intent (which if I would actually research if Rahm's team wants to hire me), is that they do not want people to run who have no connection to the City. Thus they have a 1 year requirement, so that the person has some connection to the city. I believe the 1 year requirement was meant to be a minimum in terms of time spent, not that some one who had lived in the area for their entire life, would be excluded because for 1 day in the previous year he happened to live elsewhere (not the exact fact pattern, but if we take this ruling to the logical extreme, the person who did not live in chicago for 1 day in the prior year would technically be disqualified.)

 

As I do not believe that is what the legislature intended, I believe that the law and the interpretation is warped. I believe that the real intent was that a candidate must have substantial connections to the City (OR) have lived in the city for at least 1 year prior. This way if I lived in Chicago my entire life and happened to move for a job for 1 month, I wouldnt be automatically disqualified.

 

But we have a problem, the law is what it is. Circuit court/appellate should only be interpreting the law, they should not make law. The Supreme Court of IL can change law, they could say that the law is unconstitutional under IL law, they could interpret the case law differently, etc.

 

I think that there were good intentions behind the law (not allowing carpetbaggers), but I believe Rahm's situation is not one that was meant to be excluded, it just happened to be due to legislators not being good at drafting laws.

 

There is a shocker.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's a pretty backwards way of looking at it. So keep an antiquated law in place for spite?

 

Why would it be out of spite? I just hate when courts change law based on their interpretation of what they think legislators intended. That just leads to more problems. The law should be changed if the people think it's worth changing.

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem here is that the term resides has different meaning in different contexts.

 

For example, if I was going to sue Rahm, I believe that I could sue him in Cook County and claim that this was his residence. I would argue that he had always lived here and that he had every intent of returning here. That DC/Virginia would be improper venue as those are merely temporary locations.

Thus we have a problem with the terminology "reside" as it is undefined in the statute and therefore is going to be based wholly on interpretation of other case law.

 

In my opinion the legislative intent (which if I would actually research if Rahm's team wants to hire me), is that they do not want people to run who have no connection to the City. Thus they have a 1 year requirement, so that the person has some connection to the city. I believe the 1 year requirement was meant to be a minimum in terms of time spent, not that some one who had lived in the area for their entire life, would be excluded because for 1 day in the previous year he happened to live elsewhere (not the exact fact pattern, but if we take this ruling to the logical extreme, the person who did not live in chicago for 1 day in the prior year would technically be disqualified.)

 

As I do not believe that is what the legislature intended, I believe that the law and the interpretation is warped. I believe that the real intent was that a candidate must have substantial connections to the City (OR) have lived in the city for at least 1 year prior. This way if I lived in Chicago my entire life and happened to move for a job for 1 month, I wouldnt be automatically disqualified.

 

But we have a problem, the law is what it is. Circuit court/appellate should only be interpreting the law, they should not make law. The Supreme Court of IL can change law, they could say that the law is unconstitutional under IL law, they could interpret the case law differently, etc.

 

I think that there were good intentions behind the law (not allowing carpetbaggers), but I believe Rahm's situation is not one that was meant to be excluded, it just happened to be due to legislators not being good at drafting laws.

 

There is a shocker.

 

While he was Chief of Staff he was certainly a resident, for venue purposes, of DC/Virginia (wherever his apartment was), assuming the cause of action occurred during that time.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Why would it be out of spite? I just hate when courts change law based on their interpretation of what they think legislators intended. That just leads to more problems. The law should be changed if the people think it's worth changing.

As travel abilities have progressed, wouldn't "maintaining the spirit of the law" have pretty much required a re-writing of the law every decade or so?

[Soxbadger]

While he was Chief of Staff he was certainly a resident, for venue purposes, of DC/Virginia (wherever his apartment was), assuming the cause of action occurred during that time.

 

He is technically a resident of both Illinois and Virginia. But the "best" venue would be Chicago because that is where he is domiciled.

 

The problem with the terms "reside", "residency" etc are that under most laws you can reside in multiple places. (Edit)What I assume most people are interpreting residency to be is "domicile".

 

Im going to steal from a law firm but here is an article about the problem of "residency" in Illinois courts due to inconsistent use of terms:

 

http://www.gitlinlawfirm.com/writings/venue.htm

 

Domicile compared and distinguished. As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C.A. Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. "Residence" is not synonymous with "domicile," through the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more than one residence. Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, La.App. 331 So.22 186, 188.

 

 

 

In certain contexts the courts consider "residence" and "domicile" to be synonymous (e.g. divorce action, Cooper v. Cooper, 269 Cal.App.2d 6, 74 Cal.Rptr. 439, 441); while in others the two terms are distinguished (e.g. venue, Fromkin v. Loehmann's Hewlett, Inc., 16 Misc.2d 117, 184 N.Y.S.2d 63,65).

 

 

 

Elsewhere under the definition of residence, Black's Law Dictionary states that the term "residence" has no precise legal meaning. In Illinois case law, sometimes residence means domicile plus physical presence, and sometimes it means something less than domicile. Thus, while our law school training leads us to believe that they can be many residences and only one domicile, Illinois case law is not quite so clear-cut.

 

(Edit 2)

 

I know these are distinguishable fact cases, its more to show that these terms are not that clear cut, and that the legislature did us a disservice when they did not take the time to define Reside/Residency in the stature. A simple definition would have saved all of us time, money and effort.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

I saw Alan Keyes at O'hare yesterday.

 

nice

[bmags]

Can't we just trust the voters to make the correct decision then? If they are really concerned that the candidate cannot truly know their plight, can't they just vote for someone who does?

 

Thank you. And, frankly, to bring up the point of Hillary Clinton, she was very popular in New York.

[Y2HH]

Thank you. And, frankly, to bring up the point of Hillary Clinton, she was very popular in New York.

 

No.

[bmags]

another great post from Y2HH, thanks. You are a model for us all.

[Y2HH]

another great post from Y2HH, thanks. You are a model for us all.

 

At least my post wasn't filled with downright bad ideas like yours was.

 

And if you can't think up the reasons why it'd be bad to "just trust the voters", then I really have no need to enter any further into such a conversation with you.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Y2HH

[bmags]

I can't think of a reason it would be bad to trust the voters for their elected officials. If they think someone is carpetbagging, they don't have to vote for them.

[iamshack]

At least my post wasn't filled with downright bad ideas like yours was.

 

And if you can't think up the reasons why it'd be bad to "just trust the voters", then I really have no need to enter any further into such a conversation with you.

But isn't that what we are ultimately doing anyways? Why have a vote if we can't trust the voters?

 

 

[Y2HH]

But isn't that what we are ultimately doing anyways? Why have a vote if we can't trust the voters?

 

Why have a electoral college then? There are many reasons, you just have to consider them (or think of them if you haven't). Fact is, we cannot trust the voters, because the majority of voters aren't voting based on anything tangible or even intelligent, they're voting because they're "democrats", or "republicans". So, no thank you. It's bad enough people are allowed to vote "just because", without having to bother knowing anything about the candidates, their politics, or even their pasts...all we need to do is make things even worse by "trusting" these same people because they get their information from NBC or FOX, or whoever else...

 

I loved watching the Jay Leno interviews on the street during the Obama campaign asking voters what they think of his running mate, Sarah Palin, and the voters were saying Obama chose her because she will do a good job.

 

You really want to "trust" that? What's worse, is they are out there, completely uninformed, in droves...so again, I say no thank you.

[Texsox]

I prefer a system than allows more candidates than less. More voters, than less. So if we are to make an error, giving the most people the most choices seems to be the error I would make. The inverse, fewer voters, chosing from few candidates, just doesn't seem as good to me. If you are going to make decision based on popular vote, than you need to trust, and be willing to follow, that vote.

[Balta1701]

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

[Y2HH]

IMO, for democracy to work properly, the people in the system have to care. Sadly, the MAJORITY of the people in our system care about voting, but not about knowing who or what they're voting for. The creation of parties, group-think, and other such ideals have infected democracy, and thus I cannot and do not trust the voters.

 

People voting for candidates in which they have no idea what these candidates represent, IMO, is a complete and absolute bastardization of what this democracy was meant to be. And it's come down to the fact that politicians KNOW this, and exploit it. Entire parties know this, and they too, exploit it.

 

And to me, it's not all right...and it's not working as intended.

 

They've corrupted and broken the system, and convinced almost (it seems) everyone that the system is working perfectly fine, as intended.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

IMO, for democracy to work properly, the people in the system have to care. Sadly, the MAJORITY of the people in our system care about voting, but not about knowing who or what they're voting for. The creation of parties, group-think, and other such ideals have infected democracy, and thus I cannot and do not trust the voters.

 

People voting for candidates in which they have no idea what these candidates represent, IMO, is a complete and absolute bastardization of what this democracy was meant to be. And it's come down to the fact that politicians KNOW this, and exploit it. Entire parties know this, and they too, exploit it.

 

And to me, it's not all right...and it's not working as intended.

 

They've corrupted and broken the system, and convinced almost (it seems) everyone that the system is working perfectly fine, as intended.

 

I don't think it's THAT broken. You're talking about a minority of people that don't vote anyway.

 

My issue is that we've set up rules for our political candidates and after the fact we want it changed for a particular candidate. Worse, we want the Supreme Court to read into the law and guess at what the legislators intended.

 

[Balta1701]

My issue is that we've set up rules for our political candidates and after the fact we want it changed for a particular candidate. Worse, we want the Supreme Court to read into the law and guess at what the legislators intended.

You know what the counter-point is though...that the rules were written in a totally different era, and "inertia" is not a great legal theme.

[Jenksismyhero]

You know what the counter-point is though...that the rules were written in a totally different era, and "inertia" is not a great legal theme.

 

I don't buy that these rules aren't applicable to today. A resident is a resident, regardless of his travel tendencies.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think it's THAT broken. You're talking about a minority of people that don't vote anyway.

 

My issue is that we've set up rules for our political candidates and after the fact we want it changed for a particular candidate. Worse, we want the Supreme Court to read into the law and guess at what the legislators intended.

Bolded is patently false. As Soxbadger has pointed out, there was not set-aside, per se rule on what "reside" means in this context. Therefore, there is no solid law to work from in that definition, which interperetation and prior jurisprudence are required. No one changed anything.

 

[Texsox]

When there is an obviously flawed candidate, the word gets out enough that voters know. In races where there are two equal choices, and the difference is philosophical in nature, random selection isn't all that bad of a way to chose.