The Cellar - Mayor Emanuel ?!?!?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Mayor Emanuel ?!?!? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=23679)

Mayor Emanuel ?!?!?

What is up with this?

Quote:

The first question isn't: Can Rahm win? It's: Can Rahm run?

Sunday, Rahm Emanuel announced in a video posted on a website that he is preparing to run for mayor of Chicago. But two of Chicago's top election lawyers say the state's municipal code is crystal clear that a candidate for mayor must reside in the town for a year before the election

That doesn't mean they must simply own a home in the city that they rent out to someone else. They must have a place they can walk into, keep a toothbrush, hang up their jacket and occasionally sleep, the lawyers say.

Another three election lawyers say Emanuel could be thrown off the ballot on a residency challenge. None says Emanuel will have it easy.

Emanuel could argue that he has maintained ownership of the home, voted absentee earlier this year, pays property taxes on his house, lists the address on his driver's license, registers his car there, and always intended to return. Cook County judges give great deference to a candidate's intent.

"Two officials from the Chicago Board of Elections have clearly stated that the overriding legal issue is intent, and the fact that Rahm owns a home and votes in Chicago means he's a Chicagoan -- regardless of his opponent's old-style political efforts to limit the choice for voters," Emanuel spokeswoman Lori Goldberg said.

Actually, Chicago Board of Elections officials have said, with the caveat that they cannot comment on specific cases and they won't know what objections will be raised against mayoral candidates until Nov. 29, that they start with the presumption of intent if a candidate maintains a home in Chicago and votes absentee there.

"It's the sense of the election board that if you keep ownership of the property, keep your registration there, you've voted absentee, as far as we know he hasn't registered anywhere else, it's just like members of the military who serve overseas in Iraq -- we don't deny them the right to vote; people who take corporate assignments overseas, and lease out their home as a fact of life, it doesn't mean they've left permanently," Chicago Board of Elections spokesman Jim Allen said.

"If you are a registered voter and continue to vote from your residence, you establish what we consider the intent to be a resident of the city of Chicago," Chicago Election Board Chairman Langdon Neal told CBS2Chicago.

from here

He wants to run for Mayor, and the other guys don't want him to, so they'll do anything they can think of to stop him. It's really not complicated.

I got that part xoB - The rules as they are laid out seem ambiguous. Why can't stuff like this just be straightforward. Rule is X - period. There are always a million exceptions for every little thing.

There's a million stories in the Naked City, and non of them is straight forward. The rule says resident.

I own a house in PA, and a house in MA. Where am I a resident?
Say I live in each house exactly 6 months a year. Where am I a resident?
Say I have a PA driver's license, but vote in MA. Where am I a resident?

Seriously, Thats my point. Set a rule and stick with it. Its either where you live more, where you vote, where your license is...JUST PICK ONE.

They have a rule now. If they make a new rule in an attempt to be more clear, it's still going to be challenged by anyone who stands to gain politically from doing so.

OK, it's where you vote, that's now the rule.
Because I own a house in MA, I can register and vote there, as long as I only vote in one place.
But I spend 99.9% of my time and have a drivers license in PA. Is that fair?
No, that's why the Board of Elections has to look at all the contributing factors and make a determination. Political foes will challenge, no matter how much of a long shot they'll win it, just to sway a few voters. You know, the Glenn Beck fans that will say, 'Hey that's right, he ain't a homie'.

After his show at the train station it doesn't seem like everyone is all that enthused by his comming home to run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 686524)

Seriously, Thats my point. Set a rule and stick with it. Its either where you live more, where you vote, where your license is...JUST PICK ONE.

More regulation at a federal level?

It's not federal, it's county, and maybe state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 686530)

They have a rule now. If they make a new rule in an attempt to be more clear, it's still going to be challenged by anyone who stands to gain politically from doing so.

I know. My point was a Utopian one - trying to eliminate all that BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 686536)

More regulation at a federal level?

Clarifying and cleaning up some of the crap that is already on the books isn't "more regulation" at all. In theory, its just the opposite. It would eliminate the need for any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 686561)

I know. My point was a Utopian one - trying to eliminate all that BS.

If you want to cut all the bullshit, stop worrying about the mayoral election in Chicago. You should have enough to worry about with things that actually affect you, without spending all day looking for things that don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 686566)

If you want to cut all the bullshit, stop worrying about the mayoral election in Chicago.

I'm not. I couldn't give a rats ass about the mayor of Chicago.

Quote:

You should have enough to worry about with things that actually affect you, ...

I certainly do, thanks for reminding me.

Quote:

...without spending all day looking for things that don't.

I don't. I thought it might be an interesting topic for discussion.
You missed the forest (simplifying rules/regulations.....)
for the trees (specific mayoral election)

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 686561)

Clarifying and cleaning up some of the crap that is already on the books isn't "more regulation" at all. In theory, its just the opposite. It would eliminate the need for any.

Rules start simple. They get complicated as people figure out the ways the world isn't simple, and get around the rules, and then the rules are changed to take that into account.

That's why it's so stupid to complain about "thousand page bills" from Congress. They have boilerplate law code, and when they do X they have to put in the 20 pages of boilerplate that handles all of the known permutations of X. If they just put in a "simple" rule, that would just run us back to the point where we were before we closed all of the loopholes the boilerplate addressed; you wouldn't even need to discover new ones.