The state Supreme Court today issued a stay of the appellate court order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the Chicago mayoral ballot and ordered election officials not to print any ballots without his name.
The one-page order does not mean the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Emanuel’s appeal of the lower court ruling that could end his run for mayor. It only stops Chicago election authorities from going ahead with their plans to begin printing up to 2 million ballots for the Feb. 22 mayoral election without Emanuel’s name.
“We called the printer and said, ‘Stop the presses,’” said Jim Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. “And, at the same time, told them we’ll start printing again as soon as possible” with Emanuel’s name on the ballot.
Printing of the ballots, without Emanuel’s name, had begun this morning at a facility in Lake County.
The high court order came about 24 hours after the 2-1 appellate court decision that Emanuel does not meet residency requirements to run for office because he was in Washington for the last year as chief of staff to President Barack Obama.
The high court said it was still considering whether to grant Emanuel’s request that it hear his appeal on an expedited basis.
“It is ordered that the emergency motion by petitioner Rahm Emanuel for stay pending appeal is allowed in part,” the order stated. “The appellate court decision is stayed.
“The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago.
“That part of the motion requesting expedited consideration of the petition for leave to appeal remains pending,” said the order.
Emanuel’s lawyers filed the appeal this morning.
At a news confererence this morning before the Supreme Court action, Emanuel said he is “confident in the argument we are making” in the appeal and he is “more determined than ever” to see it through.
“I believe (voters) deserve the right to make that choice, to say yes or no and nobody else,” Emanuel said.
(Read More: Chicago Tribune)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
The Appellate court invoked a very unusual dual standard; utilizing traditional law of domacile, the Court concluded that Emanuel is a lawful resident of Chicago for purposes of voting there…but then held that for purposes of running for office he is not a resident, as the applicable election law holds candidates to a higher standard.
A Chicago law professor, and an election law expert (I’m getting old – please forgive the lapse that makes me forget his name!), reported last night that a narrow reading of the decision might make the decision theoretically defendable, but that it seems at odds with generally established law and probable intent of the statute.
and how much is this costing the taxpayers of chicago
I guess the guy with the big ears twisted the right arm.
Bottom line, this guy did not meet the qualifications for residency and is only on the ballot because the “president” promised it to him!
Emanuel’s logic is very nice: let the voters decide. But in that case why have the law to begin with: let the voters decide and vote for a New Yorker if they wish. His argument is that the law is bad. Not whether he’s broken it.
You can vote via write in so technically a New Yorker can be elected in Chicago.
The write in candidate has to be a resident. Similar to a guy running for President but is not yet 35 years old. Even if he’s voted in via write-in, he still is under 35.
There was a similar case involving Mitt Romney in 2002. The Massachusetts Constitution requires seven consecutive years of residency to run for governor. Romney had lived in Utah the previous three years, running the Winter Olympics. But they let Romney run for governor anyway.