The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Rahm Emanuel‘s name should remain on the ballot for mayor of Chicago.
In an unanimous decision overturning a state appellate court’s ruling, the high court announced shortly after 5 p.m. that the former White House chief of staff is eligible to run in the Feb. 22 election for the open mayor’s job. (Scroll down to read the complete ruling.)
“I’m relieved for this,” Emanuel told reporters at a Loop CTA stop shortly after the ruling was announced. “I’m relieved for the city. I’m relieved for the voters because they need the certainty. That’s important for them.”
The landmark ruling could bring an end to a roller-coaster legal fight for Emanuel that began when he officially filed his candidacy to succeed retiring Mayor Richard M. Daley more than two months ago.
Burton Odelson, the veteran election lawyer who pursued the case against Emanuel, called the court’s ruling “the end of the road” in an interview with The New York Times Thursday.
Odelson had argued that Emanuel should not be allowed to run because mayoral candidates must reside in the city for one year before an election. Emanuel lived in Washington from early 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, until his resignation and return to Chicago in October, weeks after Daley’s surprise retirement announcement. Emanuel said President Obama was among the first to call and congratulate him after the court’s ruling Thursday evening.
Although all seven high court justices agreed that Emanuel should stay on the ballot, they split into two camps in their interpretation of the case. Five of the justices accepted the arguments of Emanuel’s lawyers, that he always had intended to return to Chicago and never abandoned his resident status, despite renting out his North Side home. The other two judges, however, felt the need to issue a separate opinion stating that “this case is no way as clear-cut as the majority makes it out to be.”
The ruling overturned a 2-1 appellate court decision issued Monday that had momentarily removed Emanuel from the ballot and brought the historic campaign to the brink of chaos. Not since the turbulent 1980s has control of Chicago’s City Hall seemed as potentially up for grabs as it had this week.
In cementing Emanuel’s place on the ballot, the Supreme Court’s majority bloc cited an 1867 case in which the court said a circuit judge appointee did not lose his residency in Illinois despite moving with his family to another state for eight months. In that case, the appointee had expressed that the move might not be permanent.
Writing for the majority, Justice Robert Thomas argued that it was complicated to apply the standard that a candidate has “actually resided” in a place for the required time period.
“Consider a Chicago resident who owns a second home in Florida and typically spends a month there every winter,” Thomas wrote, deviating briefly from the legalese that dominated much of the opinion. “Where is that person ‘actually living’ or ‘actually residing’ during the month when he or she is at the second home? Is such a person ineligible for municipal office unless he or she sleeps at the Chicago house every night for the year preceding the election?”
The two justices who reached the same conclusion by a different path were Charles Freeman and Anne Burke.
“This court has not always spoken clearly on what is meant by residency,” they wrote. “The present case, one of obvious public interest, raises difficult questions regarding the legal concept of residency about which reasonable minds may differ.”
Burke and Freeman bemoaned the sharp tenor of the debate, citing Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times editorials and lamenting “inflammatory allegations” that surfaced in the public discourse over the Emanuel case.
In conclusion, Burke and Freeman wrote that they did not think that intent “determines residency, even in the absence of any physical presence.
“Rather, we would answer the narrow question that was actually raised by the objectors in this case: Does a person lose his permanent abode if the abode is rented during the relevant residency period? To that question, we answer, ‘no.’ For that reason alone, we join in the judgment of the majority.”
Mike Kasper, one of Emanuel’s election lawyers, said the ruling vindicated the position that he argued at every step in the legal process: “The actions here did not add up to abandonment of residency.”
Odelson had noted that Emanuel rented another house in Washington, moved his family there and had to stay in hotels or with friends during visits back to Chicago because he could not sleep in his own bedroom.
But Emanuel’s lawyers countered by pointing out that the candidate and his wife had left a wedding dress, family photos and other heirlooms in a locked crawl space in the basement of their house. And Emanuel noted on the campaign trail that he continued to pay property taxes on the house and vote from that address while working for Obama.
In one of the more colorful chapters in the saga, Emanuel sought to buy out the remainder of the lease, but renter Rob Halpin declined the offer and briefly flirted with the idea of making his first run for office — for no less a position than mayor. Emanuel made public that he would be booting the intransigent renters at the end of the lease.
Emanuel’s mayoral rivals were quick to respond after a week when it seemed like the race could be transformed completely. Emanuel has a wide lead in media polls and has more than three times as much campaign cash as his five foes combined.
Rival candidate Gery Chico quickly issued a statement following the court’s ruling with the subject heading “Game On.”
“Emanuel’s residency drama has made this election into a circus instead of a serious debate about the future of Chicago,” Chico said in the statement. “Now that the Supreme Court has made their decision, the residents will choose their next mayor based on the candidates’ track records and their vision for Chicago.”
City Clerk Miguel del Valle, challenged Emanuel to appear at more community forums now that his status on the ballot is certain.
“With only three weeks left before the election, I strongly encourage Emanuel to come out to the communities and to participate in forums, as I have been doing for months,” del Valle said in a statement. “I’ve been to 16 forums. He has been at none of those. I hope he’ll come out and respond to the questions of the voters. “
Carol Moseley Braun called the appellate court’s removal of Emanuel a “major milestone” in her bid for mayor on Monday. Her campaign’s response Thursday was more subdued.
“This legal battle has done nothing to make our schools work for our children, our streets safe for our seniors, or help the unemployed find a good paying job,” Braun spokeswoman Renee Ferguson said in a statement. “These are the issues Chicago cares about, and we are confident that Carol’s vision for the future will continue to reach every neighborhood and our momentum will continue through the final weeks.”
Hunter Clauss and Idalmy Carrera contributed reporting
Rahm_Emanuel_Supreme_Court_Ruling
“Emanuel’s residency drama has made this election into a circus instead of a serious debate about the future of Chicago,”
Maybe you should mention that to Ed Burke.
The Illinois Supreme court upheld the people’s right to choose. Had they ruled against Rahm, the fix really would have been in.