« Ind. Gov't. - "Timetable for IURC invites scrutiny: Utility watchdog oks short debate period for Rockport project" | Main | Law - "In the Age of Alternative Reproduction, Who Are a Child's Parents?" »

Friday, January 28, 2011

Courts - Still more on: Illinois COA boots Rahm Emanuel from Chicago ballot

Comparable?

The Jan. 27, 2011 Illinois Supreme Court decision in the dispute contesting Rahm Emanual's eligibility for the Chicago mayoral race where the Court ruled "what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century," and

The April 28, 1988 Indiana Supreme Court decision in State Election Board v. Evan Bayh, where the Court concluded:

The trial court was correct that, as a matter of law, residence means domicile for purposes of art. v, § 7 of the Indiana Constitution.

The trial court also found that Bayh's original domicile was Indiana. The court determined that Bayh did not intend to abandon his Indiana domicile and establish a new, permanent residence elsewhere. It found that this intention was evidenced by acts consistent with retaining domicile in Indiana. While there was conflicting evidence on these questions, the record supports the court's conclusion that Bayh's residence for the five years next preceding the November 1988 election was Indiana and that he is eligible for the office of Governor.

In the Indiana case, the question revolved around the Ind. Const., art. V, Sec. 7:
No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor • • • who shall not have been five years a citizen of the United States and also a resident of the State of Indiana during the five years next preceding his election. • • •
At issue in the Chicago case was this provision:
[T]he Board concluded that the candidate met the qualification for candidacy, contained in subsection 3.1–10–5(a) of the Illinois Municipal Code (Municipal Code) (65 ILCS 5/3.1–10–5(a) (West 2008)), mandating that he had “resided in” Chicago for the one year preceding the February 22, 2011, mayoral election.
From the NYT:
A state law dating to 1871 requires candidates for mayor to reside in the city for at least one year before the Feb. 22 election. The question at the center of the fight: what does “reside” actually mean — physically waking and sleeping in the city or, as Mr. Emanuel contended, owning a house, paying taxes, voting and storing his prized possessions (like the outfits his children wore as newborns) in his basement, with the intent of returning?
In the Chicago case, Mr. Emanuel had lived in Chicago most of his life, except for the less than two years serving as Chief of Staff to the President. In the Bayh case, it was argued that Mr. Bayh had spent little of his life in Indiana, growing up in the D.C. area where his father was a Senator, etc.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 28, 2011 07:29 PM
Posted to Courts in general