Emanuel is Allowed on the Ballot

I agree with today's Supreme Court decision on residency. It is nearly impossible to argue that our residency requirement was intended to keep a candidate like Rahm Emanuel off the ballot. (here's my 1,500 analysis from yesterday)

However, I take issue with the tone of the majority opinion as well as that of most op-ed’s I’ve read on the matter. According to the Supreme Court majority, the Appellate court “tossed out 150 years of settled residency law”, and “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 19^th Century.”

These statements are false.

The Illinois statute at the center of this controversy lists two requirements for a candidate’s eligibility to run for office: 1) the candidate must be a “qualified elector of the municipality” (meaning he is allowed to vote in the municipality) and 2) the candidate must have “resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election” (this is the section in dispute)

The meaning of “resides in” – that was affirmed today – is that residency requires, 1) physical presence, and 2) an intent to remain in that place as a permanent home. Once residency is established, the test it no longer physical presence but rather abandonment. The presumption is that residency continues, and the burden of proof shifts to the contesting party to show that residency has been abandoned. (Meaning Rahm Emanuel had established residency in Chicago prior to leaving for DC, and anyone contesting his eligibility is required to prove he had no intention of returning to Chicago – that he had “abandoned” his residency.)

However, if this interpretation of the residency requirement “was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19^th Century” then the Supreme Court should also take issue with our State Legislature.

In 2007, Senator Dave Luechtfield introduced an exception to the residency requirement. The exception – which was approved unanimously – provided that a person is exempt from the one-year requirement if his/her residency is interrupted by active duty in the military.

When presenting the bill to the General Assembly, Senator Luechtfield said, “A situation occurred in my district where an individual was in Iraq… he came back, wanted to run for municipal office, but did not meet the one year residency requirement. This would simply allow them to come back to the same district, same ward, and run as if they had been there.”

If Illinois law establishing residency was as well settled as the Supreme Court presumes it to have been, then why on Earth would our legislature add an exception to it that is completely redundant?

Under no circumstances would military servicemen who left the state temporarily while on active duty, be accused of abandoning their residency according to our 150 year old “clearly established” law. So why would Senator Luechtfield and his brethren feel the need to add an exception for them?

Perhaps because the law wasn’t so clearly established.