‘We will prevail,’ Emanuel says after court boots him off ballot

[Willinois]

A friend tells me that Rahm organized a flash mob in downtown Chicago today during the evening news broadcast.

http://www.suntimes.com/3469419-417/eman...icago.html

Rahm Emanuel was thrown off the ballot for mayor of Chicago Monday by an appellate court panel. But Emanuel ­— who has led the other candidates in fund-raising and in public opinion polls — cautioned he won’t get off the ballot without a fight.

“I have no doubt, at the end we will prevail at this effort,” Emanuel told reporters at the Berghoff Restaurant.

The Chicago Board of Elections planned to start printing ballots without Emanuel’s name unless Emanuel’s lawyers can get a “stay” of the appellate court ruling. Emanuel’s lawyers filed their request for a stay just before 5 p.m. Monday.

“We ... order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or if, necessary, be removed) from the ballot,” Judge Thomas Hoffman wrote in the opinion upholding the requirement under the state’s municipal code that candidates for mayor in Illinois must have “resided in” the two where they are running for a year before Election Day -- in this case Feb. 22. Hoffman was joined by Justice Shelvin Marie Louise Hall.

Judge Bertina Lampkin wrote a muscular dissent, saying, “An opinion of such wide-ranging import and not based on established law but, rather, on the whims of two judges, should not be allowed to stand.”

[Willinois]

Of course, the state supreme court isn't required to even hear the case.

The funny part is that the other top candidates dropped out or chose not to run. The field cleared for Rahm. If he's not on the ballot then the next mayor will be someone who would have had little chance in a more competitive field.

[JuniperLea]

To whom will he pay state income tax I wonder.

[Cha]

Wow..the last I read Rahm was able to be on the ballot! Big change.

Good luck to those in Chicago in getting a good Mayor for your city.

[jaxx]

I read yesterday that one of the judges was questionable in this ruling. Favoritism.

[Willinois]

(01-25-2011 06:25 AM)Sass Wrote:  I read yesterday that one of the judges was questionable in this ruling. Favoritism.

That's what Rahm will say. Frankly, I think if he were someone less well known that he would never have been allowed on the ballot and no one would have been surprised.

[Cha]

(01-25-2011 10:24 AM)Willinois Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 06:25 AM)Sass Wrote:  I read yesterday that one of the judges was questionable in this ruling. Favoritism.

That's what Rahm will say. Frankly, I think if he were someone less well known that he would never have been allowed on the ballot and no one would have been surprised.

I wonder what District Rahm voted in as Ikonoklast talked about in another thread?