He had won below and the Illinois Appellate Court ruled 2-1 to overturn a Chicago Board of Elections decision. In questioning, the judges had expressed skepticism. Justice Thomas Hoffman asked “Can a person dwell conceptually, or do they have to have a place to put their body Can you have a permanent place of abode where there is no dwelling?”
Apparently not according to the majority. You can expect a rapid appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Court reached the decision despite the following factual findings:
At all relevant times, including the time he was in
Washington, D.C., the candidate continued to pay property taxes for
the Hermitage house, continued to hold an Illinois driver’s license
listing the Hermitage house as his address, continued to list the
Hermitage house address on his personal checks, and continued to
vote with the Hermitage house as his registered voting address. He
did, however, pay income tax in 2009 and 2010 to both Washington,
D.C., and Illinois.
The dissenting judge however add a few facts to support the view of residency:
The candidate initially rented an apartment in Washington,
D.C., but later rented a home when his family joined him during the
summer of 2009. The lease terms of both his Chicago residence and
the Washington, D.C., home coincided with the school year of the
candidate’s children in order to provide the least disruption
possible to their education. Prior to the family’s move to
Washington, D.C., the candidate’s wife and her friends filled 100
boxes with belongings that were then left in a locked storage area
in the basement of the Chicago home. The candidate described the
stored items as the family’s most valuable possessions, including
his wife’s wedding gown, heirloom china, family photograph albums,
an heirloom coat brought by the candidate’s grandfather when he
immigrated to the United States, the clothes and birth outfits of
the candidate’s children, and their school projects and report
cards.
The majority found that candidates were given an added criteria to satisfy on residency:
We base this conclusion largely on the plain language of the
Election Code. That plain language limits the reach of the
“business of the United States” exception to “elector[s]” or their
spouses; it makes no mention of “candidates.” Further, as we have
noted, we must interpret statutes “as a whole, with each provision
construed in connection with every other section.” Cinkus, 228
Ill. 2d at 216-17. Section 3-2’s “business of the United States”
exception is housed not only in the Election Code, but in a portion
of the Election Code dealing exclusively with voter qualification,
in fact in an Article titled “Qualification of Voters.” See 10
ILCS 5/3-1 through 3-5 (West 2008). As explained above, the
Municipal Code sets forth two qualifications for candidates: they
must meet the Election Code’s standards for a “qualified voter,”
and they must have “resided in” the municipality for one year
preceding the election. The location of section 3-2’s “business of
the United States” exception–in the Election Code, and in an
article of the Election Code dedicated exclusively to voter
qualification–supports the conclusion that the exception applies
only to the Election Code’s “qualified voter” standard, and not to
any supplemental candidate qualifications located outside the
Election Code.
Here is the opinion: Emanuel decision
On Dec. 23, 2010, the Chicago Board of Elections voted 3-0 to uphold the decision of Joseph Morris, a local Chicago attorney and elections official. Usually a lower court’s factual findings are given great deference but this was a mixed question of law and fact — if not a pure question of law. The court simply disagreed on what is required to establish residency.
A poll this week showed Emanuel way out in front. The problem is the early voting starts in a week and the clerk is going ahead without Emanuel’s name.