Tinker to Evers to Chance.

or, Emanuel to Obama to Daley
In the expert economic pundit discussion of Bill Daley's move to Chief of Staff, it's like they're all too busy pontificating to state the obvious:

Daley got in under Clinton, because he represented Chicago political power. Obama was groomed in Chicago, by Clinton underling and native Chicagoan Emanuel, who helped put the first black president in the White House. Obama naturally took Emanuel along to help drive the administration, and when brother Daley decided he'd had enough of mayoring Chicago and it was time to step aside, the place was held for Emanuel as the other Daley slips into his administration role.

Now: after saying that, how serious do we take the discussions of Daley's business qualifications, his big position at Goldman that surely came also because of his family political clout? Not too seriously. They're covering themselves, making sure they run Chicago (God help the city under a man like Emanuel who serves -- first and foremost -- himself) and pushing the country to play those kind of "competitive", "achievement" games. Where you fix the system, rig the games, and nothing is on the square. ... But it's fixed so you can assure yourself, and your buddies, a win -- no matter the competition, or quality of your game.

Mr. Emanuel has benefited from the delayed implementation of new campaign finance rules in Illinois. Prior to Jan. 1, individuals could donate unlimited sums but are now limited to $5,000 each. His campaign’s donor list includes a $75,000 check from Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, more than $200,000 from members of the wealthy Pritzker family, and $10,000 from screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, whose TV drama “The West Wing” featured hot-tempered White House aide Josh Lyman, based on Mr. Emanuel’s years in the Clinton administration.

Except today ... there's a fly in the ointment.

By Daily Herald Report
An Illinois Appeals Court has ruled that Rahm Emanuel's name can't appear on the ballot for Chicago mayor because he didn't live in the city in the year before the election. The voted 2-1 on Monday to overturn a lower court ruling to keep Emanuel's name on the Feb. 22 ballot. The case now goes to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Those challenging Emanuel have said the White House chief of staff did not meet a residency requirement because he lived in Washington and not Chicago when he worked for President Barack Obama. Emanuel has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was only living in Washington at the request of the president.

Balanced government.
The City That Works.
Checks and balances.
Go Appeals Court!*

(Somewhere today, I can hear Mike Royko laughing...)
----------------
*The issues in this appeal distill essentially to two: whether
the candidate meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have
"resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the
election" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008)), and, if not, whether
he is exempt from that requirement under the Election Code
provision stating that "no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost
his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on
business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008)).

Each of these issues presents, first, a legal question requiring
construction of the relevant statutory provisions, and, second,
assuming the Board applied the correct standard (see Du Page County
Airport Authority v. Department of Revenue, 358 Ill. App. 3d 476,
498 n.4, 831 N.E.2d 30 (2005)), a mixed question of law and fact
regarding the Board’s application of that standard. We review the
legal questions de novo and any mixed questions under the clearly
erroneous standard.

We begin by analyzing the statutory requirements to be a
candidate for municipal office, which are located in subsection
1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code:
"A person is not eligible for an elective municipal
office unless that person is a qualified elector of the
municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one
year next preceding the election or appointment ***." 65 ILCS
5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008).

In its decision, to determine whether the candidate met the
Municipal Code’s requirement that he have "resided in" the
municipality for one year, the Board applied the test for residency
that has been used for voter qualification under the Election Code.
This approach is supported by several appellate court decisions
that, without discussion, equate residency requirements imposed on
voters with requirements that a candidate "resided in" his or her
political unit. See e.g., People ex rel. Madigan v. Baumgartner,
355 Ill. App. 3d 842, 847-48, 823 N.E.2d 1144 (2005) (stating only
that it would treat the terms as synonymous "because eligibility to
run for office is closely linked to the ability to vote within a
particular jurisdiction"); Walsh v. County Officers Electoral Board
of Cook County, 267 Ill. App. 3d 972, 976, 642 N.E.2d 843 (1994)
(assuming implicitly that the terms were synonymous); Delk v. Board
of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 112 Ill. App. 3d
735, 738, 445 N.E.2d 1232 (1983).

Neither the Board nor the parties have, however, referred us
to any supreme court opinion ratifying, adopting, or directly
addressing this approach. The only cited supreme court case to approach the issue is Smith v. People ex rel. Frisbie, 44 Ill. 16(1867), a quo warranto action decided under the presumption that the candidate had a right to the office to which he had b eenappointed and in which the court required the objectors to establish the candidate’s disqualification by "clear and
satisfactory" proof. See Smith, 44 Ill. at 24-25. We know of no
similar presumption applicable to this case, and the objectors here
bore the less stringent burden to prove the candidate’s
disqualification by a preponderance of the evidence. See Board of
Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Rules of Procedure
10 ("[T]he objector must bear the burden of proving by operation of
law and by a preponderance of the *** evidence *** that the
objections are true.")
...
The exception traces to Illinois’ founding charter, which imposed a residency requirement on state representatives but excepted those who were "absent on the
public business of the United States." Ill. Const. 1818, art. II,
§3. Illinois’ next constitution, in 1848, stated the exception
three times: once for state representatives (Ill. Const. 1848, art.
III, §3), once for state senators (Ill. Const. 1848, art. III, §4),
and once for voters (Ill. Const. 1848, art. VI, §5). The 1848
Constitution thus separately delineated "business of the United
States" exceptions for candidates and for voters. Illinois’ next
constitution, in 1870, retained the "business of the United States"
exception as it related to voters (see Ill. Const. 1870, art. VII,
§4), yet conspicuously omitted the exception as it related to
candidates. (The voter exception was later incorporated into the
Election Code (see 1959 Ill. Laws 2168) and was not included in our
current constitution.) This history tells us that, for purposes of
the "business of the United States" residency exception, this State
has for over 150 years recognized a distinction between voters and
candidates and has retained the exception only for voters. That
revelation, combined with our interpretation of the language of
section 3-2 and its interrelation with subsection 3.1-10-5(d) of
the Municipal Code, convinces us that section 3-2's "business of
the United States" exception applies only to voters, not to
candidates. Accordingly, it cannot avail the candidate here.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the candidate
neither meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have
"resided in" Chicago for the year preceding the election in which
he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the
requirement. Accordingly, we disagree with the Board’s conclusion
that he is eligible to run for the office of Mayor of the City of
Chicago. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming the
Board’s decision, set aside the Board’s decision, and, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb.
1, 1994)), order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or, if
necessary, removed) from the ballot for the February 22, 2011,
Chicago mayoral election.

Reversed.

ADDED: Ah, the all-important "right to choose".

“It’s a surprise,” said Kevin Forde, the attorney who argued on Emanuel’s behalf.

Emanuel is expected to comment on the ruling at a 1:30 p.m. appearance at The Berghoff in the Loop.

The Emanuel campaign sent out a text to its supporters asking them to assemble at 5 p.m. at Dearborn and Washington to “rally for Rahm’s right to be on the ballot and let Chicagoans choose.”
...
(Candidate Miguel) Del Valle, in a statement, brought up the $11.7 million that Emanuel has collected in just three months to bankroll a mayoral campaign that has now been thrust into legal limbo.

“It looked like money was going to decide this election,” del Valle said. “The voters now have a rare opportunity to shape this city’s future.”

The Board of Elections has not yet printed up the ballot.

Odelson said Board of Elections attorney Jim Scanlon told him that as of this moment, Emanuel’s name would stay off the ballot.

Emanuel’s attorneys will likely ask for a “stay” of the order today or Tuesday. If that is granted, Emanuel’s name could go back on the ballot.

Ald. Pat O’Connor (40th), Daley’s City Council floor leader, is among a handful of North Side ward bosses firmly in Emanuel’s camp. If the Supreme Court affirms Monday’s ruling or takes a pass, O’Connor would be like a man without a country.

“It puts me where I’ve always been. I’ve supported Rahm since he announced. I’ll support him until it’s determined he can no longer be a mayoral candidate,” O’Connor said.

Pressed to identify his second choice, O’Connor said, “I wouldn’t even speculate on that. I’m hoping he’s on the ballot and it works out. If not, we’ll reassess and see who’ll have us. If the polls are correct, Gery Chico and Carol Moseley Braun are pretty close. I don’t know who would become the frontrunner. But, I’m not quite certain I’m giving up on our current frontrunner.”

UPDATE: Emanuel, speaking to reporters at The Berghoff in the Loop, said he is confident he will win an appeal and return to the ballot.

“I have no doubt at the end we will prevail,” Emanuel said. “As my father has said, nothing is ever easy.”
...
In today’s ruling, Hoffman wrote: “We ... order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or if, necessary, be removed) from the ballot.”

Chicago’s bar associations have always rated Justice Hoffman as one of the most knowledgable judges on the appellate court. He has published numerous books and other judges often cite his opinions.

He dominated the questioning at oral arguments Wednesday, pressing Emanuel’s attorneys hard on whether Emanuel could really “dwell conceptually” in a house he could not enter.