Rahm Emanuel and the Democratic Chicago Political Machine

Court Halts Ballots Without Emanuel's Name

Illinois high court will hear Rahm Emanuel appeal

January 25, 2011

AP – The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to hear Rahm Emanuel's appeal of a decision that threw him off the ballot for Chicago mayor. Supreme Court spokesman Joe Tybor says the justices will hear the case quickly. But he gave no specific time frame.

Emanuel has asked the court to overturn the lower ruling that pulled his name off the ballot because he had not lived in the city for a year. His attorneys called Monday's decision "squarely inconsistent" with previous rulings on the issue.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered election officials not to print any mayoral ballots without Rahm Emanuel's name while the justices consider whether to hear an appeal from the former White House chief of staff.

The high court's order appeared to buy some time for Emanuel. The Chicago Board of Elections had said it would begin printing ballots without his name as early as Tuesday, with the election less than a month away. Absentee ballots were to be sent out within days.

Messages left for election officials were not immediately returned. There was also no immediate word on whether the high court would hear Emanuel's appeal or when the justices would decide whether to accept it.

"I'm confident in the argument we're making about the fact that I never lost my residency," Emanuel said Tuesday at a campaign stop where he picked up an endorsement from the Teamsters Joint Council.

Emanuel said the order on the ballot printing was "an important first step in ensuring that voters are not disenfranchised and that they ultimately get to choose the next Mayor of Chicago."

In their appeal, Emanuel's attorneys called Monday's ruling "one of the most far-reaching election law rulings" ever issued in Illinois, not only because of its effect on the mayoral race but for "the unprecedented restriction" it puts on future candidates. His lawyers raise several points, including that the appeals court applied a stricter definition of "residency" than the one used for voters. They say Illinois courts have never required candidates to be physically present in the state to seek office there.

By adopting this new requirement, the court rejected state law allowing people to keep their residence in Illinois even if they are away doing work for the state or federal government, the appeal said. Emanuel, a former congressman who represented Chicago, was gone while he served as President Barack Obama's chief of staff for nearly two years. The new standard also sets a "significant limitation on ballot access" that denies voters the right to choose certain candidates, the appeal said.

Just hours after Monday's ruling, the campaign to replace retiring Mayor Richard M. Daley began to look like an actual race. For months, three of the main candidates struggled for attention while Emanuel outpolled and outraised them, blanketed the airwaves with television ads and gained the endorsement of former President Bill Clinton, who came to town to campaign for Emanuel.

Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, city Clerk Miguel del Valle and former Chicago schools chief Gery Chico suddenly found themselves in the spotlight — and trying to win over Emanuel supporters who suddenly may be up for grabs. Even as Emanuel vowed to fight the decision, Braun urged voters to join her campaign "with your time, your effort or your money."

Reporters surrounding Chico outside a restaurant asked him if he was a front-runner — something that seemed inconceivable last week when a Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed him with the support of just 16 percent of voters surveyed compared with a whopping 44 percent for Emanuel. The same poll showed Braun with 21 percent support, and del Valle with 7 percent.

"I'm trying to get every vote I can from everybody in this city," said Chico, who released records last week showing he had just over $2 million at his disposal, about one-fourth of the money available to Emanuel.

In their 2-1 ruling Monday overturning a lower court decision, the appellate justices said Emanuel met the requirements to vote in Chicago but not to run for mayor because he had been living in Washington.

Challengers to Emanuel's candidacy argued the Democrat did not qualify because he rented out his Chicago home and moved his family to Washington to work for President Barack Obama for nearly two years. Emanuel — who quit his job and moved back to Chicago in October after Daley announced he would not to seek a seventh term — has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was living in Washington at the president's request.

Emanuel's lawyers promptly asked the state's highest court to stop the appellate ruling and hear an appeal as soon as possible. Lawyers also asked the court to tell Chicago election officials to keep his name on the ballot if it starts to print them.

Appellate litigation attorney Christopher Keleher said it's likely the court would rule against Emanuel.

"I can tell you from experience that getting a reversal from any Supreme Court is difficult — even more so when you've got a truncated time frame," Keleher said.

But Emanuel said he was forging ahead.

"I have no doubt that we will in the end prevail at this effort. This is just one turn in the road," Emanuel said Monday, adding that the "people of the city of Chicago deserve the right to make the decision on who they want to be their next mayor."

If he doesn't win the appeal, the race takes on a whole new dynamic. In a city with huge blocs of black, white and Hispanic voters, the Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed Emanuel leading among all of them, even though his three top rivals are minorities.

Laura Washington, a local political commentator who writes a column for the Chicago Sun-Times, said if Emanuel is out, Chico, who is Hispanic, could be the big winner in terms of fundraising.

"Rahm has the establishment support, the civic leaders, business community, the money class. And Chico is as close to that type of candidate as anyone," Washington said. "They'd take Chico as a second choice, easily."

But Braun would be the big winner among black voters, she said. The recent poll showed Emanuel with the support of 40 percent of black voters compared with 39 percent for Braun, even though two other prominent black candidates dropped out of the race to try to unify the black vote. But 27-year-old Thurman Hammond, who is black, said he never cared for Braun and planned to vote for Emanuel "because he was part of the Obama camp." If Emanuel is not on the ballot, Hammond said, he'll have to do his "homework" on other candidates.

Del Valle, another Hispanic candidate, said Emanuel's quandary bodes well for the other candidates, regardless of what the court does.

"Now voters see there's an opportunity to look at the field and give candidates either a second look or in some cases a first look," del Valle said. "People are going to pay more attention to the other candidates."

Court Orders Emanuel Off Chicago's Mayoral Ballot

Emanuel on ballot ruling: 'We'll prevail'

January 24, 2011

Chicago Tribune - Rahm Emanuel should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot because he does not meet the residency standard, according to a ruling issued by a state appellate court today. Emanuel told a news conference he would appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and would ask for an injunction so his name will appear on the mayoral ballot.

"I have no doubt at the end we'll prevail in this effort," Emanuel said. “We’ll now go to the next level to get clarity."

“I still own a home here, (I) look forward to moving into it one day, vote from here, pay property taxes here. I do believe the people of the city of Chicago deserve a right to make a decision about who they want to be their next mayor," Emanuel said.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appellate panel said Emanuel does not meet the residency requirement of having lived in Chicago for a year prior to the election. The judges reversed a decision by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, which had unanimously agreed that Emanuel was eligible to run for mayor. (Read the appeals court's ruling here.)

"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," the majority judges wrote.

"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 ... order that the candidate's name be excluded (or, if necessary, removed) from the ballot."

The majority opinion was written by Appellate Justice Thomas E. Hoffman and concurred with by Presiding Appellate Justice Shelvin Louise Marie Hall. Appellate Justice Bertina E. Lampkin wrote a dissenting opinion.

"I disagree with the majority's contrary conclusion that the candidate is not eligible to be on the ballot because that conclusion is based on an analysis of two issues -- establishing residency and a statutory exemption to the residency requirement -- that are not relevant to the resolution of this case," Lampkin wrote.

Emanuel said he meets requirements despite moving to Washington, D.C. to serve as President Barack Obama's White House chief of staff.

"Fundamentally, when a president asks you to serve the country as his chief of staff, you do it," Emanuel said. “Fundamentally, when a president asks you to serve the country as his chief of staff, that counts as part of serving your country," Emanuel said. "I have no doubt that in the end we will prevail at this effort. As my father always used to say, nothing is ever easy in life. This is just one turn in the road.

“The Supreme Court has an obligation -- not an obligation -- to hear the case, to make a decision quickly, so both not only voters have a clarity they need, but there’s a clarity to the issues we are discussing in front of the voters as it relates to the challenges that we have as a city for our future," Emanuel said.

Time is of the essence. Early voting starts a week from today on Jan. 31. An elections board spokesman said ballots have not been printed yet but are scheduled to be printed mid-week.

Later, Langdon D. Neal, the elections board chairman, issued a statement:

"We're going to press with one less candidate for mayor."

Elections board spokesman Jim Allen said ballots are being printed tonight.

“We’ve basically hit the go button,” Allen said. “We needed to do this on the 18th. We were waiting for this decision. We are going to press now; we have to.”

“A candidate who is removed from the ballots by the courts has until Feb. 15 to file as a write-in,” Allen said.

The appellate court judges heard the case last week. To read the opinion, click here.

Emanuel is the front-running candidate in the race to succeed Mayor Richard Daley. The latest Tribune poll showed Emanuel at 44 percent, more than double his closest rival, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

The news crashed Emanuel's campaign web site this afternoon.

Opponent Gery Chico told reporters he was very surprised by the ruling and said he has never made Emanuel's residency a campaign issue.

"I believe in ballot access," Chico said outside a fundraiser at a River North restaurant shortly after the ruling. "We will continue vigorously with our campaign, with or without Rahm Emanuel."

Chico sidestepped questions about whether he was happy for the development.

"I've said from Day One of this campaign that I haven't paid much attention to who's on or who's off, who's in the race."

When asked whether Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke should recuse herself from the case because of Chico's longstanding ties with her husband, Ald. Ed Burke, Chico shook his head, and said it was not an appropriate question for him to consider.

"I'm a candidate for mayor. I don't tell the Illinois Supreme Court what to do," he said.

Opponent Carol Moseley Braun, who was second in the Tribune poll, described the news as a "major milestone" for her campaign.

"Our campaign for mayor has always been about standing with all families in every neighborhood of this great city," Braun said. "Nothing about that has changed with today's appellate decision. . . Today's decision is a major milestone for our campaign, but the decision doesn't make one neighborhood safer, one senior more secure, one child better educated or give one unemployed person a job."

Braun also pitched herself as a candidate who could appeal beyond her African American base to all Chicagoans.

“I am extending a hand of friendship to all the fine Chicagoans who have been supporting Mr. Emanuel and all those who haven’t made up their minds yet,” she said. “We all love this city and want to see it move forward, and I hope that everyone will join us in that effort.”

When asked if she hoped Emanuel’s removal from the ballot would be an opportunity for her to raise more campaign cash, she responded:

“We’ve always had a poor campaign with a rich message. While we hope that it will be less poor, at the same time our message is consistent and the same — that I have the ability to deliver for all the people of Chicago to help move our city in the right direction.”

Opponent Miguel del Valle, the city clerk, issued a statement.

“Those who thought that Rahm Emanuel’s election was a foregone conclusion: Now, the voters are going to really have an opportunity to choose the next mayor of the city of Chicago,” del Valle said.

Opponents say Emanuel doesn't meet the one-year residency requirement because he was in Washington serving as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff.

Before today, Emanuel had won rulings by the election board and in Cook County Circuit Court. Today’s ruling seems certain to be appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Emanuel, a former North Side congressman, had served Obama in Washington from January 2009 until October.

Flashback: Reporters Attend Pool Party with Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel

June 8, 2010

The Daily Caller - Imagine that while a slick death spreads across the Gulf of Mexico, a group of respected reporters from America’s best-known media companies attend a pool party hosted by the VP of British Petroleum. Imagine that they take their kids to play with the kids of executives from BP and the oil industry, and that the journalists claim to have had a wonderful time and post pictures, and videos and tweets of their perfectly friendly interactions with the people who are responsible for the greatest environmental catastrophe in a generation.

Now imagine those journalists, a few days after the party, claiming that their integrity had not been compromised, and that they are perfectly capable of reporting accurately and aggressively on the doings of BP and the oil industry.

Would you believe them? Hold on to that answer, and consider this: No such meeting happened with BP. But on the grounds of the Naval Observatory last weekend, Vice President Joe Biden and the DNC hosted a pool party for their friends in the Washington journalism industry.

It was “a nice way to spend a hot Saturday afternoon,” according to the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.

It was also a great way for the journalists in attendance — Wolf Blitzer and Ed Henry of CNN, as well as David Sanger of the New York Times — to reveal that their integrity is water soluble.

[Click here to watch video of the pool party]

Ambinder’s defense is the stock defense of all those involved in this seamy underworld of co-optation: This is how Washington works. Power holders like to socialize, and journalists only stand to gain by getting as close to them as they can whenever an opportunity presents itself.

And in case anyone doubts that getting super-soaked by a boat-shoed Rahm Emanuel won’t lead to scoops that serve readers, well, what the hell do you know? Probably not as much as Ambinder, the editor of the politics channel at the Atlantic, a political consultant to CBS, and a former editor at ABC News. And now a flack for the Obama White House.

According to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald:

“All of this just helpfully reveals what our nation’s leading ‘journalists’ really are: desperate worshipers of political power who are far more eager to be part of it and to serve it than to act as adversarial checks against it — and who, in fact, are Royal Court Spokespeople regardless of which monarch is ruling.”

Ambinder doesn’t see it that way.

“A bunch of really good, hardened, news-breaking, interest-accountable holding reporters are in fact able to share more comfortable moments with people they cover.”

In other words, only the best journalists are fit for “convivial commingling” with the powerful. Lesser beings would come at the administration the next time around with a soft touch, a bashful smile and lowered eyes, like a recently deflowered newlywed facing his spouse for the first time in the post-coital light.

But not Sanger, who engaged in “teasing banter” with Emanuel. And certainly not Ambinder, who still manages to eke out every now and again a piece with which the Obama administration is not completely happy.

These men, and their sycophantic ilk, are seasoned tramps who like the sex, but know they can get it anywhere.

When his readers took him to task Tuesday morning for brushing off potential questions of bias, Ambinder turned on his critics.

“I think that attending a nice Biden event does less damage to the profession than not acknowledging the ambiguities inherent in trying to live life as a young reporter in Washington. The reaction to my post has been uniformly negative, but then again, people rarely take the time to comment favorably.”

This mentality isn’t new, but for the first time, it’s news. Yes, Al and Tipper threw Halloween parties; Ted Kennedy threw Christmas parties, and the Cheneys threw occasional cocktail parties. And thanks to the restraint of journalists of yesteryear, their readers and viewers in podunk shitholes never knew that a secret relationship existed between press and politician; if they did know, they didn’t know to what extent.

They did not know about Anne Kornblut’s submissively saccharine pool reports or Richard Wolffe’s recurring acts of treason against the practice of honest journalism.

But they know now. So perhaps Ambinder et al should be commended for voluntarily revealing the extent to which they’ve been corrupted by Beltway culture.

The insidery pap that was on display last week at Biden’s abode isn’t just bad for America, it’s also killing journalism. And reporters who can’t see the line in the sand can bet their bought-and-paid-for asses that having to drop their chickens parmigiana at a moment’s notice won’t always be their biggest problem.

Ambinder: The Biden Beach Bash and the Ethics of Enjoying an Afternoon
As Oil Spill Continues, Biden and Emanuel Enjoy Squirt Gun Party at White House
At the Biden Beach Boardwalk, A Watergun Fight with Rahm Emanuel

Read More...