On Leadership
Video | PostLeadership | FedCoach | | Books | About |
Exploring Leadership in the News with Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti

PostLeadership

Rahm Emanuel: So close, so far

Rahmbo's fight isn't over yet. Less than a month before the Feb. 22 Chicago mayoral election, an Illinois appeals court ruled Monday that Rahm Emanuel is ineligible to run because he does not meet local residency standards. That's a reversal of decisions made by a Cook County judge and the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, which had allowed Emanuel to run, despite the former Obama chief of staff having not lived in Chicago over the past year. Emanuel plans to appeal appealed Monday's ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court, and his name is now to remain on the ballot until the court reviews his appeal.

The decision over Emanuel's legitimacy as a candidate hinges on several intertwined leadership questions. For one, should exceptions be made for leaders who have been performing a government service? Or is the residency requirement a prudent way to make sure potential local officials have first-hand knowledge about the issues their citizens face?

Both questions are difficult to answer. On the one hand, rules are rules and laws are written for a reason. But what if a Chicago-based veteran wanted to run for mayor and was called to serve in Iraq the year before the election? Shouldn't he have a fair claim to run? Likewise, should public officials who've lived much of their lives in Chicago, but were asked by the president to serve in Washington, be penalized for answering the call?

While that may describe Emanuel's plight, it's also worth pointing out that the former Obama chief of staff has not spent the last two years focused on local issues. Rather, he's been engulfed in national economic crises, Washington political standoffs and federal regulatory battles. Chicagoans may be facing some of the same problems as the rest of the nation, but Emanuel has not spent most of the last year having daily conversations with people in the city, hearing first-hand about how local government could help.

The Windy City's voters don't seem to mind. Even though Emanuel has recently, as The New York Times put it in a profile, had his "fingers in almost every decision" at the White House and been wielding "prominence in almost everything important going on in Washington," he is the frontrunner in the Chicago race. Some 44 percent of voters surveyed by the Chicago Tribune would vote for Emanuel, a wide lead over his next closest rival. He has a long history in local politics, raising funds for outgoing Mayor Richard M. Daley's bid for the office and, more recently, representing the city's 5th Congressional district for three terms before joining the Obama administration.

Many of the best leaders are close--intellectually and geographically--to the people they lead. Whether in the halls of corporate office buildings or the streets of a city, they get powerful insights from their constituents or employees through informal conversations, on-the-ground observations and face-to-face meetings. Even at a time when technology allows leaders to live anywhere, work anywhere and keep up with the goings-on of anywhere else, it pays to witness first-hand the most immediately recent needs and desires of the people one leads. But ironically, what doesn't seem to bother a growing number of Chicago voters--that a potential leader of local politics hasn't lived locally in two years--is the very thing that may keep him out of office.

By Jena McGregor

 |  January 25, 2011; 9:01 AM ET |  Category:  Government leadership , Public leadership Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: The real question to ask GE's Immelt about chairing the jobs council | Next: SOTU: Not much fire, but plenty of potential for sparks

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Rebuilding Trust in Our Government (R)
One of Americas statesmen stated “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” His presidency ushered in an era of disdain for government and a widespread cynicism that government could be effective in addressing our challenges.
Today, as we confront a crisis that has shaken confidence in our financial system and economy, we have an opportunity to restore public trust and confidence in the legitimate role of government. Indeed, to effectively tackle our economic challenges and to implement the reforms we need in our healthcare, education, energy, and environmental policies, our government will need to garner strong public support.
However, rebuilding public trust will not happen in the face of a pervasive perception that government is not transparent and accountable, cronyism is rampant, and public officials are more interested in helping themselves than in serving the public good.
Taking strong, swift, and decisive action to address abuses and begin to rebuild public trust should be the first priority for our city, state and federal government in the new legislative session.
Create a Task Force on Public Integrity with a mission to develop a comprehensive proposal for ethics and lobbying reform in our city and state. Which addresses reforms in three areas: (1) strengthening enforcement of ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws; (2) strengthening civil and criminal penalties for abuses; and (3) improving awareness and education for public officials.
Reinforce honesty, integrity and transparency by government officials as the core requirement to be and stay in office, any violations of these core tenets will cause the removal of the public official and the loss of "all benefits" retroactive. I think we should consider putting public official on a base salary plus commission based on performance.
While the many of our elected officials and government employees are honest, dedicated public servants, the actions of a few create a dark cloud over all.
Taking strong, swift, and decisive action to address these abuses and begin to rebuild public trust should be the first priority for our city, state and federal government in the new legislative session.
"The benchmark of a civilized society is the quality of its justice"
Compiled by: YJ Draiman for Mayor of LA - 2013

Posted by: renewableenergy2 | February 7, 2011 11:31 AM

YJ Draiman officially running for mayor of Los Angeles - 2013
I am motivated by the wish to serve the Los Angeles community and protect our quality of life. I have the skill, experience, long time community involvement and personal commitment to lead the city. I will work hard to preserve residents’ priorities and the city’s coffers, during the difficult financial times ahead. Some of my more specific goals are encouraging economic vitality, preserving and improving the City infrastructure, protecting the quality of our neighborhoods, supporting our open space and bicycle trails programs, working with the Neighborhood Councils and the Chamber to encourage local, innovative green businesses, and proper Urban Planning for Los Angeles, among others.
I previously ran for City Council in District 12.
I decided that to do the job right I must run for Mayor.
I am an Energy/Utility Auditor/Consultant for over 20 years.
I am planning on completing my PHD in Energy Conservation in 2011
I am married to a darling wife, we have two grown children – my oldest son is David Draiman a famous Rock Star with a Band by the name Disturbed, my younger son is a Psychologist doing research.
I am looking forward to being elected and serving the people of the City of Los Angeles.
We must work together as a cohesive force to improve our city.
“Transparency and accountability is my motto”

YJ Draiman for Mayor – 2013
WEB: www.draimanformayor.org

Posted by: renewableenergy2 | February 7, 2011 11:30 AM

Jena , if you think that Illinois is ever going to reject an Obama reject or stop him from parking his TuTu in the Mayor's Mansion, then It's no wonder we have a half-breed squatting in the Brown House.

Posted by: puck-101 | January 31, 2011 4:27 PM

Why should Chicago worry about residency for a political candidate? The corrupt Democratic machine never worried about applying the votes of more than 100,000 dead "resident voters" to elect Kennedy president. Obama never worried about disinfranchising voters to craft a district that would elect him a state senator. The Chicago machine has never worried about democracy, why make a deal about it now. Rahm is corrupt enough to qualify for mayor. Forget the laws that govern the rest of us.

Posted by: wilsonj1 | January 26, 2011 9:33 PM

Why should Chicago worry about residency for a political candidate? The corrupt Democratic machine never worried about applying the votes of more than 100,000 dead "resident voters" to elect Kennedy president. Obama never worried about disinfranchising voters to craft a district that would elect him a state senator. The Chicago machine has never worried about democracy, why make a deal about it now. Rahm is corrupt enough to qualify for mayor. Forget the laws that govern the rest of us.

Posted by: wilsonj1 | January 26, 2011 9:32 PM

Why should Chicago worry about residency for a political candidate? The corrupt Democratic machine never worried about applying the votes of more than 100,000 dead "resident voters" to elect Kennedy president. Obama never worried about disinfranchising voters to craft a district that would elect him a state senator. The Chicago machine has never worried about democracy, why make a deal about it now. Rahm is corrupt enough to qualify for mayor. Forget the laws that govern the rest of us.

Posted by: wilsonj1 | January 26, 2011 9:24 PM

Jena McGregor, like so many others who would like to ignore the Illinois statutes that have been in force for more than a century, raises the question of "What about a veteran who wants to come back from Iraq and run for mayor?". If she had read the opinion of the Illinois appeal court she would know that the statute explicily PERMITS persons serving in the military to return and immediately stand for office. That is the sole exception to the requirement that candidates must actually, physically, reside for the previous year in the city in which they seek office.

Posted by: BobNH | January 26, 2011 9:03 PM

If Rahmbo didn't have to physically have to be in Chicago, to run for mayor, why didn't he just run his campaign from his DC home...then move only if he won?


Rahmbo KNEW he had to physically live in Chicago in order to be eligible to run for mayor, that's why he quit his DC job and went rushing back to Chicago.
Rahmbo just wants all the drama and the attention his own choices and poor planning are now getting him.

Posted by: momof20yo | January 26, 2011 8:39 PM

How is being a politician in DC ANYTHING like being a "Chicago based veteran?" Seems to me he was asked to go to DC, and had the choice of going or not. Would the Chicago based veteran, if deployed, have the same option? Please don't venture anywhere near the analogy. How many more times do we need to see a tough talking, profanity spewing politician, who's probably never even been in a fistfight, try to include himself into the fraternity of men who've actually risked their lives for the country? Remember Blumenthal/Connecticut AG? Wasn't that long ago. And "plight"? This is a plight? Laughable.

Posted by: bolotyme1 | January 26, 2011 6:25 PM

Why should exceptions be made for politicians when they are not made for me?

Mr. Emanuel could easily have maintained his Chicago residency by keeping up his house there, even while serving in Washington. He preferred to wring a few thousand dollars out of the property by renting it out, and is now trying to breach the lease he signed with his tenants so he can move back in.

I am currently considering studying abroad, and a large part of my calculus is the considerable expense of maintaining my residency in New York while I am away.

Why should self-serving pols like Mr. Emanuel get free passes so they can enjoy the powerful offices and money they covet, when the rest of us don't?

This is not leadership. It's kleptocracy.

Posted by: Itzajob | January 26, 2011 12:30 PM

Your article asserts that the best leaders are intellectually and geographically similar to the people they lead, and should be experiencing first-hand the most recent and immediate needs of those people. Do you have any data to support this?

I have only anecdotal evidence, but I can think of a long-list of intellectually gifted and/or patrician leaders who were towering historical figures and exemplars of leadership, contradicting your thesis.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln was of average intellect and similar to his peers on the frontier? Would he have been a better leader if more intellectually dull?

Do you think Harry S. Truman was of average intellect? Would he have been more successful if his intellectual pursuits were those of a typical farmer in turn-of-the-century rural Missouri?

Do you think FDR, a scion of wealth and privilege who was privately tutored prior to his entry to an elite boarding school, and who traveled to Harvard in a private railcar, was connected with the immediate wants and needs of the common man? Would he have been more successful as a leader had he been born the son of a teamster?

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, of course, but I question your assertion--while a democracy places the needs of the people foremost, it does not follow that a leader must "look like America" to comprehend and act on these needs. Put another way, being a good example of an average steer is not a good predictor of whether you can lead the herd.

Posted by: Bipper | January 26, 2011 12:07 PM

Rahm Emanuel used the Chicago laws in the same way as Obama did in order to get opponents removed from the ballot. This is how Obama got himself elected the first time in Chicago by getting rid of his opponents on technicalities. Rahm tried it once before himself but was not successful. Not to worry. He will get in. After all, it's Chicago and that's the way it is in Chicago.

Posted by: mlbduffy | January 26, 2011 4:43 AM

I am not from Illinois, but i love to visit
Chicago.

I hate to see someone become Mayor who has not lived there to meet the residency requirement. I guess using his theory,
he could go to any town he wanted and sign up to run for Mayor since he was working in D.C. for the entire United States.

It sets a precedent that sends the wrong message.

Guaranteed entitlement runs rampant in
D.C. even in the coffee shops where they
butt in line.

The residency law had better be defined in a correct matter without loop holes, or a lot of folks are going to find an out to not pay their taxes.

Posted by: OopsyDaisy31 | January 26, 2011 12:40 AM

His recent filing of an amended state tax return to cover the period when he didn't quite live there makes it pretty clear what his **original** intent had been--back before he got bitten by the bug to run for mayor.

Posted by: Three3 | January 25, 2011 10:55 PM

He's been a Chicagoan all his life and went to Washington to serve the President for a brief span of his life. He's earned the right to run for Mayor.

In response to: JPHUBBA "The only thing that is not clear is why or how Emmanuel thought he could evade the residency requirement. A cynical soul might suggest that he assumed that the Illinois courts were for sale."

The right has ensured that our country and our elections are for sale to corporations and special interests. Our Supreme Court Justices consort and meet with special interests and then decide cases involving those same special interest groups. But we're going to go after Emmanuel and prevent him from running because he's been serving the country in Washington?? What nonsensical hypocrisy.

Posted by: caroll1 | January 25, 2011 10:32 PM

Rahm is at least as much a citizen of Chicago as Hillary was of New York when she ran for senator.

Posted by: clematis77 | January 25, 2011 10:19 PM

Chicago is Rahm's home, he is not some outsider coming to Chicago to run for mayor. He temporarily went to Washington to serve in the Administrative Branch of our government. When the State of Illinois Legislature enacted a residency requirement to run for public office I do not believe their purpose was to prevent a native Illinoian who is temporarily away serving in the national government from running for public office in Illinois.

Posted by: florindiana | January 25, 2011 10:05 PM

The word in the law is "reside." He did not. It's totally clear...if you respect the law. But I guess LEX REX (the Law is king) doesn't apply if you are a liberal Democrat. I suspected as much all along.

Posted by: Drew95 | January 25, 2011 9:28 PM

Where you vote trumps where you pay taxes. People pay taxes every place they work like professional athletes among many but you can only vote in one place and in Rahm's case that is Chicago. He should be eligible to run for mayor. Working for the President of the United States is service to your country.

Posted by: interactingdc | January 25, 2011 8:49 PM

He should be allowed to run for Mayor. It is totally illogical on one hand say he can vote but cannot run for office. Stupid.

Posted by: GBED989 | January 25, 2011 8:12 PM

John F. Kennedy stole his presidential thru Chicago, so what else is new?

Posted by: tripferguson1 | January 25, 2011 8:00 PM

how can they do that to Rahm? no seriously. I totally disagree with the court's verdict.

Posted by: sunnyside1 | January 25, 2011 7:46 PM

White House Chief of Staff is a job. It isn't "official business of the United States" ... that would be more like those clowns President Bush sent to run Iraq after over running it with our tanks. Ironically, Rahm may have sent others on official business of the United States, but he himself was just employed in Washington DC.

Posted by: daysman | January 25, 2011 7:38 PM

Rahm: How about getting a real job, like the position for 'community outreach ' or some such BS, vacated a while ago by an up-and-coming fellow Chicagoan. Maybe you can reclaim residency by working in a REAL job for a change . . . .

Posted by: rep15 | January 25, 2011 5:39 PM

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Court stated that you must actually "reside within the city"

if that is the correct diction in the written law, then rahm is insulting us all, and wasting your tax money.

by no reasonable description could he be described as having "resided" within chicago.

rahm, and libs in general, are insulting us all.

Posted by: docwhocuts | January 25, 2011 5:33 PM

The treatment of military personnel has no bearing on this -- Rahmmy isn't military, period. And the law doesn't make blanket exceptions for people who are "serving their country." Personal staff to members of Congress can retain their home state residency while serving in Washington, but professional staff can't, and neither can employees of the executive branch.

Rahmmy brags that he kept his Illinois driver's license -- I don't know where he lived when he was here but if he resided in Virginia, I'd say there was a good chance he was breaking the law. As far as I know, you have 30 days to register your car and get a driver's license once you take up residence in the state, and there's no exception for someone who thinks he may move away in a couple years. Not sure what DC or MD law says.

Posted by: warddm | January 25, 2011 4:53 PM

I don't want this clown or any of the other two to be mayor. They are all no good. Braum is a thief and a liar, but Jesse is on her side. He's upset because Obozo never gave him the time of day, Jesse is use to attention. If Bruam of Cinco get in, take a good look at Chicago, because in 3 months you'll see Detroit. Rahm, he should be able to run. But the two idiots running against him know they don't have a chance if he runs. Obozo and Daley have a deal. Obozo gives Daly's brother a job, Rahm gets the mayor title and all is well. Anything Rahm can put in his back pocket will not show up on taxes. Please isn't there anyone who wants to run and take Chicago to the next level. These clowns don't have a clue!

Posted by: bailey50 | January 25, 2011 4:45 PM


Why the fuss about Emanuel serving as chief of staff. "SERVICE", like the military heros?

It's a POLITICAL job...people fight over it. LIke press secretary, like advisor.

It was far easier and more direct path to being mayor than serving in congress for how many more terms....and relection campaigns.

Columnist Cohen on these pages raves on about Emanual "not going to Goldman Sachs" and becoming rich. Emanuel went, instead to Chicago, to another big Jewish firm and made $8 Million, very quickly, the better NOT to pay back as potential mayor, ya think? Or JUST MORE LOCAL.

And are Chicago voters sure he won't run back to Israel to help their miiltary, not ours, as he did immediately after 9/ll.

And what shall we expect from the next AIPAC baby, Eric Cantor?

Posted by: whistling | January 25, 2011 4:45 PM

Chicago deserves him.

Posted by: labman1 | January 25, 2011 4:39 PM

“Republican Alan Keyes never lived in IL, yet 86 days before a Senate Election he came
to IL and became an IL Senate Candidate.
Keyes later described it as his moral obligation to run after being asked by the GOP.

It was Rahm's moral obligation to work for President Obama in DC when asked to do so.
He kept his house in Chicago, paid taxes and voted as a City Resident.

He is a Chicagoan, has been a chicagoan all his life, and deserves to be able to run for Mayor.

Posted by: tafffy | January 25, 2011 4:37 PM

Your article has one major flaw, you assume that Rahm was fit to serve either as mayor or as Chief of Staff to Obama. Rahm is neither. He is a corrupt political hack who alone did more to damage Obama in the eyes of the electorate than anyone else. If he does half as much damage as mayor as he did in DC, Chicago will be unfit for human habitation.

Posted by: pblotto | January 25, 2011 4:34 PM

[Why did he claim DC as his residence on his US Tax Return instead of Chicago?
Posted by: tantz | January 25, 2011 10:46 AM]

That doesn't matter where he claims residence. A military from Los Angeles stationed in Maryland will most likely claim residence in Baltimore, but would not disallow him/her to run for mayor of LA once he come back. "Chicago Municipal code provides an exemption to the residency requirement for an "elector or spouse" who has left the precinct or district on "business of the United States or of this state." I'd say being Obama's cheif is "business of the United States".

Posted by: callosumlink | January 25, 2011 4:28 PM

It seems pretty cut and dry. If you failed to meet the residency requirements then TOO BAD.......There is nothing the Ill. Supreme Court can do other than confirm THEY ARE CORUPT.

Posted by: askgees | January 25, 2011 4:18 PM

Dear Journalist Jena McGregor – The question is NOT if there should be an exception to the residency rule. The point is that the exception is already in the residency law. Rather than being a “difficult” question “to answer,” it’s actually quite easy, and the Supreme Court will right this wrong.

Posted by: WhoopTeeDo | January 25, 2011 4:16 PM

Dear Journalist Jena McGregor – The question is NOT if there should be an exception to the residency rule. The point is that the exception is already in the residency law. Rather than being a “difficult” question “to answer,” it’s actually quite easy, and the Supreme Court will right this wrong.

Posted by: WhoopTeeDo | January 25, 2011 4:03 PM

LAW IS THE LAW FOR EVERYONE-----MAYBE
WATHC HIM SKIRT AROUND IT THEN CHICAGO DESERVES WHAT THEY GET

Posted by: robertbeaver | January 25, 2011 3:44 PM

ON LEADERSHIP & COMMON SENSE:

If you know the rules, follow them.

He should have resigned from his White House job a year before he did and then applied to run for Mayor in Chicago. That way he would have been qualified and it's what everyone else would have had to do. The WH probably would have allowed him to tele-commute to work in DC anyway!

Posted by: gr8gozo | January 25, 2011 3:32 PM

ON LEADERSHIP:

Comparing deployed military service in a combat zone as an equal to serving as the White House Chief of Staff is an insult.

Posted by: gr8gozo | January 25, 2011 3:29 PM

Perhaps you can have a new daily column where you inform citizens of which laws we can ignore from now on.
Wait, even better, a column about "journalists" who make excuses for Democrats all day.
Wait!!! How about a new column about "journalists" who think they make sense. Whoa!!!
Call my secretary; we'll do lunch!

Posted by: BigSea | January 25, 2011 3:15 PM

So if he was still in the House of Representatives working in D.C. sleeping in his office not renting a place in Chicago he would be disqualified to run for mayor?? No, of course not.

But since he worked in the Executive branch of government he can't run for Mayor?? Silly!

Also the statute in question provides relief for those in service to the the U.S. government.

I don't like Rahm, but democracy demands that ambiguity as to what serving the US government is should go toward allowing people to vote for the candidate they want. IF Chicago voters don't want him they don't have to vote for him.

Posted by: Allen745 | January 25, 2011 2:50 PM

Emanuel

nothing more than a Israeli Jew trying to get control of the second biggest city after New York

if it suits The only reliable ally Israel will sell America on drop of hat to China or Russia

Posted by: chaffcutter | January 25, 2011 2:15 PM

Emanuel, like a lot of his corrupt party memebers thinks that the law is for everyone else.
I hope they keep the slug off the ballot.

Posted by: LarryG62 | January 25, 2011 1:27 PM

I guess the Chicago machine did not buy those judges. The is very clear that the candidate must reside in Chicago for 12 months prior to the election. It says you must be a resident and reside.

What this writer fails to mention is there is racism behind this also. The blacks in Chicago think it is thier turn and don't want him because he is white.

Posted by: Pilot1 | January 25, 2011 1:04 PM

C'mon...we all understand Chicago politics...If a political hack like Rahm isn't on the ballot then he just isn't corrupt enough to be the mayor.....but... I can guarantee that, however he gets it done, he WILL be on the ballot.."Never let a crisis go to waste"

Posted by: james_m_reilly1 | January 25, 2011 1:04 PM

The essential fact that killed his residency claim is that his home was leased out and he had no abode in Chicago. Somewhat tragically, Rahm has millions and never needed the income from the property.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 25, 2011 12:59 PM

If he wanted to run for office in Chicago, he should have kept his tax home there.

He's one of those types who wants to skirt the rules when it suits him to do so, as rules are for someone else.

I'd say that rules him out for office in most places, but in Chicago, I'm not sure.

Posted by: Benson | January 25, 2011 12:19 PM

Too bad many of the above comments are from people whose memories are so short.

Do they recall a certain VP candidate from Texas, who ran on the ticket with a nominee for President who was also from Texas? (see, for example, http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cheney2.htm) Cheney had the license, the residency, the home, etc. He even registered to vote in Texas where Halliburton is based.. However, the 12th Amendment precludes two candidates from the same state.... Changed registration in July before the November election.

Emanuel has to pay taxes in DC-- as do all wage earners in states where the income is 'earned' (if the state has no income tax, or a reciprocal agreement, this may not be the case). This makes life interesting for professional sports athletes who play all over the country....

Posted by: PhysicsDemos | January 25, 2011 12:18 PM

Doesn't matter. The law is the law, and Mr. Emmanuel is not exempt.

Posted by: jack711 | January 25, 2011 11:55 AM

Emanuel has a huge sense of entitlement that is driving all of this. Just because he's served as Obama's chief of staff, now Chicagoans are supposed to bend over for him and accept him as a viable mayoral candidate? Really?

I'm a native Chicagoan, and I would prefer that Emanuel take a long walk off a short pier. The city deserves better than this.

Posted by: doom_of_cthulhu | January 25, 2011 11:52 AM

Also, the thing about servicemembers is more clear-cut than the thing about public servants. The IRS clearly indicates that, even if you're deployed to Iraq for a year, your tax home is your home-home. Or if you're deployed to another state (like someone from Chicago being sent to work at the Pentagon), your tax home is also your home-home. So if you got deployed to Iraq, but your husband or wife or kids were back in Chicago, Chicago would be your tax home, where you reside, etc.

For people not in the service, it depends on a bunch of things--but with respect to Emanuel, his tax home was DC. He may have owned a house in Chicago, but he moved to DC for work and brought his family here. He filed here. That makes things less clear-cut than it would have been had he been a servicemember working away from home; in the hypothetical situation mentioned in this blog post, the servicemember would likely have been allowed on the ballot without much question, because his/her place of permanent residence would have been established as Chicago.

Posted by: dkp01 | January 25, 2011 11:33 AM

The law is clear: you have to live in Chicago for the year prior to the election.

Now, it's Chicago, so no one actually believes the Democrats will follow the law, but it's fascinating that the White House thinks Rahm should be able to run. The supposed 'constitutional law professor' is openly advocating that his cronies disobey the law. Obama is the top law enforcement official in the country, but he's got Valerie Jarrett out on TV today advocating for Democrats to break the law.

Doesn't that add up to 'high crimes and misdemeanors'?

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | January 25, 2011 11:32 AM

On the one hand, the Illinois statute is pretty clear and makes sense. You have to live in the place you're running for office. On the other hand, it's Chicago, so I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of the judges ruling against him had ties to another candidate--or the one who ruled in favor of him had ties to him.

Posted by: dkp01 | January 25, 2011 11:24 AM

This is a non-issue. One of the distinguishing features of US electoral politics is that candidates must reside in their district -- unlike Britain where candidates for Parliament need not reside in their constituency. You could argue for either approach, but the US made its choice over 200 years ago.

The Illinois statute is clear. The only thing that is not clear is why or how Emmanuel thought he could evade the residency requirement. A cynical soul might suggest that he assumed that the Illinois courts were for sale.

Posted by: Jphubba | January 25, 2011 11:19 AM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha he quite too fast now he is stuck ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Posted by: JWTX | January 25, 2011 11:03 AM

It's the Chicago way....

Posted by: poppysue85 | January 25, 2011 11:02 AM

Why did he claim DC as his residence on his US Tax Return instead of Chicago?

Posted by: tantz | January 25, 2011 10:46 AM

Post a Comment




characters remaining

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company