The one-page order does not mean the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Emanuel's appeal of the lower court ruling that could end his run for mayor. It only stops Chicago election authorities from going ahead with their plans to begin printing up to 2 million ballots for the Feb. 22 mayoral election without Emanuel’s name.
Spokesman for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. And, at the same time, told them well start printing again as soon as possible with Emanuel’s name on the ballot.Printing of the ballots, without Emanuel's name, had begun this morning at a facility in Lake County.
The high court order came about 24 hours after the 2-1 appellate court decision that Emanuel does not meet residency requirements to run for office because he was in Washington for the last year as chief of staff to President Barack Obama.
The high court said it was still considering whether to grant Emanuel's request that it hear his appeal on an expedited basis. Emergency motion by petitioner Rahm Emanuel for stay pending appeal is allowed in part.
The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago. Emanuel's lawyers filed the appeal this morning.
Emanuel's attorneys are already waiting for an answer from the state's highest court on their request for a stay of the appellate court ruling, which could help them stop city election authorities from going ahead with plans today to print ballots without Emanuel's name.
The Documents pleading for the high court to take up the case calls the appellate court decision “one of the most far-reaching election law rulings ever to be issued by an Illinois court, not only because of its implications for the current Chicago mayoral election but also for the unprecedented restriction that it imposes on the ability of numerous individuals to participate in every future municipal elections in this state.
The ruling is squarely inconsistent with prior high court decisions on residency; the restrictive view of the majority has no precedent; the ruling infringes on the rights of those in Emanuel’s situation to vote; there should only be one legal definition of “resided in” in state and municipal code; the new appellate court residency requirement creates too much uncertainty for candidates going forward; and it strips candidates of the provision that government service does not have a negative impact on residency.
The document cites dissenting Appellate Judge Bertina Lampkin’s view that the majority failed to define its new standard for what it means for a candidate. A businessman called away for a monthlong trip could become ineligible to run for office, as could members of Congress who go to Washington.
A businessman called away for a monthlong trip could become ineligible to run for office, as could members of Congress who go to Washington.A businessman called away for a monthlong trip could become ineligible to run for office, as could members of Congress who go to Washington. Setback for Emanuel, who has a wide lead over his opponents in fundraising and the Tribune's mayoral poll.
