A Wisconsin appeals court says the state Supreme Court should decide whether a law that takes away nearly all collective bargaining rights from public workers should be allowed to take effect.
A majority of the seven-member Supreme Court must agree to take it or it would remain in the appeals court.
The 4th District Court of Appeals said Thursday it is appropriate for the state’s highest court to take the case because it presents significant issues that are likely to end up before the Supreme Court anyhow.
A Dane County judge issued an order last week preventing Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law, saying Republicans violated the state open meetings law when passing it.
There are sure to be cries of “foul!” and “Chicago politics” from both the right and the left on this one…
The Illinois Supreme Court put Rahm Emanuel back on the ballot for Chicago mayor on Thursday, reviving his campaign to lead the country’s third-largest city.
The former White House chief of staff was thrown off the Feb. 22 ballot by an Illinois appellate court for not meeting a residency requirement because he hadn’t lived in Chicago for a year before the race. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in his favor.
Emanuel lived for nearly two years in Washington working for President Barack Obama until he moved back to Chicago in October to run for mayor.
Emanuel, who has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was only living in Washington at the request of the president, had asked the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling. Within minutes of the ruling, Emanuel was at a downtown Chicago public transit station shaking hands with residents.
He never stopped campaigning as the controversy evolved. His spokesman said Emanuel was en route to the campaign appearance when he received word of the ruling and was scheduled to participate in televised debate Thursday evening.
In their appeal, Emanuel’s attorneys called Monday’s appeal court 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 raised 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.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court called the appeals court’s basis for deciding that Emanuel could not be on the ballot “without any foundation in Illinois law.” More…
Somehow, I believe this will not be the end of Rahm Emanuel’s battle to get on the Chicago Mayoral Ballot…
UPDATE: A prominent Illinois election lawyer who asked to remain anonymous because of his many political clients in Chicago, told the Huffington Post that there may be hope for Emanuel yet.
The Illinois Supreme Court, he said, “would certainly give the Appellate Court respect but I wouldn’t say that they are constrained from reversing their decision.”
That said, Monday’s two-to-one ruling throwing Emanuel’s name off the Chicago mayoral ballot was a major legal set back that dramatically complicated the former White House chief of staff’s run for the post. Rather than seek a rehearing with the appellate court, the Illinois lawyer said he expected the Emanuel campaign to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court either Wednesday or as early as Tuesday. The Court will likely choose to take the case before the week was over.
“This is a matter of serious importance affecting essentially half of the state of Illinois just because of the population and impact of the economy,” the lawyer said. “So you can expect the Supreme Court will act very quickly. The parties will simply recycle their briefs responding to the appellate court opinion.”
The Chicago News Cooperative reported Monday morning that an Illinois Appellate Court overturned a decision regarding Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago residency. The court reportedly decided Emanuel is not eligible to run for mayor of Chicago because he has not been a resident of the city for one year. More…