CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 25, 2011 02:47 AM UTC
11 Comments
I posted it in the Monday Open Thread. We discussed. That was it.
Why would anyone have spin on a mayoral race in Chicago?
.
but this seems wrong.
He has to be a resident somewhere, right ? Like a soldier on active duty, he should get to designate a Home of Record while federal service keeps him away.
Besides, I’d like to see Chicago hurt by a Rahm Administration, after all the damage he did nationally.
Payback.
.
But then, so does the law they were ruling on.
For those not up on the particulars, Adam B over at Daily Kos has a good legal summary. Essentially, the court ruled that the Illinois Legislature put two separate residency provisions in to being eligible to run for office.
First, that you have to be a valid elector. That means you have to “have residence” in the district for a set period of time. This provision has exceptions for being away “on the business of the United States”, which the court rules Rahm (and military personnel) clearly qualify under.
The second provision is that the candidate has to “reside” (word in the law) in the district for 1 year prior to the election. They ruled that “residing”, unlike maintaining residency, actually entailed living in the district for the year. So under this ruling, military personnel could not run for state or local offices in Illinois.
As I said, the ruling is a bit stilted. But I’m not going to say it was wrong (or right); the court may be deciding based on the law, not on “what’s right”. Given what I consider to be the vagueness of the law, I would hope that the IL Supreme Court would issue a more interpretive ruling that gave benefit of the doubt to the electorate and the candidate.
Ballots start printing this evening, and according to the Chicago BOE, they’re printing without Rahm’s name unless someone tells them RFN to hold the presses. The Illinois Supreme Court is out of session; no word yet on whether they’ll issue an emergency injunction to hold up the ballot printing.
b) Chicao Board of Elections rules him in, lower court agrees, appellate court says no, IL Supreme Court and SCOTUS yet to weigh in.
c) If he paid taxes and voted as a Chicagoan doing the business of the US, then he should be in.
d) see a).
substance-free “hey, something bad happened to a Dem” posts (Olberman, Emanuel…)
Got no problem with men crushing on men; just questioning L’s taste. Were I infatuated with male conservative pols, I’d be more of an Eric Cantor guy.
Illinois Supreme Court has stayed the appeals court ruling.
Ballots will be printed with Emanuel’s name on them.
No link yet, too soon. Check the Chicago Trib or Sun Times web sites soon.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun…
He was (obviously) able to prove irreparable harm, and the remaining standard is that he have a “substantial case on the merits”.
No word on whether the court will actually hear the case, but it was pretty much a no-brainer to issue the stay.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun…