Whether or not Rahm Emanuel was technically a resident of Chicago over the past year won’t, I predict, be an issue for voters in the city’s Feb. 22 mayoral election.
They have so many other more important things to worry about than where Emanuel has been hanging his hat these last two years.
Not to say that residency won’t be an issue for lawyers and judges, or that I’m confident Emanuel will even be in that race once the residency issue is adjudicated in the coming weeks. I’m hardly an expert in election law. All I know is that it’s fussy, quirky and open to interpretation, and — no prediction implied — it doesn’t strike me as impossible that judges (the matter will surely be appealed either way) will rule that Emanuel doesn’t meet the one-year residency requirement to run for mayor.
If this happens, can you imagine the Homer Simpson-like howls of regret, frustration and pain from the raft of candidates who declined to run? Sure, Sheriff Tom Dart, U.S. Reps. Luis Gutierrez, Mike Quigley and Jesse Jackson Jr., various aldermen and others whose names were in the early mix all had their stated reasons for demurring, but Emanuel’s deep connections, fundraising prowess and aura of inevitability surely played at least a teeny role in their decisions to stay out of the race.
Imagine their dismay if suddenly the field is thrown open to the presumptive also-rans.
One of those saying “Yesssss!” instead of “D’oh!” would be state Sen. James T. Meeks who, during an excruciating interview on WTTW-Ch. 11 last week, took at least temporary possession of the Bill Brady Cone of Cotton Candy awarded to the political candidate offering the most insubstantial airy sweetness:
“I think the most dangerous thing you can do is to say what you’re going to fix,” Meeks said in response to a request for a specifics to back up his promise to “trim (the city budget) everywhere there is to trim.” He went on, “There are a lot of places that we can trim, but there are none which you can talk about now … You can’t be specific right now. You just can’t be specific.”
Where’s he been living?
Does God love vigilantes?
The zestiest conversation among readers on the blog last week was underneath a news item I posted from the Tulsa World reporting that unknown citizens in McAlester, Kan., had slashed the tires of a minivan belonging to the Westboro Baptist Church.
The Westboro folks had come to town, as is their wont, to stage a celebratory demonstration at a military funeral, holding signs and shouting slogans saying that the death of our soldiers in war demonstrates God’s displeasure with the United States over its tolerance of homosexuals.
“The protesters were unable to find anyone in town who would repair their vehicle,” said the newspaper.
Some were disappointed that counterdemonstrators had taken the low road to express their contempt for these contemptible protesters. Others seemed to agree with the headline I put on the story, “On the lighter side of the news.”
Ya oughta check out our ‘gottas’
Last week on the Prickly Pair podcast — available wherever fine podcast links are posted — Tribune editorial cartoonist Scott Stantis and I introduced a new feature, “Ya gotta …”
The idea is that, nearly every day, we find ourselves hearing or saying something on the order of “Ya gotta see…,” “Ya gotta read,” “Ya gotta hear…” or “Ya gotta go to…” These are informal, unsolicited, uncompensated endorsements of viral videos, articles, songs, plays, books, restaurants or any of a number of other attractions that have caught someone’s fancy.
My Ya gotta was the song “One More Lie to Love” by ukulele virtuoso James Hill. Scott’s was the beer and bacon tastings at Paddy Long’s on the North Side. Our producer Kristin Samuelson recommended the original version of a song recently bowdlerized as “Forget You,” on the TV show “Glee.”
I’m hoping to make this a regular print feature as well, and to include Ya gottas submitted by readers. To contribute and find links to the above touts, visit chicagotribune.com/zorn.
Vengeance we can no longer afford
Springfield observers don’t give much chance to legislation in the General Assembly to abolish the death penalty in Illinois, but maybe the cost issue will jump-start the legislature.
The Illinois Capital Litigation Trust Fund, which pays for the higher costs of prosecuting and defending death penalty cases at all levels, has been has been spending about $8 million a year lately, according to the recent final report of the Capital Punishment Reform Study Committee.
That’s not much in the face of our multibillion budget deficits, but neither is it a full accounting of the costs; an accounting the state has failed to do even in light of Illinois’ central role in the death penalty debate.
Instead, the report listed the results of cost studies from elsewhere. Those results include:
California (2008) — Annual additional costs of murder trials, appeals and incarceration in which the death penalty was obtained: $211.7 million
Indiana (2010) — “The combined costs for (murder cases) in which a death sentence was imposed was $505,773 compared with $151,547 in murder cases where the prosecution sought and the defendant received a sentence of life without parole.
Kansas (2003) — “The median cost of a case in which the death penalty was sought and imposed was $1.2 million, whereas … in cases in which the death penalty was not sought, the estimated cost was $740,000.”
Maryland (2008) — “$1.1 million for capital-eligible cases in which prosecutors did not seek the death penalty … $3 million for capital-eligible cases in which the death penalty was sought and imposed.”
New Jersey (2007) — “The Department of Corrections estimated that eliminating the death penalty and thereby eliminating the need for death row would save the state $974,430 to $1,299,340 per inmate over the inmate’s lifetime.”
North Carolina (2009) — “If the (2005 and 2006 death-penalty) cases had been treated as noncapital, there would have been a reduction of state expenditures of $10.8 million per year (an average of $21,642 per case).”
Washington (2006) — “When other costs unique to capital cases are included … the total additional costs of trying capital cases was in the range of $467,000 per trial.”
United States Judicial Conference (1998) — “On average, lawyers in (federal court) cases in which the death penalty was sought billed more than 10 times the number of hours of lawyers in noncapital cases; the average total cost of capital trials was $218,112 compared to an average total cost of $55,772 for trials in which the death penalty was not sought.”
