I guess I see the logic. But not really. Rahm says he is eligible. Two chunks of the Chicago machine say so, too. But the appellate court says no. So the chief Illinois state court stays the appellate ruling so the city can print the ballot with his name on it. That way his name will still be on the ballot even if he is later tossed off the ballot. Where did this “right” to run for an office come from? Why not leave him off the ballot since an appeals court says he doesn’t belong there and then let the 12 people who really want him for mayor write him in IF he is found eligible? Why is this backwards? Now there is a presumption that he actually belongs on the ballot, when a plain reading of the law says he is ineligible?
California and Illinois have too much in common, including tanked economies and wacky government.
Hillbuzz has a reasonable explanation for why Rahm should stay on the printed ballot. Cost. They claim Chicago would have to do a double printing if he were kicked off and then reinstated. But I am not convinced you have a “right” to election if your candidacy is found ineligible. If you are kicked off the ballot I think you should be a write-in. I do remember that the US Supreme Court has told the federal judiciary they are to be very careful taking any action that might be perceived as prejudicing an election in any way. If I remember correctly federal courts are not to interfere in elections unless it is shown that something is wrong with the election itself, not a candidate. One presumes that the federal policy is honored by most state courts.
The linked HotAir piece also has some comments with points I hadn’t considered. Cheers.