Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Duckworth 31

Journal by pudge

Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war vet who lost her legs while serving, is running for Congress in Illinois' Sixth District, as a Democrat. She just won the primary.

The problem is, she does not live in the Sixth District. And no one -- the press, the party officials, the voters -- seems to care.

Looking up Illinois law, apparently they do not require members of Congress to live in the district they're running in. The 2006 Candidate Guide says state representatives and senators must reside in the district they represent, but there's no such requirement listed for U.S. Congress representatives.

I checked my own state, and the relevant law says all candidates for office must be, "at the time the candidate's declaration of candidacy is filed, properly registered to vote in the geographic area represented by the office." But then it continues: "The requirements of voter registration and residence within the geographic area of a district do not apply to candidates for congressional office."

What is wrong with these states? Or is it unconstitutional to add additional qualifications for election to the U.S. Congress, even a simple thing like residency within your district?

I'd never vote in the primary for someone who was not a resident of my district. That's just stupid. Of course, in the general election, you're often faced with a choice between two candidates, and you probably hate at least one of them, so unfortunately, people will mostly end up voting regardless of residency.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Duckworth More

Duckworth

Comments Filter:

  • Alan Keyes was not a resident of Illinois, either, when he was asked to run for U.S. Senator. I remember finding that odd, and then hearing him backpedal a bit since he'd apparently criticized Hillary Clinton and/or New York for the very same thing.

    • Alan Keyes was not a resident of Illinois, either, when he was asked to run for U.S. Senator. I remember finding that odd, and then hearing him backpedal a bit since he'd apparently criticized Hillary Clinton and/or New York for the very same thing.

      That's different. When he actually RAN, he WAS a resident. So was Clinton. Duckworth is not a resident, and will not be.

      • True. It's one thing if you honestly commit to move to the location and live there and become one of its citizens. And in the end, it's up to them to decide what their standards for that are.

  • A representative should be know about his or her district, and be in touch with what the constituents want. If the people feel she'll represent them well, then her residency isn't as important.

    Now, just where is she living, and how far out of the district is that? Is she planning on renting or buying a place in or closer to her constituents?
    • A representative should be know about his or her district, and be in touch with what the constituents want. If the people feel she'll represent them well, then her residency isn't as important.

      I disagree entirely.

      Now, just where is she living, and how far out of the district is that?

      That does not matter to me, at all. Outside is outside.

      Is she planning on renting or buying a place in or closer to her constituents?

      Doesn't matter to me. She does not and will not reside in the district.

      • Now, just where is she living, and how far out of the district is that?

        That does not matter to me, at all. Outside is outside.

        I know how you feel, but consider redistricting. One side of the street can be District 10 and the other District 13, and it can change. If you've been a rep for years and suddenly your side of the street is no longer in your district, do you have to move? Are you now "out of touch" with your own neighborhood?

        This sort of thing is probably why the residence requirements a

        • If you've been a rep for years and suddenly your side of the street is no longer in your district, do you have to move?

          No, but you should no longer represent that district if you do not move. That happens all the time in state legislatures, where district residency usually *is* required. It's not exceptional.

          This sort of thing is probably why the residence requirements are lax in this case.

          If that were the case, then there would be no residency requirements in those states for their state legislatures, ei
          • Do state districts often change? Around here (New England) they don't; it's usually based on town lines, which also don't change much. But that could be different elsewhere.

            In my (limited) experience, the only people likely to have uncertainty as to their district are federal congresspeople, so the rule sort of makes sense (especially since it would have been written by people who wouldn't want to be de-elected by having their districts shifted out from under them.) And I'd prefer stronger rules for se

            • Do state districts often change? Around here (New England) they don't; it's usually based on town lines, which also don't change much. But that could be different elsewhere.

              Well, I don't know what state you are in, but in MA, the districts I were in crossed town lines (so some people in town were in one district, and others in another). Also, I was moved from Barney Frank's district right before I moved.

              Anyway, districts are subject to change about every 10 years, out of convention, but sometimes happen mo
          • No, but you should no longer represent that district if you do not move.

            Well what other reasons for your position do you have? Because we just discussed that it's possible to be familiar with the district and constituents while having a residence just over the border?

            You're coming off to me like your opinion on this matter is fundamentally based on a principle, and even if there were no good reasons to justify that principle, you'd stubbornly hold to it anyway.
            • Well what other reasons for your position do you have?

              They seem completely self-evident to me, and to pretty much all states, who have district residency requirements for the state legislators.

              Because we just discussed that it's possible to be familiar with the district and constituents while having a residence just over the border

              So someone who lives in Connecticut should be able to represent Massachusetts, or New York, or Rhode Island? Maybe New Jersey too?

              You're coming off to me

              I don't care how I come o
              • So someone who lives in Connecticut should be able to represent Massachusetts, or New York, or Rhode Island? Maybe New Jersey too?

                So long as the rep knows about his or her district, and keeps in touch with what the constituents want, yes. It's then up to the people to decide if this person will represent them well. I would be surprised if a rep in Connecticut could do a very good job representing New Jersey, but I wouldn't be if a state rep living in Woodstock or Thompson CT was representing the Dudley an
                • So long as the rep knows about his or her district, and keeps in touch with what the constituents want, yes.

                  It's a good thing that pretty much everyone disagrees with you, including all of the Framers of the Constitution.
                  • It's a good thing that pretty much everyone disagrees with you

                    Except for those states where it's legal.

                    including all of the Framers of the Constitution.

                    Are their reasons still as good today as they were back then? The framers also didn't want a foreign-born president, but the reasons for their concern are less likely to happen today.

                    Yet when polymath69 pointed out that someone could live across the street from a district boundary, you did not explain why this person shouldn't be able to represent that dist
                    • Except for those states where it's legal.

                      Um ... there is no state where it is legal to be a resident of one state, and yet represent another in the Congress. What are you smoking? (Maybe you forgot that was the context of your quote?)

                      Further, every state I've seen restricts pretty much all other offices by residency in the particular geographic location being represented, everything from school board to state senator. U.S. Congress is the only one not so restricted. So obviously, there's widespread beli
                    • there is no state where it is legal...

                      I'm referring to the situation in Illinois, that is apparently legal, and in your JE you said "what is wrong with these states" meaning there is at least another state that allows this.

                      Okay, going back to this comment, [slashdot.org] I used the word "border" when I should have said "district boundary." You were replying to an intra-state district question, and I was continuing that line of inquery. Then going to here, [slashdot.org] the line

                      So long as the rep knows about his or her district, and k

                    • I'm referring to the situation in Illinois, that is apparently legal, and in your JE you said "what is wrong with these states" meaning there is at least another state that allows this.

                      Except, no, no state allows "this."

                      You were replying to an intra-state district question

                      No, I was not. This is the actual flow of the discussion:

                      So someone who lives in Connecticut should be able to represent Massachusetts, or New York, or Rhode Island? Maybe New Jersey too?

                      So long as the rep knows about his or her distr

  • The requirements are laid out in the federal constitution:

    The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabita
    • Yes ... and?
      • And the constitution doesn't say anything about districts. Only age, citizenship and state residency (but not district residency).
        • Yes, I know ... not sure what your point is. I noted that this was the case, that the Constitution did not have a district residency requirement. And I asked why states themselves did not add this requirement.
          • It's not clear to me if the states could impose further limitations. The constitution spells out the requirements for being a representative. Why should the states be able to fiddle with the constitutional requirements? Shouldn't that require an amendment to the constitution? Just passing a state law seems like an awfully casual way to be able to alter how the constitution works.
            • It's not clear to me if the states could impose further limitations.

              Yes, that is what I asked about in my original post. I don't know.

              About 10 years ago the Supreme Court said states cannot impose term limits, but that is not the exact same sort of thing, either.
  • Once elected, most officials 'move' to Washington DC. Not having residency requirements allows the senators to run for re-election. Not everyone can afford two homes, even on a Senator's salary.
    • I don't buy it. The government can pay for your temporary housing in DC.
      • A small townhome in DC runs about $750,000 right now. Most of them rent for $5000 / month or more. I don't know if there's a program in place for that or not, but I don't recall any.

        Its the only reason I can think of for it. We're lucky here in MD, DC's only about an hour away.
        • That would not be the reason for it, as when the Constitution was passed, representatives spent very little time at the seat of government.
          • Aren't the local election laws created by the states themselves? If so, Washington State and even Illinois would be a long train ride to DC.

            I'm not arguing that they should be of the people they're running with, I'm just saying there may be a reason to the law. Most modern political fat-cats spend more time on vacation in foreign countries than they do in their own districts.
            • Aren't the local election laws created by the states themselves?

              Yes.

              If so, Washington State and even Illinois would be a long train ride to DC.

              Hm? If local election laws are created by the states, Washington state is a long train ride to DC?

              Or do you mean if the residency requirement is added, then that will force reps to commute a long way?

              That's trivially taken care of, either explicitly or implicitly. There's already laws in most states about retaining residency while out of state on business, and thos
              • My meaning is that when the laws were created, the fastest mode of travel was probably steam engine. A ride from Washington State would have taken weeks to get to Washington DC.

                I do agree with your prevision, but I also think that the Senators should live in Government dorms while on business in DC. Make them deal with each other when using the showers, or parking their cars too close to each other.
  • I can see why some states would have such rules. It allows a candidate to continue to run in their traditional district when the state has cut them out of it. I do agree that in general candidates should live in the district they are running in and that the press and their opponents should ask questions about the situation if they do not. As long as the voters know what is going on I don't see it as a big deal. Running out of your district should be a huge disadvantage in most instances.

Slashdot Top Deals

Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active. -- Leonardo da Vinci

Close