Congressional candidate are not required to live in the district in order to run for office. State law, though, requires that petitions have to be circulated by someone who lives in the district. So what happens when an out-of-district candidate circulates his own petitions? Well, he has to challenge the law.
Such is the case of Herb Lux, who lives in the 1st CD but wants to run in the 7th. He’s asking a federal judge to count his signatures.
The residency requirement is at odds with the petition requirements. So my question is should they be the same?
Inquiring minds want to know 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I’d change it, but probably not in the way Lux is looking for that to happen. I’d require the candidate to live in the district (defined as current boundaries plus boundaries before last re-districting).
I agree that the candidate should be a resident of the district. I see where the “plus boundries…” is going, but when was the last re-districting? That should only come into play during the first election after redistricting, IMHO.
Since residency isn’t a requirement, as long as the signators of the petitions are residents of the district, I don’t see the issue.
I assume you included the “plus boundaries before last re-districting” because it would allow some to run who had been redistricted out of a district?
Yes, and I think Doug’s modification of that is a good one.
Get rid of the districts.
I think candidates should have to live in the district they are seeking election to represent.
This becomes tricky when you consider redistricting. Would incumbents be allowed to run for reelection if redistricting causes them to no longer live in the district they are representing? Could redistricting be a way to weaken incumbent minority party representatives?
Didn’t you forget the 🙂 after the last paragraph?
Um, yeah. That’s the big problem with redistricting, anyway. As long as it is partisan, it will always be that way.
Agree that candidates should have to live in the district, the provision to avoid incumbents, or potent challengers, from being redistricted out is a good one as well. The idea that a candidate can run in a district where he doesn’t live has never made any sense to me. Why not allow somebody who lives in California to run for U.S. Senate from Virginia, then? (I know there have been some “carpetbagger” senators, but they’ve at least been required to go through the motions of establishing a place of residence in the state).
Watch the first minute of this video
😆
It was only a matter of time before you brought that up…LOL.
(unless I missed it somewhere else)
I’ve not posted it before. But if the shoe fits… 😀
I want even stronger reforms:
1. Must maintain the principle residence in the district.
2. Campaign donations may only be accepted by citizens whose primary residence is in that same district.
3. No PAC donations.
4. No corporate donations.
However, given that Herb Lux currently is not required to live in the district in order to run, I welcome him into the contest. Herb Lux will run to the right of “Pay to Play” Cantor and Mr. Lux will raise many issues that need to be in our political debates.
The Democratic candidate in the Seventh is extremely weak and is not using his candidacy to speak out for a roll back of Bush’s anti-civil libertarian policies, or even to talk about ideas for job growth in Virginia. Mr. Lux will, at least, mount a credible challenge.
To me the issue of where a candidate lives reminds me too much of term limits; it assumes that the voters are too stupid to choose the best candidate for themselves.
I’m not saying that it’s a good thing for candidates to live outside their districts, but I think the idea of “protecting the electorate from themselves” is a dangerous one, and should only be used where absolutely necessary. Given that I’d assume a candidate not living in the district should already be at a disadvantage politically, I don’t think this is one of those “absolutely necessary” cases.
That is a good point.
I have to say I agree with J Ballance. I think the rules should be even stronger to require not only living in area but donations only from area. You someone who doesn’t live in your area. Who is financially supported by people out of your area. However, they are going to look out for you areas best interest because they know the issues here. I don’t think so.
There was a case where a councilman from Hampton moved from Hampton. When it was discovered he no longer lived here he had to step down. That should be the case here. We wouldn’t want a US President who lived in Canada.
This only works in a vaccuum. I sent Tom Perriello some money, because when he votes, he’s not just voting his district, he’s a part of a larger body that represents us all. Why shouldn’t I be able to support him?
Because he is SUPPOSED to represent the voters of his district. Since he is “part of a larger body that represents us all,” should you be able to vote for him, too?
How does my contribution affect the representation of his district?
It doesn’t.
Warren, you are quickly becoming tiresome, because if someone says white, you say black, just to be argumentative. You can disagree without being disagreeable – or you can take your BS elsewhere.
If your contribution does not affect the representation of his district (presumably by assisting in his re-election), WHY are you making the contribution?
I think that requiring candidates to live in their districts is the best choice. Grandfathering in a candidate who is redistricted out of his district could benefit good and bad equally, so it’s a wash.
In England, it used to be (I don’t know whether it still is) that a candidate could stand for Parliament in any parliamentary district (or whatever they call them there). Ambitious politicos could shop for a weak or isolated or apathetic area in which they were little known so they could sneak into office under the radar.
I see little benefit and much potential for abuse in that.
Tyler’s suggestions 2, 3, and are appealing. Unlikely, but appealing.
Candidates should have to live in the district. That solves the problem with the petitions. If they get redistricted out, move or don’t run.
As for the idea of raising money only in the district, you’d better get used to only electing incumbents or those who self-fund, because that’s all you’d get.
If politicians were local, and only could raise money from local residents (whose contributions are capped by federal law) then rich local candidates would have a financial advantage over their opponents.
However, restricting fund-raising to only from those whose principle residence is in that district, the relationship between the local citizens and their candidates will be strengthened.
We have plenty of examples from our history where local people have turned down the local millionaire’s bid for election. However, if one looks at our current Congress, nearly every member is a millionaire, and most have never served in uniform.
Our political process is corrupt, and it will only get worse.
By strengthening the representative relationship between candidate and citizen, we will have the opportunity to neutralize the big PACs, corporate donors and rich outsiders.
Ask your Congressional candidates about the specific reforms as stated in the previous post.
Can we agree that money generally flows to incumbents? Assuming that we do, then unless the challenger self-funds, there is no way they can be competitive.
Besides, there’s that pesky 1st Amendment again.
The challengers aren’t really competitive anyway. Since the incumbents are far more likely to get out-of-district money, it seems that restricting contributions to the voters in that election is going to improve a challenger’s chances.
If that would pass muster with the courts we’d get better results simply by establishing spending caps on what can be spent on any give race.
5K for a local race
25K for house of delegates
50K for state senate
100k for House
250K for Senate or governor
$5 million for president.
Then just give them all free broadcast airtime since we, not the networks or local tv stations own the air waves.
Of course this would be ruled unconstitutional because the court somehow believes spending money is the equivalent of free speech.
“As for the idea of raising money only in the district, you’d better get used to only electing incumbents or those who self-fund, because that’s all you’d get.”
Well, the Alaska Senate Primary seems to contradict you. The challenger, Joe Miller, got over 96% of his individual contributions from Alaskans. The incumbent, Murkowski, got more than 60% of individual contributions from out-of-state, and more than 99% of her PAC contributions were from out-of-state PACs. (Miller got only one PAC contribution — $5000 from SARAHAPAC.)
And yet, even with that considerable disadvantage, the race is a dead heat. Do you really think that, if Murkowski had gotten NO out-of-state money, she would have any chance at all?