Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Daley takes umbrage
Next Post: Subscribers only - Updates and mailers
Posted in:
Sweet makes a good point.
It’s possible that today’s primaries will yield three Democratic House nominees from adjacent suburban Illinois districts — who don’t live in their districts. It’s perfectly legal. All that’s required is to live in the state. But three in a row may be a tempting target for national Republicans to bundle together if, for no other reason, than to irritate Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the chief of the House Democratic political operation.Frontrunner Tammy Duckworth, running in the 6th C.D. lives in the 8th C.D.
Dan Seals, the favorite in the 10th C.D. race, lives in the 9th.
And Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.), who represents the 8th, lives in the 10th, just about 1,000 feet over the border.
This is a congressional primary open thread. Post news from your precinct, word on the street, etc.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 4:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Daley takes umbrage
Next Post: Subscribers only - Updates and mailers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Republicans don’t need to utilize Map Quest or bone up on their geography to be able to irritate Rahm Emanuel. They merely have to point out the growing legal problems of many of the key players who engineered Emanuel’s initial election to Congress.
Comment by Randall Sherman Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 4:32 am
I’m glad some people are starting to point this out. How can you represent a district and not be in it. In Cong. Bean’s situation, she has had ample opportunity to move 2,000 feet from her current home into her district.
I can recall when Crane was being slammed for not having a home in the district. Why the double standard?
Louis G. Atsaves
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 4:55 am
Those in Washington who lord over us know what is best for us. We can’t have umpteen different Democratic representatives running around in Washington with their own agenda. We need smaller, tighter, control over those reps so that a unified agenda can be put forth. That can be accomplished by doling out Washington money to those who can’t get elected otherwise. Since they are beholden to their Washington leaders, they will be at their bidding come favor time.
The Tammy Duckworth gimmick is appalling. I don’t think I have seen her name in print without it being followed by the fact she is a double amputee wounded war veteran. At first I thought her legal name was “Double Amputee Tammy Duckworth”, like I sometimes think the real name of Chicago is “City of Chicago, Richard M Daley Mayor” because that is how it is written everywhere downtown.
I mean come on…is it fair to hold it against the other candidates that they have all their limbs?
Comment by Johnstone Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 6:26 am
Congratulations, Johnstone, just before the final buzzer on the last day, you may have notched both the most crass and the most idiotic statement of the campaign season all at once. Take a bow.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 9:23 am
Oh puh-lease Louis. Bean’s a couple blocks from the line. She can’t represent the region? Have you looked at the 8th map? Talk about gerrymandered. It was redrawn to cut Crane opponents Fitzgerald and McSweeney out (maybe even Bean too). And Crane was slammed b/c he lived in VIRGINIA, not just outside the district.
Comment by Not Tellin Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 9:43 am
Johnstone is 100% correct. No one doubts her courage. It is simply part of the nationwide strategy of the DNC to get vets in these races. Rahm simply coaches them on what to say and how to appeal to the GOP voters. That is why most (not a small majority of it either) of her money comes from out of the region.
The last statement may have been a little crass, but what he is saying is accurate. She is a “manchurian candidate” or the Ramnchurian candidate.
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 9:58 am
Who cares?
They all live very close to their districts, and not exactly carpet baggers. Bean put this issue to bed last election. Crane and the RNC bashed her all over the TV and nobody cared. The truth is that such small distances just don’t matter.
This is a non-issue that distracts from the real reasons we should vote for or against someone.
Comment by IL Dem Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 11:00 am
Bean, i can understand, she is only 1000 feet, that is basically 2 streetlights. Duckworth in in Hoffman estates and that is a couple of miles and she was recruited heavily. This is a big difference.
Crane bashed her because he couldn’t really defend his absenteeism.
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 11:51 am
A few years back, during redistricting, when I was first running for State Representative I was 75 feet from the old district. The incumbent stepped down mid-term. State law did not allow me to be appointed to this seat. No problem, Sue Simpson was appointed to fill out the term and did a great job. The law is the law. Obviously the law is different for elected Congressmen. Maybe the law should be changed.
Think of the various aspects of getting on the ballot that seem so trivial: numbering your pages in order, binding them properly, and getting “x†amount of signatures. This can be mind-boggling at times, but it is the law.
Melissa Bean living 1,000 feet from the district may seem like a trivial thing. What is the difference between her status and say recruiting a person 5,000 feet, 5 miles, or even 25 miles? They all would be following the law as it exists and it is just an arbitrary number. Heck, why not recruit a big name celebrity like Opra Whinfrey to run as a democrat in Speaker Hastert’s district when he retires or maybe Da Coach to run as a republican in some open democrat seat. They would all be following the law. (I am making an educated guess about the two celebrity’s affiliations here folks to prove a point.)
My contention is that we need to change the law because of the far-fetched scenarios stated above. I believe candidates running for office should be home-grown. To avoid recruiting a celebrity to win a certain seat we must also not allow the person that lives across the street from the border to run. There needs to be some consistency in the residency requirements or this type of candidate recruitment will only flourish in the future.
Just like what seems trivial in state law, a residency requirement in federal law may also seem trivial. They both bring consistency to the process. State law insures candidates are dedicated to the task at hand and a change in federal law will insure a home-grown candidate that is truly dedicated to the district he or she hopes to represent.
Comment by Rep. Ed Sullivan, Jr. Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 12:44 pm
Dan Seals lives one block outside the district in Wilmette. He is part of the community and is fully capable of representing it. Remember-Kirk didn’t live in the district either during his first campaign. No one cares.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 1:59 pm
Hey Johnstone, I believe it is the moronic reporters who insist on listing Ms. Duckworth injuries, not the candidate herself.
Kirk did not even live in state when he ran the first time — but he is a secret agent/spyguy.
Eddie we’ll be standing by breathlessly waiting for your residency reform initiatives.
Comment by Reddbyrd Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 2:28 pm
I think the natural way to reduce the number of people running who live outside of a district is to let the voters decide.
Edmund Burke was a a carpet bagger before carpet bagging was coined. He lost in his home District and then because he was important to the party, he was run in another District and won.
I’m not sure what the harm is of only requiring someone be a resident of the state. Voters can take it from there. If the person is a good representative, the voters will keep them, and if not, someone can exploit it.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 3:01 pm
Reddbyrd,
You certainly have the right to mock what I believe. Last I checked our constitution gives you that right, one that I will certainly always support. There is a theory of value called matched-pair analysis. This basically means you find the value of something by comparing two identical objects with only the one difference you are trying to find the value for. With this theory in mind, let me ask you a question. Take a hypothetical scenario of two candidates that are identical in every way, gender, race, age, political beliefs, etc. and both live outside the district. The only difference is one candidate has committed to moving into the district and the other has not. Who would you vote for? My guess is that a majority of people would pick the one that committed to moving into the district. I realize this is not a probable scenario. But if you answered in your own mind you would vote for the candidate that committed to moving then maybe what I wrote earlier is not off base. There is value in living in the district. Some people put that value low some high. I ultimately agree with letting the voters decide for themselves but think residency requirements should be changed in the future for the specific reasons mentioned above.
Comment by Rep. Ed Sullivan, Jr. Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 3:55 pm
===ultimately agree with letting the voters decide for themselves but think residency requirements should be changed in the future for the specific reasons mentioned above.
But it seems that you are taking that choice from the voters. Where this can be especially tricky is redistricting. Thinking back to 2002, the new lines in both Guitierrez’s district and Johnson’s district were drawn to exclude former challengers. Under your idea, they’d be excluded from running or have to move quickly. I tend to think letting the voters decide avoids these kind of problems, and like you said, most voters will side with residency all other things being equal.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 4:23 pm
I agree with what Johnstone and Rep. Sullivan are saying. The Duckworth incident is a horrible abuse of residency rules, and common decency. Great way to get a Dem into a Rep district with Hyde retiring. It is sickening. What’s next? Vote for the autistic boy because he scored 20 points in 4 minutes during a BBall game? Additionally, Duckworth sure got a lot of free press on Nightline last night. Egregious behaviour from ABC. Nightline should have waited until tonight to run the piece on war vets running for office.
A candidate should live in their district. Its absurd they don’t have to. Otherwise what will stop from happening what Rep. Sullivan described? I hope Oprah doesn’t read this. With her big ego she just may try to run for some office. Or, maybe she can lobby to be the Ambassador to France.
Comment by Papa Legba Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 5:19 pm
ArchPundit
You certainly make a good argument in regard to redistricting, especially in Illinois where we all know this is a fairly political as opposed to a scientific process. In Illinois though, the law allows a person to run in redistricting years if they do not live in the district but forces them to move into the new district within I believe 18 months. The most recent election would be the Capparelli-McAuliffe race. Cap decided to not move and was forced to run against McAuliffe.
There have always been laws to restrict the choice of the voter. Why is the president age restricted? Why is he/she limited to two consecutive terms? Someone back then decided that it was a good idea and the democratic process made it so. My point is there is precedence here to change the law and ask a candidate to live in the district, or as we have been discussing, possibly restrict the choice available to the voters.
Comment by Rep. Ed Sullivan, Jr. Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 5:23 pm
This is a great topic and one that needs to be addressed from a legality standpoint. If the residency does not matter, what is to say the signature requirements matter, etc. I know that this rule has helped both parties, but it needs to be changed. You should have to live in the district you run for office in. No exceptions, no moving in after the election, no I plan on moving,, no bullS%^, no excuses. Either you live in the district you want to represent or you do not run. Common sense answer to a very solveable problem.
Comment by Bluto Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 6:35 pm
Let’s not forget that Congressman Blagojevich lived outside of his district for most of his time in Congress. I found this particularly appalling because when it became an issue in his first campaign, he made a big deal about moving into the district, which meant renting an apartment while his family stayed in his old house. After the election he quietly gave up the apartment address.
They had a nice house on Logan Boulevard, and he could have said that he lived just outside the district and his state rep district district covered part of the CD, but no, he had to pull this dodge.
He then ran for reelection from the original address outside the district, and no said a thing about it.
At least he’s open about not living in Springfield.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 21, 06 @ 6:41 pm