|
Go away
Thursday, Jan 27, 2005 - Posted by Rich Miller I made this mistake once because I neglected to look at the constitution. But everyone who might be afraid (or pleased) that Alan Keyes might run for governor should look at this section (emphasis added): SECTION 3. ELIGIBILITY He can’t run for governor. Maybe he’ll run for mayor instead. I wonder what his onetime (it’s not clear if he still is) Chicago office manager thinks.
|
 |
|
|
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 05 @ 3:19 pm:
It says: “To be eligible to hold the office…” Nothing about running. Like he’d get elected anyway.
Now, a race for Lt. Gov. between Keyes and Quinn would be, to say the least, entertaining.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 05 @ 4:42 pm:
Seems it would be Keyes’s style to run anyway and then blame the constitutional authors for discriminating against individuals trying to make a difference.
He would lose, of course, but on his website he would claim the loss to be a moral win because he believed, despite the heathens who drafted the constitution. Believing, Keyes would insist, is what counts. Then he’d post a picture of himself in a suit and tie, believing.
And of course he’d stay in Illinois, no matter what happens.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 05 @ 7:40 pm:
If he’s staying it’d at least be nice if he got an Illinois license like the rest of us.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 27, 05 @ 8:28 pm:
Does this mean Vallas is a no-go, too? Any election lawyers out there with an answer?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 27, 05 @ 8:45 pm:
If he maintained his voter registration and some semblance of a residence, then Vallas could probably do it, but I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 27, 05 @ 8:48 pm:
You have to swear an oath that you’re qualified to run for office. If Keyes took the oath and lied, he could be tossed in jail. So, I repeat, he can’t run.
- Anonymous - Sunday, Jan 30, 05 @ 12:15 am:
i’m no constitutional scholar (and neither is sneed), but it’s possible the provision violates the federal constitution. if so, keyes could run.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 31, 05 @ 5:49 am:
The residency requirement has been litigated every which way for years. Trust me. Keyes can’t run.
- Michael - Monday, Jan 31, 05 @ 12:32 pm:
He can’t run in 2006. But he’d be eligible by 2010, which gives him five whole years to do some fund-raising. (And gives the Illinois GOP five years to find anybody who could whip his ass in the primary so as to save themselves the embarrassment of having him at the top of their ticket.)
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 31, 05 @ 4:16 pm:
Rich, you’re thinking about and commenting on this like an informed and reasonable person.
Try thinking about it like Alan Keyes. Here goes: “This provision violates the law of god as reflected in the declaration of independence.” “I will run and I will swear to no oath that violates the laws of god as reflected in the declaration of independence and the federal constitution.”
He will go to a federal court at the last moment and try to get a temporary restraining order if they don’t let him on the ballot. That will drag it out for a awhile. He will go down fighting. He always goes down fighting. What does Andy McKenna do? If he takes on Keyes, he pisses off the Keyes voters. There are a considerable number of Keyes voters. The Republicans need Keyes voters.
Plus, who else besides McKenna has standing to fight Keyes in the courts? I can see the Democratic election officials saying it’s a constitutional issue for the courts to interpret. Then McKenna has to go to court and fight Keyes. Then it’s time for a good ol’ Illinois Republican circular firing squad.
- Randall Sherman - Tuesday, Feb 1, 05 @ 9:58 am:
Perhaps Alan Keyes will run for Congress instead in 2006. I suspect there are ten incumbent Democrats who would love to have him as an opponent!