State Sen. Gail Buckner wants to require congressional candidates to actually live in the district their running to represent:
Georgia State Senator Gail Buckner (D-Morrow) has introduced SB 35, which requires all candidates for any district office to swear under penalty of perjury that they live in the district they seek to represent. The bill does not make an exemption for U.S. House candidates, and therefore would be unconstitutional if it were enacted. The U.S. Constitution does not require candidates for U.S. House to live in any particular district, and states are not permitted to add to the qualifications for U.S. House.
Buckner was the Democratic Party’s candidate for Secretary of State in 2006. The legislation can be read here.
As far as I know, Rep. David Scott is the only member of Georgia’s congressional delegation that doesn’t live in his district. He represents parts of Clayton County and Henry County that are also in Buckner’s state senate district.
{ 26 comments }
There should also be a requirement that the primary residence of a candidate be in the specified district for two years before the election. John Linder once leased an apartment in my district so he could run here.
If the state legislature changes the district lines to leave you out, too bad. Life is not fair.
Gail Buckner is so rude, and not to mention her run for SOS was an embarassment, in every aspect of the word.
$10 says she’s planning on a primary challenge to Rep. Scott, and I’m sure/hopeful he’ll whip her bad. She’s use to being whipped bad, as she only won that State Senate district by a razor thin margin.
Not to mention the US Supreme Court has ruled that Members of the House of Representatives do not have to live in their district, per U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. If this bill goes anywhere, and we all know it won’t, it would be in violation of judicial precedent and federal law.
She’s doing this purely to set herself up for a run for the seat, and to take a stab at Rep. Scott.
Of course, he could fix the problem by moving to the district he represents. And while he’s at it, he can quit paying his income from bribes (aka campaign contributions) to his wife and family members.
While I think they were subsequently drawn into their districts, I believe Gingrey, Linder and Chambliss (when a Congressman) lived outside of their districts when they ran. Buckner’s bill is just another arrogant state legislator acting like they know what’s best for the voters. The voters decide every two years whether a Congressman living within their district is a priority or not.
Hey, how about a bill that requires all candidates actually READ the friggin’ Constitution before they’re allowed to even run?
What an idiot.
I noted this bill as ‘SUPPORT’ on SWGA Politics, and I haven’t seen anything yet to change my opinion.
Yes, it should be up to the voters to decide this, and that is a serious consideration. But there IS constitutional precedent for this in that the US Constitution requires a President to be a natural-born US citizen. In other words, he has to have at least been a native of the area he wishes to represent.
Admittedly, it says nothing about current residence. But I hold that a ‘current residency’ restriction is LESS intrusive than the ‘native’ restriction.
In this case, I would say add language to the bill noting the US Rep exception with a clause that upon the Constitution allowing residency restrictions on US Reps, US Reps in this state will also be required to live in the district they represent. Then push for a Constitutional Amendment allowing said restriction.
Skyler
Thanks for the info on the court case. But I’d have to agree with the dissenting opinion and Clarence Thomas and against the ACLU on this one. Although the original purpose of a “district” was in respect to an “area” or town or community. For example “East Cobb” or “Peanut country”, “Blue Ridge”, ect… not these crazy amoeba-shaped court imposed boundaries. I don’t see anything in the Constitution that allows the Federal government to determine what constitutes a district within a state. Aside from apportioning the number of Reps based on population seems like the business of State or local government to determine the requirements. You might say it should be up to the people of the “district” to determine this, but “districts” don’t have their own government. I’d apply the same logic across the board from county commissions, to city councils all the way up to POTUS. DHOOOOOH!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton
The bill does not make an exemption for U.S. House candidates, and therefore would be unconstitutional if it were enacted.
Wouldn’t the courts just include this in their “manner” argument that allowed the state to
excludelimit competition by libertarians and independents as far as ballot access goes in these races?What is the chance of offering an amendment to SB35 to remove ballot access restrictions and allow any Georgian that lives in the district to run for said offices, regardless of party affiliation? It is about time we got rid of these draconian ballot access requirements that essentially says that you’re less than a citizen in Georgia if you don’t belong to the republican or democratic party.
Daniel
Not to mention computerized voting without a paper trail. These “marvels of the new American Century” didn’t even count all of Chuck Baldwin’s votes. And these multi-million gems apparently couldn’t be reprogrammed quickly enough for his name to be on the screen. You had to spell it correctly. Even then, there were mis-counts and adjustments. I’ll take hanging chads over this fiasco any time. Bottom line is nobody ever gets arrested. Can you say “status quo”?
GF:
Don’t go there dude. I once worked on these machines and can personally testify to the fact that they are FAR more secure than any paper ballot.
Same as debit cards vs checks. FAR easier to manually get the info from a check that crack into some computer to get it from the card.
We could do an entire thread on the subject, but alas, I’m sober. And I try not to thread jack whenever possible. It’s all about what “Algore” calls “Respecto”.
For those that are not aware:
In order to be on the ballot in Georgia, if you are not a republican or democrat, for the partisan races, one has to get 5% of the registered voter’s signatures on individual affidavits. One can’t start collecting signatures until January of the election year and have to turn in the signatures approx. 6 months later.
Just to give you some idea of the effort this takes; to run a slate libertarian candidates we would have to collect about 290,000 signatures. If we worked 8 hours a day, we would have to collect about 200 signatures an hour. To put that in perspective and to let you know the kind of resources necessary to accomplish this… if you remember the long lines during this past election early voting, they didn’t even come close to getting 200 people an hour through the booths.
This is not right and should be changed. No one in Georgia should be
forcedcoerced to join a political party to run for office. I bet if they started to require this for non-partisan races (judges)… this law would be changed (or deemed unconstitutional) so fast it would make your head spin.Taft Republican is so on the money. Politicians like Buckner need to get a grip. If anything, ignorant voters and elected officials who haven’t read the US Constitution are the problem on this one.
In Buckner’s SOS race back in 2006, she attempted to show ties up here in Dawson County. The voters saw through the local Democratic nuts and the attempts to establish roots for campaign purposes and delivered one of her largest defeats out of all the 159 counties (3,944 to 1,129 votes). Following Dawson County’s lead, maybe more intelligent voters are the answer rather than changing our US Constitution.
I’d apply the same logic across the board from county commissions, to city councils all the way up to POTUS.
(residency requirements)
not a constitutioal lawyer–so i don’t know–that’s why i’m asking–could not the constitutional requirements be seen as minimums and as long as the individual state does not “water them down” they could in fact, if they chose, add more strict criteria for their own people??
As a Republican, this is going to be the one time that I agree with Buckner. If you’re gonna run for a Congressional seat, then you should at least live in the place that you want to represent.
dj,
I don’t have the case in front of me, but in 2006 the GA Supreme Court, stated “… requiring signatures is not a requirement, merely a manner” that the sate uses in holding their elections… I know, pretty asinine. The word “manner” appears about nine times, I think, in the US Constitution and if you look it up in Webster’s, you realize that “requiring” signatures is a requirement (someone needs to buy this judge a thesaurus. At least he should have used a different word than “requiring”).
So, I would have to side that the “requirements” for US office is a federal decision and covered in the US Constituion. The states are only to name “time, place and manner.” for these elections. And by “manner”, I believe the Constitution meant type of balloting, or counting procedure.
I mentioned that “manner” is in the constitution in other places. The majority party gets to set the “manner” in which votes are taken on the floor of congress…. imagine the outcry of the GOP if the Dems said that before the GOP reps could vote on a bill they must go home and collect signatures. Here, as most intelligent people with a dictionary realize, “manner” has to do with procedure… like, by yeas and nays or electronic voting (no signature “requirements” needed).
As for all other state/local office elections, I believe the state can set whatever requirements they want as long as it is not repressive or discriminating based on race, gender or religious affiliation ….
As for all other state/local office elections, I believe the state can set whatever requirements they want as long as it is not repressive or discriminating based on race, gender or religious affiliation ….
And it should apply to everyone the same… regardless of political party affiliation.
As stated above, term limits and residency requirements are against the law, as US Term Limits Vs. Thornton.
Furthermore, any type of term limits are crazy, because it assumes that the government, and not the voters, make decisions about whether or not someone should be re-elected.
Republicans and their big government!
Really? Putting aside any partisanship, and possible breach of some law out there, tell me why “term limits” are a bad idea, Skyler?
Better yet, tell me why it’s a good thing to have someone remain in the same damn position for 20 years?
If it’s the will of the voters to keep re-electing them, then why limit them?
those decisions are best made in the ballot box, not in the halls of government.
Bill,
Term limits are a bad idea. Haven’t you read the Federalist Papers? It is one of the most discussed topics in that collection. Allow for the republican principle. When you take it away, power is to often abused to justify the risk…and, funny thing is, it can often be completely ignored leaving a term limited congressperson’s district orphaned.
Furthermore, it is not very often that candidates that do not live in a district are elected to represent it. Should it matter though? Barrow did not live in the 12th, but then again the state GOP did not care about the people of the current 12th district when they districted Barrow out of his home. That is the behavior that should be changed.
Back to the discussion…there are some districts that would be best served by people that do not live in them. GA’s 10th comes to mind. Broun is incompetent. I have no problem with some educated person from Atlanta getting a condo in Athens and running for that seat. He doesn’t need to put furniture in the condo either…Newt didn’t. he had an empty apartment in his district just so he could say he lived there.
I don’t like the signature requirement, but 290,000 signatures is not impossible, it is just that nobody wants to really work to do it. For a legislative district, it takes about 1,100 signatures. That is just 6 signatures a day for 6 months. A feet that one person could accomplish. You still don’t see many Libertarians willing to put people on the ballot.
I have actually worked to help get independent and Libertarian candidates on the ballot, and the truth is no one is willing to even put forth the effort, except claiming support in email and discussion boards. Plus, when I was involved, the state LP was full of paranoid head cases that just stood in the way of the county parties who wanted to try to get people on the ballot. Personally I think they prefer to be powerless nobodies. If ballot access were easier, real politicos would kick all the wall flowers out of their offices and take over the party.
Yes, the current system is unfair, but “boo-freaking-hoo”, grow up and do the work and perhaps you will effect change. Sitting on the sideling and whining does nothing.
DD,
I agreed with most of your comment. However, I will continue to do both; call attention to the protectionist laws the Dems and Reps have put on the books, as well as do the work necessary to win and affect policy. Even though we didn’t write the rules, all we have to do is learn to be the better player. And that includes informing the public where fair play and actual representation is being held up due to the current competition limiting ballot access laws.
Stay tuned!
Well, if I can do anything to help, let me know. I would even help a Socialist or a Green get on the ballot if I could, because I believe strongly in ballot access. It is yet another thing that turns my stomach about win at all cost Republicans, that they think this type of thing is okay.
With a majoirty to win requirement in place, no one is hurt by open ballots, save lousy self serving candidates who have no business in office in the first place.
Comments on this entry are closed.