By Steven Kurlander
Throughout American history, there have been controversies about the fulfillment-and necessity of fundamental constitutional prerequisites that a candidate must meet to run for political office.
Perhaps the most famous controversy in our time was whether President Obama actually was born in the US, one of the basic requirements to hold the office of the presidency specified by Article II of the US Constitution. After years of persistent attacks from a crazed “birther” movement which alleged he was born in Kenya, the president eventually produced in 2011 a Hawaiian “certificate of live birth” to finally show he was born on American soil and put to rest, for most, this debate.
But the true, fundamental question that arose from this controversy was not whether Obama was a natural born US citizen, but if it is fair or wise that a nation of immigrants precludes its naturalized American citizens from being president.
Another fundamental requirement that is universal in the American political system is that candidates must meet certain residency requirements when they qualify to run for office.
And earlier this week, a controversy over a Florida’s state senator’s “residency” once again brought the question of whether a politician should be required to actually live in his or her district, or even if in the 21stcentury if there should be any residency requirements at all.
State Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, chairman of the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee, charged this week that Senator Maria Sachs uses the address of a condominium owned by Judith Stern, a Broward political consultant, and her daughter, as her means of establishing residency in her district-and was “violating the law.”
Latvala accused Sachs of actually living on a 5 acre equestrian estate with her husband near Boca Raton and that she rented Stern’s condo solely for the purposes of running in and serving the district she now represents in the Florida Senate.
Sachs had a simple retort to the allegations. She told The Miami Herald, “I have fully met the requirements of the law regarding legal residency in District 34.”
Practically speaking, the residency of a politician has never stopped some very prominent politicians from running in districts or states where they never even lived. Residency requirements are often very minimal, compelling a candidate to be registered to vote in the district they are running in and that they declare their “domicile” there.
Remember Hillary Clinton’s quick move to New York to run for the Senate. It only took her 30 days of living in haughty Westchester County to allow her to qualify to run for office and win office there.
Interestingly enough, the US constitution does not mandate that a congressman live in the district he or she represents, but only that they live in the state they are elected from. That allowed former Congressman Allen West to live in his arch nemeses Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s district while representing an adjacent district and to engage in cat fights with her from there.
West dismissed criticism about his residency at the time: “I don’t think it should be a concern to voters. The Constitution just says you have to live in the state you’re running in at the time of the election,” he said. “I don’t see myself as some kind of carpetbagger.”
And West was right. We are not living in the 1800s anymore. In this day and age of electronic communication and quick, instantaneous mobility, politicians can in fact truly relate to voters and represent an election district well without actually physically living there.
In this day and age, politicians really don’t have to live in a district to respond to the needs of the people they represent there. And in terms of understanding and empathizing with a district’s quirks and history, the evolution of the US into a homogenous culture and society has really eliminated such a concern..
So what true difference would it really make if Sachs moved her husband and horses to her district, other than to make her commute to Tallahassee a little bit longer?
Like the president’s pedigree, the residency of Senator Sachs should not be a constitutional issue or a political one either. If our founding fathers did not find it necessary that a Congressman live in the district he serves, then the constitutional residency requirements in the Florida constitution, and in other states, may be overly restrictive, particularly these days.
Surely Sachs spends more than enough time in her district, and communicating with her constituency by PDA, computer, and telephone too, to do her job without the requirement that she truly sleep there every night too.
In the end, as West put it, voters aren’t really concerned about where their representatives live, and neither should Senator Latvala be too.
you should have to live in your district to represent it – for real
It is interesting and noteworthy that this practice is all too common. I like bumping into my Rep in the grocery or at the office supply store. It makes her real. I like knowing that my Senator lives around the corner so I can take the dog there to do his business. But the obnoxious nature of these rules can come to light when one looks at Orlando. Mayor Dyer did not like an opponent who lived outside of Orlando a few years back, so he applied a “one year of residency prior to qualifying” rule (probably unconstitutional) to Mayoral Candidates and got the City Council to approve it by offering them the same protections for their council Districts. Implemented with force, this rule disqualified some good potential candidates when it was enforced by demands of proof of residency, including electric bills, etc. Citizens should be able to run and represent the Districts they wish to represent and if the voters elect them, great. We force good politicians to pretend to be living where they don’t live and then ask why they don’t tell us the truth. Good editorial.
Sachs is a crook and Berman to use the fake address for her campaign is also wrong. No one says a word. Palm Beach and Miami are the most corrupt…especially South Palm Beach County.
I must disagree with the writer, as well as Mr. Head. I prefer the ability to hire (elect) someone from my district, who is familiar with the district, its people, its businesses, and just as important, the district’s true needs. I am tired of seeing professional politicians attempting to run, outside of their own district, just because party politics dictates the rules of who it’s okay to run against or not. The reason ANY politician doesn’t tell the truth, Mr. Head, is simply because they are liars, and only God knows what else! If a person running for office of a certain district doesn’t want to follow the established rules, that candidate should not be allowed in the race. If they do run, and later found out that they actually filed false election papers, under oath (a felony), they should be prosecuted. Period. The more people in Florida stand up and take a position, the much better we will all be!
Thanks for your marvelous posting! I truly enjoyed reading it, you might be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will often come back from now on. I want to encourage that you continue your great writing, have a nice afternoon!|