Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Tully's New Take On Residency Concerns

When it came to Charlie White's residency problems, it was all black and white with Matt Tully. He thought White was a "poor lost soul" and an "ill-equipped, felony charged embarrassment of a secretary of state" who deserved to be removed from office when he tried to defend his decision to register to vote at his ex-wife's home for a several month period while he was in between homes and tried pointing out that other prominent Indiana politicians like Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar were the ones who had truly flaunted the state's residency laws. Now that the residency issue helped sink the career of his favorite Indiana politician, Richard Lugar, and a political come back for David McIntosh, Tully has a new found view of the residency issue.
Am I the only one getting tired of all the residency issues facing Indiana politicians? . . .
This isn't a new issue, and in the past it often hasn't exacted a price. Evan Bayh moved to the state in the 1980s to launch his political career, and Dan Coats moved here in 2010 to relaunch his. Both did so with spectacular success.
But some voters seem to have finally had enough and, last week, they rejected the candidacies of at least two politicians who struggled to explain their residential ties to the state.
As with every issue, though, this one is leading to political opportunism . . .
Those laws are conveniently liberal in their description of what it takes to run for office. They have allowed candidates with few current ties to the state to claim their spots on the ballot and, in some cases, win election. But winning doesn't make it right.
Personally, I'm most concerned about the trend of former Indiana politicians moving back to the state solely to run for office, as opposed to those who spend a lot of time out East while serving in Congress . . .
With that in mind, and after so many issues in recent years, perhaps we should adopt a new rule: If you want to be elected by Hoosiers, there should be no doubt that you are one.
It's funny how Tully couldn't accept that there was anything "conveniently liberal" in the residency laws when applied to Charlie White. I don't know how any one with a conscience could think it was fair that White was criminally prosecuted, forced from office and stripped of his law license because of the great crime he supposedly committed in light of the circumstances of Lugar's and McIntosh's residency that came to light this year.


Anonymous said...

The voters appear to have thought that residency was important. The Founders seemed to think it was important.

Pete Boggs said...

Borders exist or they don't. Residents exist or they don't. If we really work at it, we can eliminate clocks & calendars. Why bother or confuse ourselves with the measurable?

Marycatherine Barton said...

Tully has a conscience?

Zuma said...

I realize that I am walking into the lion’s den, but some things need to be said:
Residency is trivial!
I would prefer being represented by an Alaska native who agrees with me to being represented by an Indiana native who believes the opposite.
Assume, for example, that Mr. Mourdock is elected to office. Mourdock will deliver rhetoric saying that he is voting the will of the people of Indiana. In reality, he will be voting the agenda of the Tea Party. Would the voting record of an Indiana tea partier be different from an Alaska tea partier? I think not. Are the laws of economics in Indiana different from everywhere else?
In an earlier time local representation made a significant difference. If your district needed a new post office, a good representative would get it done. Presently, however, earmarks have been abolished. Legislation will be about the general well being.
If you were looking for a politician who could bring home the bacon, I must point out that Mr. Lugar would have become the President Pro Tem of the Senate.
Washington, D.C. is 650 miles away. If Murdock is an effective representative, he will be voting there 5 days a week. He might legally be an Indiana resident, but he will be a de facto Washington resident.

I would also like to point out that in countries like the United Kingdom, there is no stigma to being a carpetbagger. Politicians publicly move to districts most likely to elect them.

Gary R. Welsh said...

President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate is strictly an honor bestowed on the Senator with the most seniority. No real power in the position. If Mourdock had a residency problem, you would be all about the issue, Zuma. It's an issue of convenience for some people; it's the rule of law for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Zuma, the issue is more than just residency. To me it is more about voter fraud and having one set of laws for us "folks" and another for career politicians. Ask Charlie White. And what about the sense of entitlement exhibited by Senator Lugar since his May 8th loss.