In the wake of the May 7 Mount Pleasant City Council election, we’d like to make some observations and one suggestion as a result of the mudslinging and recriminations that accompanied the campaign.
Every time there is a local election – in any city and any place in the U.S. – the worst aspects of small town back stabbing and back biting comes into play. Petty gossip becomes political propaganda.
Anything that can make a candidate look bad will be gossiped about by the friends of his opponents.
A lot of this gossip and back stabbing is like the exchanges between ex-spouses – no one is going to say anything positive about the other one, but instead they only make the worst accusations and insinuations about each other.
There were a number of gossip campaigns in Mount Pleasant leading up to the recent vote, and today we want to address one of them, regarding the subject of residency.
Two of the three incumbent city council members were defeated, and the subject of residency was raised behind the scenes against one of the ultimately defeated office-holders.
This charge started from the morass of one of the greatest causes of small town gossip – divorce. The allegation was that the council member didn’t live in the city any more, and in fact his place of residence – where he is registered to vote – was now owned by his ex-wife.
If he had been successful in his run for re-election, his ability to serve probably would have been challenged, but as it is, the question of his residency dies with his defeat.
This controversy gives us one of those so-called “teachable moments” on the subject of residency.
First off, in the case of the Mount Pleasant City Council, the seats are elected by place but not district, which means that – aside from actually living in the city limits – there is no more specific residency requirement.
Of course, people claim Mount Pleasant as their home if they have the Mount Pleasant zip code, but for the purposes of representing the taxpayers on the city council, you need to be a city taxpayer yourself.
In Texas, where many counties have vast areas of unincorporated land, that’s an important distinction. One very common reason for someone to leave a city council is because they built a new house or moved to a new house outside the city limits.
The fact a school district is a totally different governmental entity from a city contributes to the ongoing confusion. School districts in Texas are “independent” of municipalities, which is why they are called ISDs – independent school districts.
Here’s a little side note: The residency requirement for being a member of Congress is in the U.S. Constitution, and it only requires someone live in the same state as the district they represent.
Someone who lives in El Paso can run for Congress representing Texarkana, for all it matters.
Lou Gigliotti, who’s run in the Republican Primary for Congress the last three times, said while he was on the campaign trail this year that after he first ran against Ralph Hall in 2012, the western boundary for the district in the Rockwall area was shifted so his house was now outside the district.
Which, as he noted, didn’t stop him from running for the seat again – and again.
Many people own more than one house, and where someone’s residency is for the purposes of voting and holding office calls into play the concept of the “domicile”.
From the same Latin root as “dormitory”, it means the place where you lay your head at night. Sometimes it’s a bit arbitrary, but for legal purposes you need to pick one place as your "official" home.
You can’t be registered to vote in two different places, and your domicile is what determines your eligibility to serve in an office with a geographic requirement.
Often, whether someone’s domicile is challenged depend on the political climate. In big cities where the Democratic Party has a stranglehold on local offices in poverty-stricken areas, few local officials actually live in the districts they represent.
They have an official domicile in their district, but usually live some place nicer. No one is going to challenge their residency, it’s not like the Republicans could win, anyway.
In the case of the Mount Pleasant city council member, if he had won again and his residency was challenged, it would take some investigating to determine whether he was indeed ineligible, and could potentially turn of matters such as what did he own when, and indeed, whether the actual property owner gave his (or her) permission for him to be registered to vote at that address.
Remember, there is no property requirement to vote or hold office. People who rent or live at home are as eligible to vote and serve in office as anyone.
In light of how potentially complicated any challenge to his candidacy would have been, it seems some people played it smart and let it ride on the assumption he wouldn’t win anyway – which proved to be the case.
Mount Pleasant is a home rule city with its own charter. If the voters wanted to make a statement on this subject, they could add a provision that the city secretary be tasked with verifying residency eligibility for each candidate that runs for the city council.
But really, this hasn't seemed to be an ongoing problem, and only rose to prominence because of this one candidates who should have had the sense to retire with a little dignity.
Next time, we’ll discuss the subject of candidates who have tickets from the city or aren’t current on their property taxes – which is another long and drawn out subject itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment