Senate Residency Requirement Amendment

[Gabu]

I just realized that the expiration of the seven-day requirement on the repeal of the Family Planning Amendments of 2004 leaves us with an open slot.

As introduced by Sen. Supersoulty:

Senate Residency Requirement Bill Amendment

Section 1

The Senate shall require that all persons wishing to run for either a Class A or Class B Senate seat must have been a legal resident of that region or district for at least 2 months prior to the election or appointment by the governor of that region.

I hereby open debate on this legislation.

[Gabu]

As a matter of point, this bill may be redundant due to a fact that has come to light since this bill's original proposition.

I informed Supersoulty that the Constitution did not place residency-time requirements on candidacy, but it does, to the tune of 10 days.

When Supersoulty sees this, tell me if you want this changed to a Constitutional Amendment or if you just want to scrap it.

[Gabu]

I agree that it is poorly written, but I think there is something we can still work with here.  What about a requirement that states that no one shall move from one district/region to another and run for the Senate, for two months.  Thus, all the newbies are covered.

How about this:

Section 1 is hereby stricken and replaced with the following:

Section 1

The Senate shall require that all non-newly registered persons who register to vote in a region or district, and who wish to run for either a Class A or a Class B Senate seat, must wait until they have resided in their new region or district for at least 2 months prior either to the election or to an appointment by the governor of that region.

[Gabu]

I agree that it is poorly written, but I think there is something we can still work with here.  What about a requirement that states that no one shall move from one district/region to another and run for the Senate, for two months.  Thus, all the newbies are covered.

How about this:

Section 1 is hereby stricken and replaced with the following:

Section 1

The Senate shall require that all non-newly registered persons who register to vote in a region or district, and who wish to run for either a Class A or a Class B Senate seat, must wait until they have resided in their new region or district for at least 2 months prior either to the election or to an appointment by the governor of that region.

I'll agree to that.

Okay, I officially introduce that amendment and open voting on it.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

---

Aye.

[Gabu]

Okay, okay, we'll halt closing for now.   I'm too used to opening voting immediately...

Anyways...

Section 1

The Senate shall require that all non-newly registered persons who re-register to vote in a different region or district, and who wish to run for either a Class A or a Class B Senate seat, must wait until they have resided in their new region or district for at least 2 months prior either to the election or to an appointment by the governor of that region.

How about that?

How about we remove the "re-" before "register" and add "than the one in which they currently reside" at the end?  The current wording of that bolded part is a little awkward, at least to me.

[Gabu]

Okay, so we currently have...

Section 1

The Senate shall require that all non-newly registered persons who register to vote in a different region or district than the one they currently reside in, and who wish to run for either a Class A or a Class B Senate seat, must wait until they have resided in their new region or district for at least 2 months prior either to the election or to an appointment by the governor of that region.

Anyone wanna make any comments?

[Gabu]

Judging from previous experience with the Supreme Court, we must write this clause to have such a tight intepretation that the best attorney in the country couldn't find his way around it.

Can you think of any way to get around it as it currently stands?

[Gabu]

I personally feel that it should be left up to the people whether or not they want to vote for a carpetbagger, but I nevertheless open debate on Peter Bell's amendment, introduced by Sen. Sam Spade:

This Amendment shall not have effect upon those persons who moved prior to the passage of this Amendment.

[Gabu]

Aye, though I agree and second what both Sens. King and Gabu have said on this bill in general.

I said I open debate, not voting.  Let's not make Peter Bell angry; he gets scary when he's angry.

[Gabu]

As there isn't really any debate, I hereby open voting on this amendment:

This Amendment shall not have effect upon those persons who moved prior to the passage of this Amendment.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

[Gabu]

Aye.

With six in favor to none against, and with one abstaining, this amendment has passed.

[Gabu]

Okay, here is the amendment in its final form:


Senate Residency Requirement Amendment

Section 1

The Senate shall require that all non-newly registered persons who register to vote in a different region or district than the one they currently reside in, and who wish to run for either a Class A or a Class B Senate seat, must wait until they have resided in their new region or district for at least 2 months prior either to the election or to an appointment by the governor of that region.

Section 2

This Amendment shall not have effect upon those persons who moved prior to the passage of this Amendment.

I hereby open voting on this amendment.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

---

Nay.

[Gabu]

This amendment now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Gabu]

This amendment now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

We still need on more Aye:

Aye 1
Nay 4
Abstain 1

It's a constitutional amendment; 4 out of 9 is 44% against, and constitutional amendments only need greater than 33% against.

[Gabu]

I'm surprised this doesn't have more support than it does.  It's the best deterrent against carpet-bagging I can think of.

Personally, I don't feel that the federal government needs to institute a deterrent against carpetbagging.  The people in the region or district that the person is running in should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow a carpetbagger to represent them.

[Gabu]

Wow... I never thought that such a common sense provision was going to fail.

If it's "such a common sense provision", can you give an answer to those who don't feel that the federal government needs to ban carpetbagging?  We've still got time for people to change their votes.

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

We should strive to make sure that it doesn't and one way that we could do that is by passing this.

If we had this in place, we wouldn't have had any good candidates to challenge NixonNow, or am I thinking of a different episode with King?

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

We should strive to make sure that it doesn't and one way that we could do that is by passing this.

If we had this in place, we wouldn't have had any good candidates to challenge NixonNow, or am I thinking of a different episode with King?

No, the same, but that misses the point, I think.  I misused a word here, I did not mean "right" so much as "acceptable" (a word I rarely use and does not figure prominantly in my vocab).  It was "acceptable" for King at the time, because there were so few contested races, there were no laws against it, and NixonNow was a well known and contraversial candidate.  But if we are going to set things right for the future, we cannot accept this anymore.

All this sets a bad precedent, regardless of the outcome of the race.

Well, I still haven't gotten an answer to the question regarding why the residents of a certain district would not be better at figuring out who they want to represent them than the federal government.  It seems to me that this bill would prevent people in a region from getting the representative that they really want purely because there are no good candidates.  If there is a good candidate from the region and someone tries to carpetbag, wouldn't it be simple enough for them to simply not elect the carpetbagger?

[Gabu]

Well, it doesn't look like anyone else is paying attention, so it's not like my changing my vote would affect anything, anyway.

24 hours is (very) up; with five votes against to one in favor, and with one abstaining, this amendment has failed.