Michele Bachmann, who recently dropped out of the Presidential race, will run for re-election to her seat in Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District.
The district is likely to attain a different shape after expected redistricting prior to the election, which may affect the outcome of this and other nearby elections. The word on the street is that a very likely outcome would chop off the more liberal Stillwater section of the district, making the Sixth an easier win for Bachmann than it already is. The downside for Michele is that she lives in that part of the district, so she would have to either move (over to near my place!) to run in the Sixth, or stay in her new district and run against a popular Democrat, in the more urban and liberal Fourth District.
Bachmann declared her plans in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. The Republican congresswoman had been mum on her plans since folding her presidential campaign after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Wouldn’t that be sweet if she had to run against Betty McCollum?
That would shake things up. Michele would lose, and with her district open, anything could happen.
Aren’t there several Representatives that live in one of the neighbor districts? Can a state outlaw that for Federal office?
Actually, yes, I’m pretty sure now that I think about it that a US Representative only needs to live in the state, not the district. At the state level, one has to live in the area being represented. Members of US congress, however, are not constitutionally required at the federal level to live in their district, and the state of Minnesota does not provide a residency requirement, I think.
But she’d be running to represent a district she does not live in. That might get mentioned by anyone running against her, especially since she would be living in an upscale area and representing mainly working class areas. Yeah, that could get mentioned once or twice. Daily!
Maybe she’d swap houses with you? I guess it wouldn’t be a very good deal for you, though, since you’d have to burn hers to the ground to get rid of the “crazy” cooties, obviously.
Well this is one subject that I think 90 percent of all Minnesotans agree on. NO not only NO but hell no.
I am pretty sure that they have to live in the same district they represent, Greg. Taryl Clark moved to the 8th district in order to challenge Cravak.
I have not been able to find verification of that on the Secretary of State’s web site.
It’s possible that they live in their districts for customary reasons because it can be a political issue to be used against them if they live in another district.
Whoever runs into Richie first, ask and report back!
According to About.com, any residency requirement that supercedes or is more strict than the constitutional one is likely to get struck down by the Supreme Court
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/11/03/about-residency-requirements-for-congress.htm
So, the answer is no. One does not need to be a resident of the District they represent.