Lauren Boebert Switches Districts

[applegrove]

Lauren Boebert Switches Districts

December 27, 2023 at 9:00 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 218 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2023/12/27/lauren-boebert-switches-districts/

"SNIP..........

“Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) announced Wednesday night that she is ditching her reelection bid next year in Colorado’s 3rd congressional district to run instead in the state’s 4th congressional district, which is on the other side of the state and is far more favorable to Republicans,” the Colorado Sun reports.

“The 3rd district leans 9 percentage points in Republicans’ favor while the 4th district leans 27 points toward the GOP.”

Said Boebert, in a Facebook video: “I did not arrive at this decision easily. A lot of prayer, a lot of tough conversations and a lot of perspective convinced me that this is the best way I can continue to fight for Colorado, for the conservative movement and for my children’s future.”

........SNIP"

[dchill]

1. As Bugs Bunny said, "What a load."

[Wonder Why]

70. and "What a maroon!"

[Deuxcents]

2. Does she live in that district or is she moving..

Isn’t there residency requirements? Does she have any experience with the citizens of that district?

[Celerity]

3. you only have to live in the same State

[Deuxcents]

5. I know Senators can live in any district but a Rep?

[Celerity]

7. House members do not have to live in the District they represent nt

[Ms. Toad]

8. In Colorado, they only have to live in the state.

From a year and a half ago:

https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/some-colorado-congressional-candidates-dont-live-in-districts-theyd-represent/

[Celerity]

11. Not just CO, it is the same for all 50 States. You do not have to live in the District you represent.

https://www.knkx.org/post/why-dont-congressional-candidates-have-live-districts-they-seek-represent

To run for office, you have to meet certain criteria. If you're a candidate for the United States House of Representatives, you have to be at least 25 years old and have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years.

But there's no requirement that you live in the congressional district you are vying to represent.

It's Spelled Out In The Constitution

University of Washington political science professor George Lovell says when it comes to residency for congressional candidates, there is just one requirement.

“The U.S. Constitution just requires that the person be a resident of the state,” Lovell said.

of course multiple states only have one unitary statewide district as well

[Deuxcents]

13. Thank you and Ms Toad. I have long believed Reps were elected from their districts.

Why the gerrymandering, then? I live on the west coast of Florida and I can get elected to represent a district in the panhandle? I’m always learning something here

[Celerity]

17. Gerrymandering is to gain a partisan advantage. Also, House districts are often redrawn, so it

would put a real burden on some reps to perhaps have to move everytime their home is drawn out of their district.

[Deuxcents]

21. I just looked up requirements for House of Representatives

I have long been mistaken about this one..I would be embarrassed except that I’m glad to learn about this. And I’ve read the Constitution multiple times! Thanks for the lesson and lessons I’ve learned here 🙏

[Celerity]

29. yw, and another misconception I see many have is that a POTUS and VPOTUS cannot be from the same State.

They can be, but with the caveat that the Electoral College Votes from their home state can only go to one of them.

Unless a POTUS candidate thinks they will have a monster EV win wherein their home state EVs do not matter to get to 270 (including for their VP, as the home state electors will vote for the POTUS of course) plus they also would have to be unsure that their Party would control the Senate, who would vote for VP if no VP gets to 270) they never risk it.

[Deuxcents]

34. I never thought about that scenario, I guess because it's never happened

I’m gonna read the 12th amendment now that you brought it up..I’m checking now

[LeftInTX]

53. States can make their own laws though about where they want their state reps and state senators to reside

However, congress is determined by federal law

[Ms. Toad]

16. You appear to be correct.

I remember representatives moving from one district to another in Ohio to switch districts when district boundary lines were redrawn putting two representatives in the same district, so I thought there were state-imposed restrictions. But if there are, I can't find them.

[Celerity]

20. you cannot find them because they would be unconstitutional

Article I

Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

[Ms. Toad]

26. It is not an area of constitutional law that I've studied.

The provisions you quoted are exclusions from eligibility, not an exclusive list of eligibility requirements, nor does the text of the constitution expressly exclude other requirements. The quick search I ran indicated that there are states which do impose some requirements (above and beyond the list of exclusions). But, as I said, residency within the district does not appear to be among them.

I qualified my answer because my quick search did not include a review of cases analyzing what kind of added requirements a state is permitted to include.

[Celerity]

37. see this for list (from mid 2017) of House members who are outside their districts

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218557117#post32

also

you said

nor does the text of the constitution expressly exclude other requirements

you can only add requirements for or bars from office via a Constitutional Amendment (such as the 14th)

[Ms. Toad]

40. As I indicated, my quick search did run across states which had added requirements.

So it is obviously possible to add some requirements (other than 14th amendment requirements), and I did not research the nature of limitations on added requirements to determine why certain added requirement were permitted and others not.

And, while I agree that states apparently cannot add residential requirements, a list of a handful of states (but fewer than all states) with legislators living outside of their district doesn't prove that any more than my quick search did.

If you really want me to absolutely agree with you, feel free to provide me with case citations to cases performing a constitutional analysis of the issue that prove your point. I'm just not interested in spending that much time on this question.

[Celerity]

42. I already provided 'case closed' documentation, I cannot believe you are still requesting more

you said

If you really want me to absolutely agree with you, feel free to provide me with case citations to cases performing a constitutional analysis of the issue that prove your point.

That is quintessential sea lioning.

I provided you the exact requirements as laid out in the US Constitution.

You cannot change requirements or add bars for elective Federal office without a Constitutional Amendment.

Individual States do not have the right to do either (add additional requirements or add additional bars).

Why?

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Ms. Toad]

48. I am perfectly fine with my level of (un)certainty

I don't live in Colorado. Even if I did, it is clear there are no barriers in Colorado to living outside of the District. If it comes up in Ohio at some point it may be worth an investment of my time to reach a higher level of certainty. At the moment, it simply isn't.

You, on the other hand, seem disturbed that I am not absolutely certain that states cannot impose an additional residency requirement. If it bothers you that I'm not absolutely certain, I've let you know what you need to in order to change my level of certainty. The only way to resolve constitutional law questions is by interpretation via the courts, not by quoting constitutional language, not by listing a handful of states in which representatives have lived out of district, and not by lay explanations. I haven't seen court interpretations of that provision yet. They may well be out there - I simply didn't feel any need to do that level of research.

If it is so important to you that I have absolute clarity, go find a court interpretation and give me the case citation (or even case name and court). I'll be happy to review the case (and cases it leads me to) and - if it supports your assertion I'll agree with you without any qualification.

[Celerity]

51. there is no uncertainty, unless Clarence Thomas (who wrote the dissent in Thornton) finally gets his way

ArtI.S2.C2.3 Ability of States to Add Qualifications for Members

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C2-3/ALDE_00013373/

Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

In 1969, the Supreme Court established in Powell v. McCormack that Congress may not consider qualifications other than those set forth in the Constitution when judging whether Members-elect qualified for Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 1. In 1995, the Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton extended its findings in Powell to prohibit states from imposing qualification requirements on congressional membership.

The Supreme Court’s Thornton holding was consistent with long-established congressional practice not to weigh state-added qualifications when considering whether a Member-elect qualified for a congressional seat. For instance, in 1807, the House seated a Member-elect although he was in violation of a state law requiring Members of Congress to have resided in their congressional districts for at least twelve months, the House resolving that the state requirement was unconstitutional.

In Thornton, Arkansas, along with twenty-two other states, limited the number of terms that Members of Congress could serve. Reexamining Powell and its articulation of the ‘basic principles of our democratic system,’ the Thornton Court reaffirmed that the qualifications for service in Congress set forth in the Constitution are ‘fixed,’ in that Congress may not supplement them. Powell, the Court found, however, did not conclusively resolve the Thornton issue as to whether, during the framing of the Constitution, the states had retained power to add qualification requirements for membership in Congress. Recognizing that the Framers clearly intended for the Constitution to be the exclusive source of congressional qualifications, the Court reasoned that even if states had possessed some original power in this area, they had ceded that power to the Federal Government. The Court, however, held that the power to add qualifications is not within the ‘original powers’ of the States, and thus not reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

Both the Thornton majority and dissent hinged their analyses on whether states had power to impose additional qualification requirements on candidates for Congress and, if so, whether they had ceded such power when they ratified the Constitution. To this end, the Court explored the Constitution’s text, drafting, and ratification, as well as early congressional and state practices. Observing that state powers were either (1) reserved by states from the Federal Government under the Constitution or (2) delegated to states by the Federal Government, the majority reasoned that states had no reserved powers that emanated from the Federal Government. Quoting Justice Joseph Story, the Court noted: '[S]tates can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution does not delegate to them. . . . No state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed.’ Because states had no powers to legislate on the Federal Government prior to the Nation’s Founding and the Constitution did not delegate to states power to prescribe qualifications for Members of Congress, the Court held the states did not have such power.

In contrast, the dissent reasoned that the Constitution precluded states only from exercising powers delegated to the Federal Government, either expressly or implicitly, or which the states had agreed not to exercise themselves. Consequently, states retained all other powers. The dissent stated Where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power-that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication-the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it. Accordingly, the dissent reasoned, the Constitution’s silence on whether states could impose additional qualifications meant the states retained this power.

Thornton reaffirmed that any change to qualifications for membership in Congress cannot come from state or federal law, but only through the amendment process set forth in Article V of the United States Constitution. Six years later, the Court relied on Thornton to invalidate a Missouri law requiring that labels be placed on ballots alongside the names of congressional candidates who had disregarded voters’ instruction on term limits or declined to pledge support for term limits.

The Supreme Court has distinguished state requirements for appearing on a ballot as a third-party candidate from qualification requirements for membership in Congress. In Storer v. Brown, the Court noted that a California law setting criteria to be listed as a third-party candidate did not violate Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs would not have been disqualified if they had been nominated at a party primary or by an adequately supported independent petition and then elected at the general election. As such, the Court recognized that state requirements for being listed on the ballot was consistent with the state’s interest in ensuring that a candidate listed on a ballot is a serious contender.

[Ms. Toad]

56. Well that was an interesting read (or at least skim). Thank you.

You are correct that, under Thornton, states cannot impose additional requirements - other than ballot access requirements.

But that 5-4 opinion should make it clear why I was unwilling to rely on a simple textual analysis of a provision of the constitution to settle the matter. The opinion and the dissent both did a deep dive into the history surrounding the drafting of the provisions - and the (theoretically) best legal minds in the country were still nearly evenly split. (And, Thomas, the only member of the current court who participated in the opinion was in the dissent - and he is now in the majority.)

There are lots of bits and pieces of that opinion that may be relevant to current events that I do care about (including an unqualified statement that the president is a federal officer). So I've bookmarked it for a more thorough read later.

[Silent Type]

28. Thanks. Never really thought about it, but the district is voting for person they

think best represents them, at least theoretically. In practice, I think living in district gives most candidates a boost.

[Celerity]

32. From mid 2017: At least 21 members of the House are registered to vote outside their districts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/04/21/at-least-20-members-of-the-house-are-registered-to-vote-outside-their-districts/

In addition to the four House members from Florida — Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R), Ted Deutch (D), Mario Diaz-Balart (R) and Alcee Hastings (D) — the following members of Congress are registered to vote outside of their districts.

California: Reps. Tom McClintock (R), Grace Napolitano (D), Juan Vargas (D), Mimi Walters (R) and Maxine Waters (D)

Maryland: Rep. John Delaney (D)

Michigan: Rep. John Conyers (D)

Minnesota: Rep. Jason Lewis (R)

North Carolina: Rep. George Holding (R)

Nevada: Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D)

New York: Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D)

Texas: Reps. Will Hurd (R) and Lloyd Doggett (D)

Virginia: Rep. Donald McEachin (D)

Washington: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D)

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.). Represents the 4th District; registered in the 2nd.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.). Represents the 3rd District; registered in the 5th.

[treestar]

38. It would be tough for them to win

What voters would want someone who doesn’t live in the district??

[Celerity]

45. In CO-4 (the district in question) Ken Buck himself did not live in the district. He was registered in CO-2 at least

part of, if not all of, his multiple terms.

[treestar]

54. So it's that district that would

I was thinking that whatever republican has that seat would not just step aside? So she would at least have to win a primary against an incumbent.

[Celerity]

58. Buck is leaving, so no incumbent

[treestar]

79. Oh ok

Sounds like a free for all.

[Takket]

15. she doesn't even have any experience with the citizens in the district she is in NOW

well... except for that guy in the theater

[BOSSHOG]

4. There are more movie houses in her new district

More opportunities to reach out to the voters.

[Kaleva]

31. Lol!

[tanyev]

33. It's the personal touch that really counts.

[IronLionZion]

78. She likes the hands on approach

The Boebert touch is up close and personal

[diva77]

6. Isn't that Ken Buck's district? He's not running again due to people like Boebert!

article about current candidates for the 4th. Seems it's heavily weighted for rethugs, altho. there are some Dems running:

https://www.cpr.org/2023/11/28/whos-running-for-colorados-fourth-congressional-district/

SNIP
Democrats:

Karen Breslin: An Elbert County resident, Breslin is a lawyer and political science instructor at the University of Colorado Denver. She said her campaign is focused on economic fairness. In a video announcement, she said “I’m deeply concerned about the inequities that rural communities experience around things like maternal health care, lack of food security…that too is something that government policy can address.”

Breslin ran unsuccessfully to challenge Michael Bennet for the Democratic nomination in 2022, raising under $5,000 for that endeavor. She filed to run in CO-04 in September but did not file a recent campaign finance report.

Ike McCorkle: This is McCorkle’s third try for the seat. The former Marine faced off against Buck in 2020 and 2022, losing each time by double digits in this solidly red district. He said he’s running to “represent and fight for working families.”

On his campaign website, McCorkle said “trust and confidence in government must be restored… He will listen to Colorado’s citizens, will turn aside improper and immoral financial offers, and will fight for what is best for Colorado, America, and the world.”

As of September 30, McCorkle has more than $160,000 in campaign cash on hand.

John Padora, Jr.: He filed his paperwork to run earlier this year. Padora describes himself as a manufacturing engineer, addiction recovery advocate, and progressive. He’s also been public about his experiences as a recovering drug addict.

Padora said he’s a working-class person who will fight for working families and Coloradans, “not special interests in DC or companies based out of other states.” He added he thinks he can do better than other Democratic primary candidates to motivate the base and create support.

He recently moved to Severance, Colorado, from Pennsylvania, where he ran unsuccessfully for the statehouse in 2020. As of September 30, he had just over $1,500 in campaign cash on hand.
SNIP

[marble falls]

9. It was the only way she could resolve the disatisfaction of her constituency. Become a carpet bagger.

[vapor2]

10. FOR HER CHILDREN???

[NJCher]

55. How does she

Even deliver a line like that with a straight face?

Is that side of CO trumper republicans or old school republicans? Cuz the disgust over her behavior was statewide. Doubt there are many old school left.

I only ask because we have some here. They will sit it out before they vote for trump.

[lame54]

12. Lose that seat for us too

[33taw]

72. That is pretty much ranch country and solid republican. She can lose the primary though.

[Takket]

14. "A lot of prayer"

This is rethug speak for "huddling with my public relations team and asking them what to say"

[applegrove]

18. Ask them about Jesus and do they love him and support

his words and actions at every turn.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

64. Do you really want them to answer that

Because plenty of traitor thugs would be okay with torturing people forever for disagreeing with them--just like the christian demigod promises.

IOW, be careful what you wish for. Especially when the answer won't be what you wish it were.

[applegrove]

74. Make them say it out loud they do not support the Jesus

who is about love.

[Docreed2003]

19. BINGO!

Meaningless rhetoric that will "appeal" to her evangelical base

[leftieNanner]

77. Because I REALLY want to keep that sweet paycheck

And I want to stay in Congress long enough to earn a pension.

Think that about covers her "prayers"?

[dalton99a]

22. The woman needs a job

[rubbersole]

50. As a keyless lock salesperson...

Her theater companion was teaching her how to dial a combination lock on her nipples. 🤏🔒

[Takket]

23. "usually when she leaves a seat it's because the usher asked"

LOL That come from a person on Bluesky, have to give them credit for it.

[Takket]

24. Bobo has her work cut out for her running agianst this nut case.........

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218556959

[Cha]

35. TY Takket.. guess groupert would

rather face TL than Adam Frisch.. Why else would she be high tailing it out of D 3?.

[C_U_L8R]

25. How to lose two districts in one election.

Way to go, Bozo.

[Emile]

27. She must have found a gerrymandered district

favorable to anyone with the magic R next to their name.

[niyad]

47. CO-4 is r+27. CO-3 (her current) is r+9.7

[Cha]

30. Shut UP, Groper. Liar. Chicken Shit..

Adam Frisch!

[SoFlaBro]

46. She isa group groper and a fucking piece of shit. She is a motherfucking lie once again.

[MerryBlooms]

36. A lot of prayers and hand jobs went into this decision!

I'm on my knees for whoever it takes to get this done. Amen.

[Blue Owl]

39. How very whorish

[Schmice3]

41. Carpetbagger?

[onenote]

61. Really? There are quite a few Democrats who don't live in the district they represent.

I would never think to call Maxine Waters a "carpetbagger".

As much as we might dislike it, Boebert's decision is a politically astute one.

[Hassler]

43. Switching husbands, switching districts, it's all

In a day's grift for Boe Boe.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

44. This will be a very active GOP primary

Boebert was on track to lose the primary in her old district. It would be fun to see her lose the primary in the new district

[rubbersole]

49. Can't image the repubs in CO-4 thought this was a positive idea.

[onenote]

62. Why not. It's a deep red district.

[rubbersole]

71. But not a red light district. 😜

[Norbert]

52. Switching districts can be...

Okay, bad example. lol

Link to tweet

[NJCher]

57. Whatever it takes

To get back into a job with bennies and a salary they could never approximate elsewhere.

Angertainment: that is brilliant.

[onenote]

63. In the end, he changed his mind and ran for reelection in the 11th district

His decision was all but forced by redistricting decisions that made his other options less viable.

He ended up losing the primary in his old district anyway.

[SoFlaBro]

59. She is a filthy, nasty fucking scumbag. Such a lowlife, slicked-back shitbird.

[Emile]

60. +1 Now how do you really feel? LOL

[ecstatic]

65. District shopping? I'm surprised that's allowed. Nt

[SocialDemocrat61]

66. A loss for the 4th district

But a gain for OnlyFans. 😉

[Mr. Mustard 2023]

67. Men - Say Lauren Boebert Once...

....and Lauren will shake your hand.

Say Lauren Boebert twice and she'll flash you her boobs.

Say Lauren Boebert three times and she will give you a hand job.

Then talk about her family values and devout "Christian" faith.

[IronLionZion]

68. Dems can pick up CO-3 then

Since CO-4 is dark red. She can go jackin the beanstalk somewhere else. Since books are what is really hurting children, not public groping and vaping smoke in the face of pregnant women and generally deplorable political policies.

[onenote]

75. We probably had a better chance of picking it up with Boebert running

It's a repub leaning district that only was close in 2022 because she is such a disaster.

If, and its a big if, she wins the primary in the 4th district, she'll win the general. If she loses the primary in the 4th district, the repub that wins will take the general.

In short, this move makes it less likely we can pick up the Colorado 3rd district seat and doesn't make it likely we can pick up the 4th district seat.

[SouthernDem4ever]

69. So now we get to see how completely stupid the voters in District 4 can be

if they vote her in.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

73. Well Ken Buck ain't happy Boebert is fleeing to take his seat.

Link to tweet

[quakerboy]

76. So your saying we have a chance to pick up two reps in colorado?

I'll take additional currently republican held house seats up for grabs any day.

Only downside is then theres no boebert for news articles. IF we lose her and margie and a few others, the republicans might actually be able to successfully pretend to be bland and inoffensive while doing their usual offensive things.