Congress candidates address irrelevant

A couple of postelection letters suggest that if Democrats in the 6th Congressional District slate another candidate who does not reside in the district in 2010, then that candidate will again lose the election. The inference is, after losses in 2006 and 2008, Democrats should learn their lesson and pick a candidate who lives in the district. During both election cycles, narrow-minded negative ads emphasized that the Democratic candidate "doesn't even live in the district" and had a creepy "she isn't like us" feel to them. We never learned what special advantage, knowledge or abilities the candidate who lived within in the district had over the candidates who lived outside the district.

The U. S. Constitution does not require House representatives to reside in their district. Our founding fathers were wise enough to realize that the boundaries of congressional districts would change with both time and population shifts. Where a candidate lives is about the stupidest reason to vote or not vote for that candidate, especially in a federal election. This might make more sense if the election were for a state or local office, but it isn't required even in those cases.

In 2006, Tammy Duckworth lived a mile outside the 6th Congressional District. Her town, Hoffman Estates, is divided into two different districts. Tammy would have probably moved into the 6th District, had her home (outside the district) not been renovated and retrofitted to accommodate the injuries she suffered in Iraq. In 2008, the same tired "she doesn't live in the district" ads came out against Jill Morgenthaler. She and her husband bought a house in the 6th District, lived there, but the borders of the 6th District were redrawn. It happens all the time. The 6th District is becoming incredibly diverse. It may be necessary again for Democrats to look outside the district to find a candidate who reflects and embraces this diversity.

Diane Niesman

Wheaton