Ex-representative Traficant, who was removed from congress and sentenced to serve a few years in prison, has threatened to run for Representative.
What would happen if the people in his district elected him? Would they have to let him out to serve as a Congressman? Would he have to return to prison once Congress goes out of session?
can’t happen. in order for him to run he has to registar to vote. but you can not vote if he has been convicted of…treason, a felony, embezzlement of public funds, bartering or selling his vote or purchasing the vote of another, or of any other infamous crimes wich have resulted in the loss of the rights of citizenship.
Even if he’s not disenfranchised under Ohio law, he’s got two other obstacles to get over:
(1) He has to be a resident of the district. Unless his jail cell happens to be in the district, he cannot be elected by his old district.
(2) Even if his cell is in his district, or if he’s out on Election day, the House would probably refuse to seat him (as is in their power to do so).
Zev Steinhardt
Wasn’t there a congressman from Harlem who was elected (or was it just served) while in prison? I’m spacing on his name right now.
I believe that 4 states allow people in prison to vote. IIRC, Vermont is one of them.
So let’s say, for example, that a guy in prison in a state which lets felons vote wins the election. Let’s further assume that the house seats him (we’re stretching things here, so bear with me).
What then? 
At least then we know he’s a crook.
At least then we know he’s a crook who’s been caught.
It has happened here in Britain.
Bobby Sands, IRA terrorist and hunger striker was elected to parliament.
He couldn’t take his seat (academic as Sinn Feinn don’t take seats in the British Parliament) and he died shortly afterwards. As a serving MP his wife was entitled to death benefits.
Couple of thoughts:
the_duke: why would a person have to register to vote in order to be able to be elected? There’s been at least one president (Zachary Taylor) who never voted, and presumably never registered to do so, before his election.
I don’t know about local or congressional elections, but there have been at least two presidential elections where a candidate was in prison on election day: Victoria Woodhull in 1872, and Eugene Debs in 1920. (Granted, neither of them had a snowball’s chance in heck of actually getting elected; but after all, their names were permitted to remain on the ballot, thus theoretically allowing for this possibility.)
Yes, but as far as the Presidency goes, you only have to be residing in the U.S. Most U.S. prisons meet that requirement. In Trafficant’s case, however, he has to be residing in his district. Unless his prison cell is in his district, then he can’t run (unless he runs for the district where his prison cell is located).
Zev Steinhardt
Not to mention the perpetually hopeful Lyndon LaRouche.
And Zev, I don’t think that, legally, members of the House have to be from their districts, do they? They have to be legal residents of their state, I know, but I thought it was just traditional, and good political sense, for them to be from their districts.
That’s what led to some of the controversy over Bob Barr this election. After redistricting, his old district got split into parts of three districts. Some of his critics were upset that he chose to run in a new “safe” Republican district, which only contained 17% of his old district, instead of the one containing 70%.
This was not the first time.
Eamon de Valera was elected to the Westminster Parliament in a bye-election in January 1917 while in British custody for his role in the 1916 Rising. He was released in July 1917 but never took his seat in Westminster. He was rearrested subsequently, while still an MP.
Several other people were elected to Parliament between 1918 and 1921 while in prison. One of them, Terence McSwiney, who was also Lord Mayor of Cork, died on hunger strike in prison. Constance Markievicz acheived the distinction of being the first woman elected to the British Parliament in 1918; she was in Holloway prison at the time.
And, even before any of that, O’Donovan Rossa was elected an MP for Tipperary while in prison in 1869. He, however, was subsequently declared ineligible as a convicted felon.
The OP seems to assume that, if Rep. Traficant were to be re-elected he would be released from prison . This is certainly not what happened in the UK in any of these cases. Is there any reason to suppose that he would not just serve out his time in prison? Why should being re-elected change matters?
Telemark, you may be thinking of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., who represented Harlem in Congress and had several clashes with the law and the House leadership (IIRC, he was denied his seat at one point).
Telemark:
Adam Clayton Powell??
~VOW
Let’s not forget the infamous Mayor Curley of Boston, who I believe was reelected while in prison.
"Described by author Jack Beatty as ‘The Rascal King,’ James Curley (1874-1958) dominated Boston politics for half of the 20th century, serving as local councilor, mayor, governor and congressman, while also serving two prison terms. "
Zev - point well taken. I wasn’t thinking of the specific case of Traficant, though, just of the general hypothetical in the thread title.
Here’s the eligibility requirement for election to the House of Representatives:Article I, s. 2
Would a state be able to add a further requirement that a candidate must be a member of the district in question? Wouldn’t that be considered as an attempt to change the constitutional definition of elgibility?
Article I, s. 4 gives the states the power to regulate the elections:
but I wouldn’t think that power would extend to adding additional eligibility requirements?
As RedNaxela points out, you don’t need to be registered to vote in order to run for office.
In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), the Supreme Court held that the requirements expressly set forth in the Constitution are the exclusive limits on who is able to run for Congress (which limits don’t say anything about not being a convicted felon). On the other hand, the Court had held in earlier decisions that state law may prevent a felon from voting . See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974).
The undecided question seems to be what the Constitution means by "an inhabitant of that State. " If the term means something like “residence” or “domicile,” it would only require that you not have indicated an intent to move elsewhere, and would not require actual physical presence in the State in question. For example, someone serving in the military or away at college can still be a “resident” of Ohio, or claim Ohio “domicile” for many legal purposes, even though he or she may have been physically absent from the state for years. What matters is the intent to return to Ohio, and the failure to establish a new “residence” or “domicile” anywhere else. If that’s what the Constitution means, Traficant could probably claim to be an “inhabitant” of Ohio even while he’s locked up in Pa.
(I have to believe there’s some precedent on this point – for example, people who ran for Congress during World War II while serving in Europe or the Pacific.)
Of course, the whole issue is somewhat academic, as re-districting in Ohio probably means that even if Traficant is able to run, he’ll have to run in a new, larger district that’s a lot less taken with his “style.”
I believe that some states require you to live in the district you are representing, but not all of them.
I don’t believe that most parliamentary systems have such residency requirements. I don’t believe the UK does. You could live in England and represent a Northern Ireland riding.
But I would defer to someone who knows more.
In California, nearly every office that is elected by districts requires that the candidate be registered vote in that district.