IBJNews

Indiana tea partiers challenge Lugar residency

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Richard Lugar's tea party challenger stood Wednesday morning outside the Indianapolis home the Republican U.S. senator sold decades ago to make the case his opponent no longer has much to do with the state he represents.

State Treasurer Richard Mourdock's election-year charge is just the latest in a series of them levied by an unlikely alliance of Democrats and conservatives who have joined forces to argue the veteran senator has spent so much time in Washington, D.C., he has lost touch with Indiana. Both sides sense political vulnerability from the state's senior senator, once considered untouchable.

An Indiana tea partier filed voter fraud allegations against Lugar last December, claiming his official residency is now in Virginia and that he has committed fraud each time he has voted since selling his Indianapolis home in 1977. Hoosiers for Conservative Senate, a tea party umbrella group backing Mourdock, planned to petition Gov. Mitch Daniels Thursday to act on the complaint.

"I don't think he's been qualified for ballots in past years and of course again this year," said Monica Boyer, HFCS co-chair.

Boyer said she planned to ask Daniels to call a hearing of the state election commission to consider the allegations. Daniels, who has been mentored by Lugar throughout his career, dismissed that idea Wednesday.

During his news conference outside Lugar's former home, Mourdock called Lugar's residency in Virginia a violation of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that a senator be an "inhabitant" of the state they are representing when elected.

While nearly all members of Congress have living arrangements in the Washington, D.C., area, most also own homes or a rent apartments in the states they represent. Lugar typically stays in hotels when he returns to Indiana and no longer has a physical address in the state.

"We decided that when we have a campaign theme about the senator no longer being in touch with Indiana, the perfect place to kick off this campaign is here, in front of the house he once owned," Mourdock said.

Lugar spokesman David Willkie did not immediately return an email Wednesday from The Associated Press seeking comment.

Two Indiana attorneys general have maintained that elected officials serving in Washington do not need to live or maintain a home in Indiana to be a legal resident of the state.

"There is no requirement that a person maintain a house, apartment, or any fixed physical location," said then-Attorney General Linley Pearson in a 1982 opinion provided to Lugar ahead of his 1982 race. Attorney General Greg Zoeller has supported Pearson's interpretation of state law.

Conservative activist Greg Wright filed a complaint with the Indiana Election Commission in December alleging voter fraud by Lugar and his wife Charlene. But the commission, which weighs whether or not candidates make it on the state ballot, has not scheduled a hearing on the complaint.

Daniels said he wouldn't force the election commission to hear the complaint.

"Both the constitution and the statute are clear that (Lugar) is qualified as he's been for all his previous elections. We're going have a good, competitive election but he ought not try to end it on a technicality that really isn't legally valid," Daniels said.

Daniels cut his teeth time working with Lugar in the Indianapolis mayor's office and then followed him to Washington in 1977 as his chief of staff.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Civics
    Posey, as the kids say these days, chillax, man. I suggest you do take the time to research the issue. A good place to start would be Mr. Gary Welsh's blog:

    http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/

    A State Attorney General's interpretation of a State Constitution is trumped by the US Constitution. My understanding is it would come down to vote of the Senate to decide if the winner of a Senatorial election was an inhabitant of that state when the election was held if someone was ever challenged.

    I believe the last time the States tried to preempt the Federal government, Mr. Lincoln demonstrated who was in charge.
  • Indiana gets to decide
    Esta - Who decides who is an inhabitant of a State? I'll admit I have not researched the legal issues involved, but it seems intuitive to me that Indiana can decide who is and who is not a resident/inhabitant of Indiana and that the federal government would give enormous deference that determination - even though this is a US Constitutional determination. It is, after all, a matter of ensuring that the State is properly represented by an inhabitant of that State. So shouldn't the State have some say in who is eligible to represent it? Isn't it reasonable that we don't claim that our civil servants lose their residency by being called to serve a position that requires them to live full time outside of the State. Do you have some authority for your proposition that States cannot determine residency requirements for people who they elect to represent their own State, or is your whole argument that one of the country's longest serving and most distinguished senators should be removed based on name calling?
  • Civics
    Posey, go take a high school Civics class. You'll find out the US Constitution > Indiana Constitution.
    • Art 2. Sec. 4
      Indiana Constitution Art2, Sec. 4: "No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in the State, by reason of his absence, either on business of this State or of the United States."
    • Gotta Agree
      Lugar hardly ever shows up in Indiana, has no domicile here, seldom responds to citizen requests or comments and has done zilch for the state for the last two terms. That doesn't add up to much of a representative in my book.
    • Mike Alte
      Mike, why can't our elected officals live in Indiana?
    • lugar
      why doesn"t the tea party, work on something important. maybe murdock, needs a lame organization like the tea party,they are useless, they will put our country in recession, again. why can"t canidates run on their own MERIT.
    • Federalist 63
      Hamilton in Federalist 62: It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures.

      His point was we will let the states decide how to select representation of their Senators, change to elect later.

      Why if the Senate is a body of equal representation of the 50 states (13 at the time) would the legislature appoint (later change to elections) a person residing or of citizenship of another state? The anwser is they would not and there for the requirement of membership in the Senate is residency in the State for which they represent or were elected.
    • US Constitution
      US Constitution ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

    • So where does Lugar vote?
      I don't get it. How can he not have an address in Indiana? Where does he vote? Does he vote for U.S. Senators & a U.S. House Rep in Virginia? If that's the case, he wouldn't even get to vote for himself. Isn't that something we always see the candidates do on the news each election? It seems really bizarre that he'd be voting in another state.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. liek the rest of America

    2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

    3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

    4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

    5. whoa!

    ADVERTISEMENT