Opinion | Nick Kristof Just Destroyed His Own Brand. He’s Also Right.

The Secretary of State may be a running dog of the Oregon political establishment, but her argument against Kristof’s candidacy seems perfectly rational. The residence requirements for the candidacy are not “clear”, like Portland’s old weekly newspaper Willamette week Notes: A candidate for governor must have been resident for three years, although “resident” is not defined. But than that Oregonian reported that Kristof voted in New York state’s 2020 general election, retained his New York driver’s license through December 2020, and paid New York income tax beyond November 2019 to Kristof a non-resident for the purposes of his candidacy. Kristof may call himself a native bird, but if a judge doesn’t overrule her, Fagan is the relevant taxonomist here.

The most disturbing part of Kristof’s MAGA response to his DQed candidacy is how unbranded his tirade is. In his New York Times Columns he has obeyed the rules and in most cases advocated due process and the rule of law. But politician Kristof seems to be thinking just because he wants to be governor and just because he grew up in Oregon and just because he still owns a farm there and just because he’s deeply rooted in the state does he deserve a spot on the ballot. Imagine this kind of governance at Kristof’s whim should he choose to do one national emergencywho may declare governors in Oregon and other states. Do the Oregonians want him to rip his head off and interpret the statutes to see for himself, or do they want a more Talmudic reading of those powers? If meeting the residency requirements for candidacy were an audition for Kristof’s eligibility, you would have to decline him.

As Trumpian and bossy Kristof may seem, his case provides ammunition against the contradicting and often ridiculous residency requirements that many public offices demand. If Kristof ran for governor of Florida, that land of travelers, he would have to prove residency for an astonishing amount of time seven years! But if he did choose to run for Congress or the Senate from Florida (or any other state), he justified his mere “population“At election time would be enough. To run for a seat in the House of Representatives, you don’t even have to live in the district you want to represent. The patchwork of residence regulations is like this shredded that a member of the Illinois school board got away with serving on its board after moving to Florida.

State and local office residence requirements may be stupid, but they are constitutionally. So why are they there? The arguments are different. Kristof is somehow right when he blames the existing political establishment for the sophistication of the residence. In the former confederation, candidates who immigrated from the north during the reconstruction were branded as opportunists and meddlers in the “southern way of life” and slandered as “carpet excavators”. But few carpet excavators match the stereotype for sale, historians Eric Foner has taken note of. “Most of the ‘carpet excavators’ were ex-soldiers from middle-class families who went south to earn a living, not to seek political office. They aroused hostility for upholding the equal civil and political rights of blacks, ”he wrote.

Some advocates of modern residence regulations are defending them to prevent greedy outsiders who know nothing about the state or location from buying their way into office and forcing local candidates out of the competition. Others defend residency requirements as the best way for voters, candidates and candidates to get to know the people. While this was once true – and probably wasn’t – it is not true today if a candidate can find out about his state and his constituents can find out about him quickly through the mass media. And if the residence regulations were so important, the constitution-makers would have imposed them. But they didn’t, which is why Robert F. Kennedy and Hillary Clinton were allowed to drag their travel bags to New York State and claim seats in the US Senate. They both turned out to be pretty good advocates, belittling the maxim that outsiders are bad and insiders are good.

Like the work permit and other bureaucratic regulations, the residence requirements for public offices primarily serve to protect established companies from open competition. Earlier in this column I spoke out against Kristof’s candidacy and wrote that someone who has proven he is bossing heels but has no political experience should not be given the keys to the governor’s mansion. But even a candidate who has lived in a state for seven years has nothing magical compared to one who has only lived there for seven months. Carpet excavators and even semi-carpet excavators like Kristof should not be excluded from running just because they do not meet arbitrary requirements. Kristof shouldn’t be allowed to run for office just because he wants to run for office, but residence regulations are a farce. The next time the office stands up for election, let Oregon voters choose whether they want a part-time, self-righteous do-do-gooding columnist to run the executive branch.

A simple and fair rule of thumb for political candidates would be: Eligibility should qualify you to run for office.


I would be happy to vote against Nick Kristof. Is there such a thing as a written vote against someone? Submit your voting slip to [email protected]. my Email notifications are eligible to vote in all 50 states. my Twitter Feed follows Nick Kristofs. my RSS feeds votes using Nick Kristof’s name multiple times on each election day in multiple elections to have him arrested for election fraud.

Leave a Comment