Why isn't it a requirement that a person should only be allow to run/represent a district their primary residence is located in? Seems like common sense to me, I mean that isn't a fix-all because primary residences doesn't mean the person is there all the time but at least they are affected by the policies of that district.
Curious, though: How does one dictate a primary residence, and what stops someone from changing on a whim?
Only way you could realistically stop this is enshrining in a state Constitution a requirement to have resided in a district for X amount of time, I think.
Why isn't it a requirement that a person should only be allow to run/represent a district their primary residence is located in? Seems like common sense to me, I mean that isn't a fix-all because primary residences doesn't mean the person is there all the time but at least they are affected by the policies of that district.
Curious, though: How does one dictate a primary residence, and what stops someone from changing on a whim?
Only way you could realistically stop this is enshrining in a state Constitution a requirement to have resided in a district for X amount of time, I think.
I would totally agree. The one I know in WA, the reason he was allowed to run at all is because he has an office in the district.