Let's say that you are an individual that is active in your community, a fixture at local city council meetings, and passionate about changes you want to work to achieve. You decide you want to step up and run for office to serve the public interest. One small problem - you are experiencing homelessness, and the only address you can list when you file for office is a P.O. Box.
This scenario unfolded last month in Oak Park, IL (full disclosure: my hometown) when Daniel Fore, homeless but who lives in the town with an Oak Park post office box address, wanted to run for village trustee. The village's Electoral Board voted 2-1 to remove Fore's name because his candidacy violated state statute requiring a residential address to run for public office.
Fore is now taking his case to court, with the pro bono support of a prestigious law firm and the support of Cook County Clerk David Orr and the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. Interestingly, Illinois was the first state in the nation to ensure the enfranchisement of homeless voters by passing a law stating that the address of a relative or a homeless shelter could be used when registering to vote.
When I first heard about the story (via @cubreporter on twitter) and brought it up around friends and colleagues, I got a surprisingly mixed response from the progressive crowd. When I asked whether or not a homeless person should have the right to run for office, answers ranged from "absolutely, there shouldn't be a second class of citizens" to "shouldn't they be spending their time finding housing?" to "well if they can't establish residency, how can they represent a district?"
For Wellstone Action, we invest many resources into developing everyday citizens to run for office and make sure that their community is represented in local, state, and federal government. The homeless community is certainly one that has been deprived of a voice, and one that needs leaders who understand the issues of homelessness to be involved in policy-making at all levels.
This question has increased relevancy now, as we face a new economic reality where many factors can find families unexpectedly facing a period of homelessness. In fact, schools nationwide are seeing increased rates of homeless or "highly mobile" students, food banks can't keep up with demand, the unemployment rate keeps rising and foreclosure rates show no signs of slowing.
As the challenges we face as a country mount, the need for thoughtful policy solutions based on real-life experience grows greater. While Illinois addresses the question of a homeless person's right to run for office, the rest of the country should take note. This issue may arise again and again as the homelessness community sees a need to raise their voice and rise to leadership to help enact change.
Daniel Fore's case (and those of a handful of other homeless candidates here and here) turn our public expectation of homelesness on its head. In this country, we have a stigma attached to homelessness that implies that people are in that position because of their own bad choices or because of substance abuse or mental illness. Fore's candidacy challenges that stigma and forces us to look at why a candidate for public office should be barred from running solely on the criteria that he is currently without a home.
However, we do place other restrictions on running for office - age, for example, and residency to prevent carpetbagging. Where is the line drawn between protecting the public and impinging on civil rights?
According to the Chicago Tribune, Fore "graduated from high school in town and has been a registered voter his entire adult life. He volunteers with local civic and charitable groups, works as an election judge and never misses a Village Board meeting." In other words, exactly the kind of background that can make for an ideal candidate.
We're anxious to hear your thoughts on the matter - please leave them in the comments.
Photo by the Chicago Tribune. Research assistance by Ross Wallen.
Court hearing in Daniel Fore case on 3/5/09
He'd Definitely Get My Vote
http://andrew1977.vox.com/
I say let him run. If he fulfills all the requirement to run he should.
It should be up to the voters to choose who they want.
Daniel Fore- the homeless fellow running for office (Oak Park)
Did this case go to trial? What happened?
The problem with this
The problem with this country is that high paid, long term, don't have a clue jerks are doing things that only help themselves and their rich friends. A "been there done that" person would give a fresh start if they don't forget where they came from. No law should restrict someone because of their housing status. Obama hasn't even proved he's a citizen of the U.S. but he got to run!!!
Post new comment