There apparently has been a hatchet job on Steve Mulroy by Andy Wise of Channel 3 (Andy Wise? Hatchet job? who knew?) regarding the fact that he is renting (for the time being, until his wife finds a house to buy) a home in District 5.
As Greg Duckett points out, it is about INTENT TO LIVE. He's selling his house, for heaven's sakes, and NOW LIVES at 755 South Graham, in 46-2, in District 5.
Joe Cooper is desperate to get Mulroy out of the race, because he knows Mulroy is the candidate who can beat him, thus, the phony lawsuit designed to get him out. It won't work, either. Cooper, a convicted felon (yes, it happened in the 70s) wants to get on the Commission so that he can sell off Shelby Farms to his developer friends.
Thompson wants to sell off the Jail to private interests, screwing over the workers at the jail.
Yet, as Mike Kernell notes, all Mulroy wants to sell is his old house in District 1 so that he can represent the people of District 5 and not the developers or the privateers.
14 comments:
The problem is Mulroy doesn't vote or live as of yet in the district so I hate to say it but Joe is right. I'll bet he doesn't know where he votes or any of the other precincts in district 5 he probably
doesn't know any of the people or more importantly they don't know him, except for demanding law fees from the state for one Ophelia Ford. Talk about a bad taste in your mouth, This is probably the worst
start to a campaign in recent history.
Mulroy may be a nice guy but he's been on the wrong side in general opinion
with Ophelia and the demanding of law fees. Looks like district 5 will be the
losers this time around. oh well there's always four years from now!
One, he's working pro bono, so if fees are demanded, they probably won't go to him.
Mulroy is the ONLY CHANCE WE HAVE to win the 5th District, people.
Mulroy has successfully defended an unpopular person, and he's being attacked for it. He's still my candidate in the 5th.
Hey I work with him at the U of M but I know that house was for rent until he filed but now we are expected to believe
he lives there and has been apart of the community. Most people won't believe that
crap. That's why he'll lose and the community won't support him because his involvement with the Ford family.
And Cooper CAN help it. He will help it. Cracker is correct, though--- and INTENT to live can be spun into a positive.
Alan Keyes I'm sure intended to live in Illinois if he won the Senate Seat. Trying to spin that into a positive in a community as jaded as Memphis will be tough. Right now people aren't willing to give a benefit of the doubt to any politician. Mulroy got sprayed by a skunk and it is going to take a lot of tomato sauce to get that smell out. He has a tough road to travel, especially for a political newcomer.
Look, I won't pretend to know who these people are but if someone is moving to a district to try and represent that district, that sounds A LOT like someone just wanting to hold office.
If the guy is what Cracker says he is then maybe he can pull it out, but it looks real bad to me.
Well, here's the deal: it's not as if he is moving clear across town, he's moving ONE PRECINCT OVER, and it's not like representing South Memphis while living in Collierville.
It's actually CLOSER to his job at the U of M than where he is now, and knowing the precinct as I do (half of my friends live there!) it's not exactly the Calcutta slums, either.
The question that none of us have asked is this: how many potential Democratic primary voters saw the Wise report?
And, of those, how many thought that the piece would dissuade them from voting for Mulroy?
That, we don't know.
In case anyone wants to know the legal basis for Steve Mulroy's residency in District 5, which he established before filing, here is the state statute regarding the factors that are considered for voter registration.
T.C.A. § 2-2-122. Residence
(a) The determination of whether a person is a resident or where the person resides or has residence for purposes of the election code shall be made in the light of the following principles:
(1) The residence of a person is that place in which the person's habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has a definite intention to return; provided, that a person may not register to vote using a business location as the registration address when the sole basis for the person's presence at such location is based on a business or commercial use;
(2) A change of residence is generally made only by the act of removal joined with the intent to remain in another place. There can be only one (1) residence;
(3) A person does not become a resident of a place solely by intending to make it the person's residence. There must be appropriate action consistent with the intention;
(4) A person does not lose residence if, with the definite intention of returning, the person leaves home and goes to another country, state or place within this state for temporary purposes, even if of one or more years duration;
(5) The place where a married person's spouse and family have their habitation is presumed to be the person's place of residence, but a married person who takes up or continues abode with the intention of remaining at a place other than where the person's family resides is a resident where the person abides;
(6) A person may be a resident of a place regardless of the nature of the person's habitation, whether house or apartment, mobile home or public institution, owned or rented; however, a commercial address may not be used for residential purposes, unless the applicant provides evidence of such applicant's residential use of such address;
(7) A person does not gain or lose residence solely by reason of the person's presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States or of this state, or while a student at an institution of learning, or while kept in an institution at public expense, or while confined in a public prison or while living on a military reservation; and
(8) No member of the armed forces of the United States, or such member's spouse or dependent, is a resident of this state solely by reason of being stationed in this state.
(b)(1) The following factors, among other relevant matters, may be considered in the determination of where a person is a resident:
(A) The person's possession, acquisition or surrender of inhabitable property;
(B) Location of the person's occupation;
(C) Place of licensing or registration of the person's personal property;
(D) Place of payment of taxes which are governed by residence;
(E) Purpose of the person's presence in a particular place; and
(F) Place of the person's licensing for activities such as driving.
Steve established his residency before he filed by: renting his house, getting utilities and a land line, moving his things there and living there - even though currently his family still stays in the house they own, as LWC says, 1 precinct away, until they can find something to buy in the district, which as we all know, doesn't happen in a day.
Steve clearly complies with the concepts described repeatedly in different ways in the statute: intention, together with appropriate action.
One more comment - you can be sure it's not just Joe Cooper who is trying to get Steve out of this race. If you look at the numbers on this district, it is a Democratic district held by a one term Republican incumbent. And it's a pivotal seat on the County Commission - Steve's election on the Commission would reestablish a Democratic majority in that body.
Steve is a strong, highly credible candidate. He is an election law expert. He was pivotal in the election commission's recommendation to the County Commission to achieve voting reform in Shelby County by purchasing VVPAT voting machines. He has worked pro bono in the Ophelia case.
Don't think the Republicans aren't fully aware of the threat of his candidacy and working hard to make sure Bruce Thompson faces Joe Cooper in the August election.
I'm sorry, but this is the court of public opinion not a court of law. Your arguments are intellectually valid, but Joe Cooper's sound bites are better. This why liberals loose. You may be following the letter of the law but not the spirit. Perhaps Steve is the better candidate but it just smells bad. You've already lost this first battle and that battle maybe the most important because it is the voters first exposure to a guy no one knows. That's why Joe filed the lawsuit. This should not have even happened.
The point is moot: thompson just withdrew, the filing deadline has been reopened for a week, and Mulroy will be grandfathered in..
Mulroy got lucky, but he still has to work hard to do. Mulroy does need to call out Cooper asap. The extension of a week and looseness in residency rules may draw more candidates out of the woodwork. If anyone was thinking about becoming a county commissioner, they may enter now. District 5 CC could look like the District 9 COngressional race.
I have a question.
Where is Matt Kuhn in all this?
I happened to catch that news report and definitely felt that Cooper came off as a slime. It seemed clear to me he was playing dirtball.
His "process server's" comments were especially hilarious, talking about Steve's bare feet and not seeing any packing boxes! Who is this twerp and what are his ties, his history?
If Mulroy is working pro-bono, then who are the $57K fees for? Who will get them? And why does a challenge like hers cost so damn much?? Sheesh....
Post a Comment