Why should law restrict candidates? Bob Hill, Columnist, The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY, November 2004 While more tightly wrapped legal minds might object, it's my sincere belief that Kentucky could use a good state senator from Indiana — so why not Republican Dana Seum Stephenson? Yes, there are those pesky residency requirements. Hidebound legislators of yore did request that candidates for the Kentucky Senate actually live in the state six years before an election — and live in the district they are to represent one year before the vote. They believed such standards judicious, honorable and fair. I say, "Picky, picky, picky." Those darn requirements came into play this week when a Jefferson Circuit judge ruled that Stephenson — who'd won the 37th District Kentucky Senate race against Democrat Virginia Woodward by 1,022 votes — could not take the seat because she'd spent too much time recently living north of the Ohio River. As pointed out in this week's Courier-Journal — speaking of picky, picky, picky — Stephenson lived in Indiana four of the six years before the Nov. 2 election. She had a Hoosier driver's license, bought a home in Jeffersonville, and registered and voted there — apparently not for her father; Kentucky Sen. Dan Seum, R-Louisville, although any court with a heart would allow a daughter to vote for her dad regardless of geography. Indeed, that was somewhat the argument given by Stephenson's attorney, Jim Milliman, who surely brought tears to the eyes of many Kentuckians when he explained that Stephenson had spent some nights in Louisville during those four years and had always planned to return. Clarence Darrow couldn't have said it better. Milliman also raised some obligatory constitutional questions: Did the judge have jurisdiction in the matter? Is the residency rule constitutional? Did Woodward file her objection too late? Shouldn't the matter be decided by the Kentucky Senate — which just happens to be ruled by Republicans? Yeah, whatever My gut feeling on all that, pretty much taken from the moral gestalt of our recent election, is: "Yeah, whatever, but something's really rotten on Dixie Highway when the government starts telling people where they have to live and how they can vote and a daughter can't vote for her own dad. What is wrong with this country, anyway?" A pox on these stupid residency requirements. People in this country should be allowed to live where they want to live and run for any office they darn well please. And if grandmothers are running for sheriff in Cut and Shoot, Texas, then their grandkids in North Dakota should have the right to vote for them. That's real family values. Besides, who could expect college-educated politicians to waste valuable fund-raising time studying residency requirements? I mean, get a life! Kentuckians must also get elected to the Indiana legislature — something of a culture shock because nobody up there ever gets indicted. Yet consider the cross-cultural benefits: I'm certain that if Kentucky Republican Senate President David Williams were elected to the Indiana legislature, a great many Kentuckians would be pleased. And sending access-starved Kentuckians to Indianapolis and Hoosiers to Frankfort would have gotten that East End bridge built 40 years ago. This flap is about self-serving politics, not the constitution. The residency rule may be too restrictive, but it's the law — and should have been researched by anyone running for state Senate. Or maybe the Republicans knew the rules and hoped Democrats couldn't read. So blame the Kentucky Education Reform Act. Meanwhile, I'm now all for allowing anyone to run for any office in any state they've recently spent a lot of time thinking about — including Hawaii, Confusion and Denial. You can reach Bob Hill at (502) 582-4646 or e-mail him at bhill@courier-journal.com. You can also read his columns at www.courier-journal.com.