If I recall correctly, state campaign law governs use of the term "re-
elect." If any portion of the new district includes part of the old
district where the candidate was previously elected, then a candidate
is entitled to use the word "re-elect." Otherwise, no. I don't have
the citation, I may look it up when I have the chance.
So the Johnson Lee v. Samuels race is a rare case where two
candidates, running for the same seat, are both entitled to use the
term "re-elect."
I think Robert Lilligren might be out of luck, though -- although as
I recall his campaign lit has an artistic twist to it and probably
won't need to use the term "re-elect" to catch the voter's eye
Greg Abbott
Linden Hills
On Jun 23, 2005, at 3:54 PM, megan goodmundson wrote:
Michelle Hill writes:
I would also like to tell Don Samuels campaign manager that I received
his literature and would like to say thanks, however, it is an
error to ask
the constituents to vote to "re-elect" him. Since he has never ran
in the
5th ward, CP Johnson-Lee is the incumbent running for re-election.
CP Samuels would
not be up for re-election in the 5th Ward. Perhaps it should have
said, vote
for Don Samuels to be "re-elected to the city council." The
literature is
misleading, but I think it was just an accident.
Michelle Hill
Cleveland
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
