Is Rumler an eligible guy?
No, not that kind of eligible, eligible to be a candidate in the 36th District.
Within hours of news of Rumler's announcement appearing here, and prior to his formal announcement, commenters were already raising the issue of whether he fulfilled the constitutional requirement that a candidate be a legal resident of the district for at least two years prior to the general election.
This was based on his resume reporting that he'd worked in D.C. until recently.
When I reported that Rumler had moved back to Moline in 2004 and met the residency requirement, a couple commenters were skeptical and enquired about his voting record.
A commenter suggested that the candidate had to be a resident at least two years before the primary date, but that didn't seem correct. It's been determined that election day is the operative date, which, in even numbered years, is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In 2006, that will be November 14th.
So Nov. 14th, 2004 seems to be the magic date as far as residency is concerned.
I've since confirmed again with the Rumler for Senate campaign that:
-- Rumler re-established his residency between his time in Massachusetts and Washington D.C. moving back to Moline in September of 2004.
-- At that time he was registered to vote in Rock Island County and voted in both the 2004 primary election (March 16) as well as the general election (Nov. 9th) via absentee ballot.
-- Rumler has maintained his residency in the district for over two years, satisfying the constitutional residency requirement and is therefore an eligible candidate.
I'm sure this won't be enough for those looking for a problem here. Any more arguments that could reasonably be used to suggest that Rumler shouldn't be allowed to run?
As an aside, while out today, I saw not one, but two "Rumler for Senate" yard signs in different areas. They're sure not wasting any time.