Thursday, May 10, 2012

du Houx: a residency conundrum?

Recent events and public disclosures regarding local State Rep Alex du Houx and fellow legislator Erin Herbig suggest their affair is beginning to take on the look of a televised Dr. Phil episode, though we confess that we have never, ever watched an episode, or even part of one.

This item appears today at The Forecaster: Family releases psych evaluation of embattled Brunswick Rep. Cornell du Houx

We do not wish to discuss their personal roles in this unwinding story.

We are, however, troubled by a quote from du Houx’s attorney in the cited article:

Hamm said that "Alex and Erin got together in May of 2011 ... (and) were engaged in December of 2011," before the February breakup. Hamm said that the couple began living together in June 2011.

One would take from this that the two principles had been living together for more than 6 months.

As we see it, this raises an issue of residency as it relates to holding elected office representing a legislative district.  At least it should, shouldn’t it?

We’ll go out on a limb here and hypothesize they were not living together in Brunswick.  If so, shouldn’t this raise serious concerns regarding du Houx’s legitimacy to hold office representing Brunswick?  And what about his qualifications to vote in last fall’s election in Brunswick?

On the same note, what about Herbig’s residency qualifications in her district?

We get that in a culture where terms like ‘gender fluidity’ are uttered without the least bit of irony, ‘residential fluidity’ and ‘statutory fluidity’ will be voiced as distractions without the slightest bit of hesitation.  Especially since we’re talking about ‘public servants,’ who learn quickly how to fend off pesky questions.

We’re hoping that other concerned individuals will follow up on this for us.  Heaven knows we’ve got enough to do around here.  Perhaps Rep. Priest or Senator Stan the Minority Man could provide authoritative comment.  When they do, we’ll post it here for all to see.  Then there’s the crack investigative staff over at The Ostrich.

And perhaps our Town Clerk can comment on the voter registration matter.

Before closing, we can’t help but pass along this fine example of maternal chutzpah in the same article:

Cornell du Houx's mother, Ramona du Houx, said she knows that her son doesn't own a gun.

"He applied for the permit for a deliberate reason, and that's because he wants to put in a law next year to make it harder to get the permits, because he's concerned about how guns are used in our society. He was testing the law," she said.

How a mother can know what a son doesn’t own is beyond me; that’s like saying “I know he doesn’t drink beer at college” for the average mother.  Even better is the theory about “testing the law.”

Perhaps the current episode is simply du Houx and Herbig jointly “testing the laws” on residency, so they can put in a law next year on the subject. 

How’s that for a new shade of lipstick on a pretty public porker?

No comments:

Post a Comment