Why Politicians Who Don’t Live in Their Districts Can’t Truly Represent Us
As voters, we deserve representatives who are connected to our communities—who understand the challenges we face because they, too, live with those challenges. When politicians claim a district for campaign purposes while residing in far-flung, wealthier neighborhoods, they’re signaling a willingness to distance themselves from the realities their constituents endure. It’s not just a matter of geography; it’s a matter of integrity and empathy. A politician who doesn’t live in the district they represent has less of a stake in the impact of their decisions and is more likely to sell out the community they’re supposed to champion.
Take my opponent, longtime State Senator Cleo Fields, who has made a career of claiming a connection to North Baton Rouge, but spends most of his time in a comfortable home in a wealthier part of the city. He insists that his official residence is in the district, but anyone who’s paying attention knows the difference between an address and a home. Fields’ apparent reliance on a legal loophole to maintain his eligibility in Senate District 14 is more than just a technicality – it’s a red flag. If he’s willing to sidestep the spirit of the law for his own political gain, how can he be trusted to uphold the interests of the people he’s supposed to serve?
When a politician lives outside their district, they are shielded from the direct impact of their decisions. Consider the neighborhoods in North Baton Rouge, which are plagued by the toxic proximity of petrochemical plants and the persistent socioeconomic struggles that accompany them. These communities face real, ongoing challenges, from health risks to underfunded schools. For a politician residing in a safer, wealthier part of Baton Rouge, these issues are abstractions rather than everyday realities. They don’t have to breathe the air or experience the gaps in education and healthcare that define the lives of the people in Senate District 14.
Fields’ history of controversy further highlights why his tenuous connection to his district is problematic. This isn’t someone who has built a legacy of unwavering loyalty to his community. Instead, he has faced allegations and ethical questions, including a now-infamous video showing him receiving $25,000 in cash from former Governor Edwin Edwards. Fields might not have been in public office at the time, but the specter of that incident looms over him, as does the perception that he’s willing to make deals that benefit himself more than his constituents. Living outside his district only exacerbates the suspicion that he views his Senate seat as a career stepping stone rather than a calling to serve.
When politicians like Fields play the residency game, they’re showing us that they’re willing to put their ambitions ahead of our needs. They live in a world separate from the people they serve, and that separation allows them to make deals that harm our communities without ever facing the consequences themselves.
Voters should take a hard look at where their politicians really live, because it’s a powerful indicator of whose interests they’re truly representing. A candidate’s physical residence speaks volumes about their commitment to the people they serve. When they live outside the district, they are free to make deals that sell us out. They don’t have to face the direct fallout from their actions, and that distance allows them to prioritize personal gain over public service.
If we want politicians who are genuinely invested in our futures, we need to choose leaders who share our lives, not just our ballots. We need representatives who live in our neighborhoods, send their kids to our schools, and share in our struggles. It’s time to demand that our elected officials not only understand our challenges but also face them alongside us. Only then can we be sure that they’ll fight for us when it matters most.