The Connecticut Secretary of State has rejected Rocky De La Fuente’s petition to be an independent candidate, on the basis that the petition lists two residents of Florida for President and Vice-President. The petition lists De La Fuente for President and Michael Steinberg for Vice-President. Both currently live in Florida.
Connecticut’s rejection says the U.S. Constitution does not permit Connecticut presidential electors to vote for this ticket. The Secretary of State is wrong. The 12th amendment only bars presidential electors from voting from someone from the same state as those electors for both President and Vice-President. It says, “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.” The Secretary of State is ignoring the last two words.
Furthermore, even aside from that, if Rocky De La Fuente’s electors won the election in Connecticut on November 8, either the presidential candidate or the vice-presidential candidate would be free to move to another state before mid-December, when the electors vote. This point was made in Jones v Bush, a lawsuit filed in 2000 over whether the Texas Republican presidential electors would be permitted to vote for both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The lawsuit alleged that both Bush and Cheney were living in Texas. The U.S. District Court said Cheney could claim residence in Wyoming, but even aside from that, even if he were a Texan, he would be free to move to another state before the electoral college voted. The Constitutional language only refers to residence at the time the electoral college votes, and has no duration of residency requirement. Here is the letter sent by De La Fuente’s attorney to the Connecticut Secretary of State, pointing this out.
In the past, there were elections in which the Socialist Workers Party nominees for President and Vice-President were both New York residents. A challenge was once filed to the SWP’s ballot position in New York during one of those years, but the challenge was defeated.
You can’t say where someone will be living in the future. Courts have agreed that the residency requirement that a candidate for Congress live in the state at the time of election means that anyone in any state, if she meets the other qualifications for election, can run for Congress in any other state.
For example, from Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F3d 582 (5th Cir., 2006):
>”The intersection of § 145.003, which requires that proof of ineligibility be conclusive, and the Qualifications Clause, which requires inhabitancy only ‘when elected,’ presents an extraordinary burden to declaring a candidate ineligible on residency grounds prior to the election. This is because it is almost always possible for a person to change their residency: to move to the state in question before the election, thereby satisfying the Qualifications Clause.”
It is almost always possible for a person to change their residency at any time. So no one can predict where someone will be living in the future. This would apply to this clause as well, even if you interpret the Constitution as Richard Winger does (I believe he is correct): a candidate can move to another state, thereby allowing electors from her former state to vote for her and her in-state running mate in the Electoral College.
Does Connecticut not allow substitution?
Sue for $$$ DAMAGES to bankrupt the MORONS.
Government has no money other than that which it confiscates from taxpayers. That’s who you would be bankrupting.
Connecticut does allow substitution. But it is possible the state would say that Rocky can’t substitute a new v-p because his original filing was somehow flawed.
Besides residency, it remains unclear what minimal net worth or income qualifies a citizen to seek elective office. In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled in a California that indigence (zero income) cannot disqualify a person from seeking office because they cannot pay a filing fee, yet states continue to ignore that case 42 years later. Does one have to have zero income to qualify as indigent or – as the language of the decision indicates – if a filing fee is a financial hardship, then the fee must must be waived by the state and the candidate’s name placed on the ballot?
No matter how flawed the SOS’ reasoning is, what are the odds that the SOS, who supported Hillary Clinton even before the CT primary, will reverse her decision.
I thought De La Fuente was living in California when he began his presidential campaign last year. I wonder why he moved.
Bankrupt the party robot HACKS who subvert election law rights.
De La Fuente says that he has had a home in Orlando for many years. He made his fortune with car dealerships in San Diego and southern California, but later sold most of them, and got into other businesses. His filings have all had a San Diego address.
He is running for the US Senate in Florida, which presumably is why his presidential address is Florida. His website Rocky2016.com does not mention his presidential run other than as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.
His running mate, is also running for Congress in Florida.
Conceivably, De La Fuente and Steinberg could be elected to Congress from Florida, take office on January 3, and then participate in the election of President and Vice President in the House and Senate. De La Fuente would presumably vote for Steinberg, and Steinberg for De La Fuente. They could then resign their congressional offices before the inaugaration on January 20.