Heidi Fuller intends to appeal the decision in her lawsuit, Fuller v Bowen. This is the case that asks if the California Constitutional provision requiring legislative candidates to have lived in their district for a full year before filing violates the U.S. Constitution.
The lower state court in Sacramento had ruled that the U.S. Constitution does indeed invalidate that provision of the State Constitution. Consequently, the lower court refused to remove one of Fuller’s opponents from the Republican primary ballot for State Senate. However, case law (unfortunately) suggests strongly that the California Constitutional provision does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Orly should team up with Fuller for an interesting 2010 election cycle in CA.
Does the appeal go directly to the California Supreme Court? Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule as it has in the past, that the judicial and executive branches have no role in enforcing constitutional qualifications for the legislature.
Fuller is probably just as happy that the case continues to be litigated, as if it were decided in her favor. She had originally decided to run because of the incumbent’s support of last year’s budget deal. Berryhill decided to run after the incumbent dropped out.
It is likely any local news coverage of the race will include a mention of the residency issue. Even a mention of where the candidate lives, would explain that Berryhill just moved in December in order to run for the seat, and might mention that a “court in Sacramento” had set aside the 1879 California Constitution provision that senators had to live in their district for a year before running for office.
This could be most effective in the Fresno and San Joaquin (Stockton) parts of the district, since voters may not be familiar with the Modesto area. Berryhill’s Assembly district covers a large part of the Senate district, but the boundaries in Stanislaus (Modesto) are not coincident, and the Assembly district extends further west than the Senate boundary in that area.
Campaign literature could include a picture of a moving van and if Berryhill’s residences have a different value, this could be highlighted as well.
If the SOS is enforcing a 30-day residency before filing, what is the rationale for dividing candidates into 7 different classes:
Feb 25, in lieu of filing;
March 12, filing for primary;
March 17, extended filing for primary;
May 25, write-in filing for primary;
July 22, in lieu of filing for general;
August 6, filing for general;
October 19, write-in filing for general.
What in the name of equal protection is the reason for having 7 separate distinct classes based on economic status and political belief?
Perhaps voters should approve Proposition 14 in order to avoid years of litigation over the constitutionality of the partisan primary system?
I must admit, I am confused. What provision in the US Constitution would apply to a contest for a STATE legislative seat? The US Constitution only sets eligibility standards for the US Congress, and those wouldn’t apply to state level races.
The U.S. Constitution has an implicit right to vote, and also a right to travel, within it. In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down residency requirements for voters. Before Dunn v Blumstein, almost all states required voters to have lived in that state for a year before registering to vote, although some states had special provision for new voters to vote for President only. Dunn v Blumstein was based on the right to vote and also the right to travel. The California Supreme Court assumed in 1975 that this meant candidate residency requirements also violate the U.S. Constitution. But the U.S. Supreme Court in 1975 showed it didn’t agree, and upheld a 7-year residency requirement (in the state) to run for New Hampshire State Senate. That is why California officials who say the State Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution are on extremely weak ground.
#4 The California Supreme Court ruling in 1975 was about a municipal election (in Santa Cruz), whose charter had a two year residency requirement. Earlier in the decade, the court had overturned a 5-year residency requirement, and then a 3-year residency requirement (also in Santa Cruz). They probably got tired of playing mother-may-I, and outlawed practically all residency requirements for city elections.
This was after the New Hampshire case, and another in South Carolina. The California Supreme Court made note of those two cases and said that they didn’t apply because they (1) involved state constitutions and state and legislative offices; (2) the fact that the US Supreme Court let the rulings of the lower federal courts stand, did not necessarily mean that the US Supreme Court agreed with the rulings.
The AG and SOS then decided that the reasoning behind the Santa Cruz case applied to the legislature, even though the California Supreme Court had specifically declined to consider the issue of constitutional limits on state and legislative offices; and further they said that under the California Constitution, the two houses of the legislature have the sole authority to judge the qualifications of their members.
The judge may have realized that any decision he made would be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and since the facts weren’t in dispute, made a ruling quickly so that an appeal can be made.
Pingback: My Instant Ecovers | Twitter Right
#3 The US Supreme Court ruled that durational residency requirements in order to register to vote were unconstitutional because they violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, since it treated citizens differently because they had recently moved, and possible state interests such as a more informed electorate or a stake in the community were not compelling interests. Concerns about fraud, multiple voting, etc. could be addressed by a much shorter lockout period (a few weeks before an election).
Some courts later applied similar logic to residency requirements for candidates, reasoning that the right to “vote” is meaningless without a right to “choose”, and there was no compelling reason to prevent voters from choosing a newcomer to the community, that any fixed period measured in years was too crude to determine whether a person was informed enough or familiar enough to residents so that they might choose him.
In 2009 Chelene Nightingale was registered as a Republican. Like wise William Wallace Murrey was registered as a Republican until late December,2009.
Both switch to become electors in the American Independent Party. Nightingale registered in Los Angeles County. While Murrey registered in Orange County. Both file for Governor in the June 8, 2010
primary election. In the above post it stated: ‘Some
courts later applied similar logic to residency requirements for candidates, reasoning that the right
to “vote” is meaningless without a right to “choose”,
and there was no compelling reason to prevent voters from choosing a newcomer to the community, that any
fixed period measured in years was too crude to determine whether a person was informed enough or familiar enough to residents so that they might choose him.’
I am a “recovering Republican”, so I remember the 1963
fight within the CRP State Central Committee to bring
back the process in effect back in 1959, viz., allowing
electors run in any party’s primary without regard to there own party registration and the “one year rule”
of party affiliation.
Can any one here recall why the one year requirement in
party affiliation came about in 1959? Did third party’s
in California have an impact on that process?
I was informed by members of the Libertarian Party that it lost registration, because of Ron Paul’s 2008 run for
President in the Republican Party. Chelene Nightingale
in 2006 was registered Libertarian. By 2008 she was registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Party and stated in that party into 2009. Then she re-registered as an American Independent Party
to run for Governor in the AIP primary in 2010 among a
field of long time party electors. The Question is should the American Independent Party’s State Central
Committee pick its own requirements of duration for
registration to run for different California State Offices that could be more or less that of the one year
fixed by the California Legislature?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
#6 The best thing to do would be to pass Proposition 14, and then if Chelene Nightingale, Jerry Brown, or Meg Whitman wanted to run for governor, they could gather 65 signatures and pay the filing fee and would appear on a ballot where all voters could choose who they wished.
The American Independent Party would be free to support whoever they chose to.
The problem that you have highlighted with the current system is due to the irreconcilable conflict between the imperative of the State to let the voters choose their officers, and the private interest of the political parties to control the process and limit both voter and candidate participation.
You either end up with the political parties being quasi-public bodies, or the State acting as an agent of the political parties.