California Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on Residency Requirement for Legislative Candidates

On May 20, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Fuller v Bowen, which was filed by a candidate for the legislature in February 2010. The candidate, Heidi Fuller, is on the Republican primary ballot. She had been attempting to get a court ruling that the California Constitution, which bars candidates for the legislature if they have not lived in the district a year before the general election, should be enforced.

One of her opponents, who is already a state legislator, moved into the district he is running in on December 31, 2009, less than a year before the November 2, 2010 election. There is no dispute or ambiguity about that. The Attorney General and the Secretary of State do not enforce the state constitutional provision because they believe that it violates the U.S. Constitution. In the current case, the Superior Court agreed with Fuller that courts have jurisdiction to enforce the California Constitution, but he also ruled that the residency requirement in the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld residency durational requirements, most notably in Sununu v Stark, which summarily affirmed a 3-judge U.S. District Court decision upholding a seven year residency requirement.

Fuller will ask for U.S. Supreme Court review.


Comments

California Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on Residency Requirement for Legislative Candidates — 4 Comments

  1. 1776 DOI
    1777 Arts. of Confed.

    States are NATION-States.

    Something magically changed in the 1787 Constitution ???

    See Art. I, Sec. 10 and Art. VII.

    Independent *foreign* States admitted to the Union –
    VT 1791 State 14
    TX 1845 State 28.

    Too difficult for the MORON party hack Supremes to detect.

  2. Also – 1783 *United* [adjective] STATES [plural noun] of America – Great Britain peace treaty.

    States are NATION-States.

  3. 2 candidates in the CA district 45 have the same problem. 1) Bill Lussenheide for congress ca-45 records show he moved into district 45 only last year…he is with constitution party…2) Clay thibodeou A republican challenger of mary Bono mack for congress is also a new district member only moving there in 2009. Did these candidates move there just to run?

  4. #3 There is no requirement that representatives live in their congressional district. They only have to be a resident of the State on election day. There was a case where a representative moved into a state just before the election and was elected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.