On March 15, Heidi Fuller asked the California State Court of Appeals to re-hear Fuller v Bowen. This is the case over whether the California Constitutional requirement that candidates for the legislature must have lived in their district should be enforced. Here is the rehearing request. It points out that if the duration of residency requirement cannot be enforced, except by the legislature itself, then one wonders why the state enforces the law that requires candidates for the legislature to be registered to vote.
The Secretary of State had (has) the erroneous opinion that the one-year residency requirement was (is) unconstitutional. If the SOS is attempting to enforce the provision in the constitution that requires a candidate to be an elector, then they are probably making a mistake there as well.
Why doesn’t Fuller’s lawyer appeal to the Supreme Court?
Heidi Fuller is her own attorney, and she will appeal to the California Supreme Court if the rehearing request is denied in the State Court of Appeals.
I have a question on residency related to the AIP County Central Committees for ex officio members.
By California Election Code section 7652 states, a nominee of party-nominated office listed in that section is an ex officio member of the county central committee in the county in which he or she resides.
California Elections Code section 7695 states, each committee may establish annual dues, not to exceed twenty-four dollars ($24.00) per year for ex officio members.
It has been the ruling of this chairmen that the dues become due and payable on the date the ex officio member
become a resident of the county he resides in.
This ruling is based in part on Article 2 of the California Election Code read with the county’s central committee’s designated manual of parliamentary
proceedures and its by-laws.
This chairman has ruled that the date the annual dues become due is the date the ex officio member became a resident of the county he resides in and not the later date he registers to vote in his new county of domicle, if the ex officio members no longer resided in the former address of regitration. However, rights and privleges of membership do not attach until the new registration is filed with the County Elections Official and pay the dues owed. Only after payinng the
dues owed, the ex officio member can take and subscribe
to the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution. How ever he can not take office on a Saturday, Sunday, or Legal Holiday.
If a person lost his residence in Los Angeles County on or about June 23, 2011, and claimed he was still a resident there on February 19, 2012 (which was false),
how should the membership committee of the county central committee deal with a registration of February
21, 2012 in Ventura County of an ex officio member on
the beginning date for the new county dues?
The State Central Committee has one document that shows
the person was residing in the registration address on
August 11, 2011 that he resided in at the time of the
February 21, 2012 registration. Therefore, this chairman is of the view we have to deal with the known
date of residence, until a better date becomes available
as the state of residence.
Richard Winger and Jim Riley due you share this view on
using the document date August 11, 2011 until a better
date become available?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
Sorry in the above post I ment Article 2 of Division 2 of the California Elections Code.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party