On October 19, a West Virginia state trial court removed independent legislative candidate Harry “Lee” Forbes from the November 8 ballot. He is running in a State Senate district that has two Senators, one elected in presidential years and one in midterm years. A unique West Virginia law concerning multi-member legislative districts says if there are more than one county in the district, one of the legislators must live in a separate county from the other legislator. See this story. Forbes lives in the same county as the holdover incumbent.
One would have thought that Forbes could have promised to move to another county in the district if he were elected. West Virginia hasn’t elected anyone to the legislature who was not a Democratic or a Republican nominee since 1906. So a promise to move would probably be a safe bet. If he were elected and refused to keep his promise, the legislature would then be free to refuse to seat him.
How Stone Age is the WV regime ???
Isn’t there considerable precedent that one only needs to be qualified for the office when it is assumed, and not on election day? That is why Biden was elected when he was still 29, and how De Fuente was able to run for senate in 9 states in 2018. It seems weird that the courts would ignore that.
Hmm. Sounds like an appeal is coming.
The West Virginia Constitution requires senators to have lived for one year in the county or district that they represent.
Historically, West Virginia senate districts were comprised of multiple whole counties, each electing two senators for staggered four year terms. The county residency requirement simply ensured that the district was represented by senators from different parts of the district.
Under OMOV, districts now split counties, and the constitution has been interpreted as applying to parts of counties, so that a split county might elect senators in different districts.
The political parties would understand the rules, and not nominate someone from the county of the holdover senator.
The local residence stuff is part of the rotted ANTI-Democracy gerrymander systems in the USA —
to reduce competition even more.
—-
reside ANY where in State area — NOOO forced moving around in State subparts.
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
That residency requirement sounds like it should make for an easy equal protection challenge as a one man, one vote violation. That a county with, for example, only a quarter of the district’s population is entitled to one out of the district’s two senators. The overall districts populations might not be malapportioned, but that’s still a malapportioned residency requirement, in effect.
Go away commie Andy Craig. Go back to trying to illegally take over state affiliates you loser.
If the courts were not corrupt they would allow one acre, one vote instead. Each property owning White male head of household who is a member in good standing of a Christian church (and over age 30 and married with two or more children and pays a poll tax and passes written and verbal tests and whose father’s father was a property owner and voter in the same county, etc) would get a number of votes equal to the number of acres they own to cast in each election. No one else would get any votes at all. Property owners of less than an acre would also not be allowed to vote even if they meet all the other criteria.