The January 27 Chicago Tribune has this op-ed, suggesting the Illinois State Appeals Court was mistaken when it ruled that Rahm Emanuel does not meet the duration of residency requirement to run for Mayor of Chicago. The authors of the op-ed are attorneys who openly acknowledge that they have been active in support of Emanuel’s candidacy and/or his legal case.
Since 1879, California’s Constitution has required candidates for the legislature to have lived in their district for at least one year before the election. Yet the California Secretary of State and Attorney General have not enforced this Constitutional provision since the mid-1970’s. They say the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.
However, case law does not support the idea that duration of residency requirements for candidates (for office other than Congress) as short as one year violate the U.S. Constitution. Heidi Fuller, a candidate for the California legislature in 2010, filed a lawsuit a year ago to enforce the California Constitution. She had an opponent in the Republican primary for State Senate, Tom Berryhill, who unambiguously did not fulfill the requirement. A Superior Court Judge agreed that she had standing, and that the court had jurisdiction to hear her case, but he ruled that the California Constitutional requirement violates the U.S. Constitution. For almost a year, the California press has ignored the Fuller lawsuit. However, on January 27, Capitol Weekly carried this story about her lawsuit. The article points out that in all the pleadings filed in the Rahm Emanuel lawsuit over whether he meets the Chicago one-year duration of residency requirement, no one on either side has even hinted that the Chicago one-year rule violates the U.S. Constitution. That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that duration of residency requirements for candidates do not violate the U.S. Constitution, something that California officials have refused to acknowledge. The Fuller lawsuit is pending in the State Court of Appeals in Sacramento. It is Fuller v Bowen, C065237. Briefs are being filed.
Since 1879, California’s Constitution has required candidates for the legislature to have lived in their district for at least one year before the election. Yet the California Secretary of State and Attorney General have not enforced this Constitutional provision since the mid-1970’s. They say the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.
However, case law does not support the idea that duration of residency requirements for candidates (for office other than Congress) as short as one year violate the U.S. Constitution. Heidi Fuller, a candidate for the California legislature in 2010, filed a lawsuit a year ago to enforce the California Constitution. She had an opponent in the Republican primary for State Senate, Tom Berryhill, who unambiguously did not fulfill the requirement. A Superior Court Judge agreed that she had standing, and that the court had jurisdiction to hear her case, but he ruled that the California Constitutional requirement violates the U.S. Constitution. For almost a year, the California press has ignored the Fuller lawsuit. However, on January 27, Capitol Weekly carried this story about her lawsuit. The article points out that in all the pleadings filed in the Rahm Emanuel lawsuit over whether he meets the Chicago one-year duration of residency requirement, no one on either side has even hinted that the Chicago one-year rule violates the U.S. Constitution. That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that duration of residency requirements for candidates do not violate the U.S. Constitution, something that California officials have refused to acknowledge. The Fuller lawsuit is pending in the State Court of Appeals in Sacramento. It is Fuller v Bowen, C065237. Briefs are being filed.
One state legislative election in the November 2, 2010 Massachusetts election is still unsettled. See this story. The election was so close between the two candidates, even after a recount, that the dispute went to court. The judge now says he will need another week to decide who won the election for the Worcester 6th district, for State House of Representatives.
One state legislative election in the November 2, 2010 Massachusetts election is still unsettled. See this story. The election was so close between the two candidates, even after a recount, that the dispute went to court. The judge now says he will need another week to decide who won the election for the Worcester 6th district, for State House of Representatives.
