This article in California’s Capitol Weekly newspaper explains that several California legislators are very likely to be defeated in 2012 (if they try to run for re-election), because of the new Citizens Redistricting Commission process for drawing boundaries for the next decade’s legislative districts.
The article does not mention another factor that will injure incumbents. Ever since 1879, the California Constitution has required candidates for the legislature to have lived in the district for at least one year before running. However, this provision has not been enforced since the 1970’s, when California officials decided to ignore it because they believe the U.S. Constitution doesn’t permit duration of residency requirements for candidates. But a lawsuit now pending in the State Court of Appeals, Fuller v Bowen, C065237, could force the state to start enforcing it. Duration of residency requirements are especially tough for incumbents in times of redistricting. The article notes that many legislators may be forced to move, a process that is far more difficult when there is a duration of residency requirement. The lawsuit lost in Superior Court, because the Superior Court also ruled that the U.S. Constitution bans duration of residency requirements. But this is a very dubious idea. The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed New Hampshire’s 7-year duration of residency requirement in 1975, for candidates for State Senate, in a case called Sununu v Stark. Also the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 in Clements in Fashing that there is no constitutional right to be a candidate.