MIN CHC 1989-10-31 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I More stringent residency requirements have also been proposed. I was asked whether a longer pre-election requirement for residency within a particular district would be legally permissible. Residency requirements for public office for state and local elections have been frequently challenged on constitutional grounds. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the courts, and the United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. The Hawaii Supreme Court upheld the state's requirement that members of the Legislature have three years' in- state residency against constitutional challenge in Hayes v. Gill, 52 Haw. 251, 473 P.2d 872 (1970) , appeal dismissed as moot 401 U.S. 968 (1970) , but this decision would not be controlling against a challenge in federal court. After reviewing the applicable law, in my opinion a requirement that a candidate for a district seat have more then a few months' residency in. the district would probably be unconstitutional if the candidate were actually elected at-large, as is the case under the present Charter. The usual justification for residency requirements is that they allow the voters to get to know the candidate better; this justification does not hold if the candidate is not actually elected from the district. Courts have not been sympathetic to the justification that long-time residents are likely to be better acquainted with the needs of the district. If the candidate were actually elected by the district, the residency requirement would have a better chance of being upheld, but it would still be questionable. With periodic reapportionment, an incumbent councilmember's home may be put in another district, and a lengthy residency requirement might make it impossible for the councilmember to move a mile and continue to represent the bulk of the cad district. I hope my comments will assist the Commission in arriving at its decision. Yours truly, Christopher J. ,Yi, en CJY:yt 662 -5-