COMM. 004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Ted T. Suzuki -3- February 3 , 1976 however, did not find that arguxient ,to be convincing and found that the't2-year residency durational requirement classifies residence on the basis of recent travel. For that reason, it found that the 2-year requirement was too broad for the achievement of that purpose. It is not sufficient for the state to show that a residency durational requirement ' furthers a very substantial state interest, which in that case was a familiarity with the local form government and local problems . In pursuing that important interest, the state cannot choose means which unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity. The court went on to note that statutes affecting constitutional rights must be drawn with precision and must be tailored to serve the legitimate objectives . And, if there are other reasonable ways to achieve those goals with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity , the state may not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose the less drastic means . If the purpose of the County of Hawaii in adopting the 2-year resident-elector requirement was to familiarize the resident of the government problems of the County, then the Charter provision does not address itself to that problem- The reason is that individuals who have had experience in government elsewhere or who made a diligent effort to become well acquainted with the municipality would be precluded from becoming a candidate because of the 2-year requirement. On the other hand, just because an individual resides within the County for a period of two years , does not necessarily mean that the individual is acquainted with the problems of the community and of the government. It is for those reasons that we also find that the Charter provision of the County of Hawaii requiring a 2-year residency requirement classifies the individual according to recent travel and further is not designed to address itself to the problems pertaining to the knowledge of the individual . It is for those reasons that we also find our 2-year resident-voter requirement to be unconstitutional and unenforceable. While courts have been prone to find 2 , 3,, 4 , and 5-year residency requirements to be unconstitutional, they have also realized that some residency requirement is _necessary to prevent frivolous and fraudulent candidacy by persons who have had no previous exposure to the problems and desires of the electorate of a representative district. It was for that reason that the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the constitutionality of a one-year residency requirement. Triano V. Nassion, 513 P . 2d 935 (1973) . The court in that - case, while cognizant that an extended durational residency