My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CHC 1979-06-05
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Minutes
>
CHC 1979-06-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2018 10:49:53 AM
Creation date
6/19/2018 9:45:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1979
Meeting date
6/5/1979
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1979-06-05
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\1980\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
voting for that man. Let the man run and let the voters <br /> determineWhom they want. Whether they want a person <br /> unfamiliar with the county government or county problems, <br /> that is up to them. The final protection and the final check <br /> by the checks and balances is with the voters. So, what they <br /> are saying is that, in itself, is not enough to satisfy the <br /> courts to justify any kind of residency requirements. What <br /> they are saying is you can have a residency requirement that <br /> is limited. Very, very limited in terms of time but, as I <br /> said, anything beyond one year is automatically suspect, <br /> already. <br /> MR. CADINHA: We don ' t have to show intent on <br /> a one year requirement? <br /> MR. ODA: No, we don ' t have to put intent. <br /> That has to be argued in case it is challenged. The same <br /> thing goes for the county council. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: You are telling us that one year <br /> is acceptable, then? <br /> MR. ODA: I cannot say. It is kind of hedging <br /> but the court cases have gone all over the place. Some have <br /> approved three months. Others have--there was one case in <br /> Washington, I think, that the State of Washington upheld a <br /> five year requirement. One case in Michigan that held invalid <br /> the three year residency requirement. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: In the York vs State, what state <br /> of residency was that? <br /> MR. ODA: That was Hawaii, the State of Hawaii. <br /> A civil service law. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: What was this State House of not <br /> less than three years upheld in 1973? <br /> MR. ODA: That was a case of Hays vs Gill. He <br /> ran for the State Senate, I believe. State Legislature, anyway. <br /> That one was upheld back in ' 70. And yet you have in 1972, <br /> York vs State. . . <br /> MR. ISHIDA: You say a distinction can be made <br /> between elective office as opposed to a civil service employee? <br /> MR. ODA: I suppose on that alone, it is a <br /> distinction, but I don ' t know how. . . <br /> MR. CADINHA: Stu, what is the logic behind the <br /> governor having to be a resident for five years, then? <br /> MR. ODA: Nobody has challenged that. I don ' t <br /> know. Even for federal offices you' ll notice seven years. . <br /> nine years for the senate, seven years for the U.S. House. <br /> -5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.