CHC 1979-06-12 SUBCOMMITTEE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MR. LEGASPI : We didn ' t spell it out at that time but I think it would be appropriate. One year residency in a district. MR. ODA: What does the State Statute say on that? MR. LEGASPI : It reads, ". . .Has been a duly qualified elector of the State and of the County in which he is elected for at least one year next prior to his election. . . " This is the General Qualifications of Officers. That is the title of that Section 62-3. MR. ODA: That doesn ' t apply to a district. We can set whatever we want in a district. That one is for general qualifications for running for office under the first part of Section 3-3. You see, so far as State Statutes on residency go, . we can make it tougher. MR. LEGASPI : Okay. MayI Mr. Chairman, � again. In the submission to you, Communication 17, there was an opinion that said anything over a year would be unconsti- tutional and we can ' t defend it. MR. ODA: 'That' s right. Anything over a year. So, like Honolulu and Maui , they already did away with the residency requirement. That is why their charter is legal. But you can' t quote anything greater than, what State Statute says. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: So anything above a year would be against the constitution then. MR. ODA: Against that State Statute, yes. We can make it less. MR. LEGASPI : I ' ll find out what that cut off date on that is. . .I ' ll check it out. MR. ODA: I thought it was 90 days, or something like that. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: So we are still hung up on the district one. MR. ODA: 90 days immediately preceding the primary election or his appointment. It has been pointed out to me that under the first part of Section 3-3 it says we are discussing one year immediately preceding his election or appointment. And on the next page, I think we said the primary election or his appointment. So I think we have to make it consistent so far as the language is concerned. Either preceding his election or appointment or preceding the primary election or appointment. -5-