45th District Candidate Gabriel Not A Qualified Resident

A May 16, 2018 article in The Acorn included statements by the candidates concerning the June 5th Special Election runoff and the regular State Assembly Primary. Justin Clark, one of two candidates on the Special Election ballot, asserts that Gabriel does not qualify as a candidate because he moved into the district prior to the one year residency requirement was fulfilled.

The election code is one of twenty-nine codes written by the State Legislators, it qualifies assembly candidates. The one-year residency clause allows constituents the benefit of a representative who is familiar with the district and lives within the district. However, Candidate Gabriel suggests that previous court rulings allow a 30-day residency based on interpretation of the Constitution.

"Gabriel said the California Supreme Court has made decisions on candidate residency that negate the requirement for a one-year residency. Basically any residency requirement over 30 days is unconstitutional,” Gabriel said. “The candidate in the other (San Fernando) Valley seat that’s open, in the 39th District, they actually moved in after the election, after the seat was vacated, and they’re all fine (to run).”

Candidate Justin Clark responded:

“There was a ruling in 2010 where the court system, citing outdated 1800s case law, said that it’s a legislative issue, because the legislature must vet and approve its own members, not the court, so the court tossed it out on the ground that they didn’t have jurisdiction. Clark said he fears a challenge to Gabriel’s candidacy in court would be rejected, and the election would be over before he could appeal the decision."

Then what is the easiest means to resolve the issue?

Clark is asking the voters to decide.

“I personally believe, and a lot of voters believe, that someone that’s going to represent you should understand the needs of your community and have been a member of that community for more than just a year,” Clark said.

Note: "Article IV, section 2(c), of the California Constitution requires a one-year residency in the legislative district and three years residency in California; however, it is the legal opinion of this office (Secretary of State) that these provisions violate the U.S. Constitution and are unenforceable. "

The courts ruled it was "The Equal Protection Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States" which prohibited any residency requirement beyond 30 days. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. http://www.ballot-access.org/2...