[EL] County Residency requirement and Equal Representation Cases; update

Thu Jan 19 10:27:42 PST 2012

The Deputy County Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona, kindly talked to me on the phone about her opinion about Arizona special legislative vacancies.  She said no one is questioning the part of the Arizona Constitution that says that in multi-county legislative districts, only the committeemembers from the county in which the former legislator had lived are permitted to participate in choosing a successor.

That seems intrinsically unjust, and she said it could theoretically be challenged.  One would think all the committeemembers from the district should have a say in the replacement process.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Thu, 1/19/12, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
Subject: [EL] County Residency requirement and Equal Representation Cases
To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: john.hickle78 at gmail.com
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 8:23 AM

Thanks to John Hickle for arranging for members of the election law list to see the January 18 opinion of the Maricopa County Attorney about filling legislative vacancies.

The Maricopa County Attorney opinion seems to leave some unanswered questions.  I can't tell if the opinion means that all the precinct committeemen in the district may now participate in filling the vacancy, or if the opinion intends that only the precinct committeemen in the Maricopa County part of the district are entitled to participate in nominating three candidates.

And, I can't tell if the opinion means that the Maricopa and Yavapai County Boards of Supervisors are both entitled to help pick one of the nominees, or if the opinion assumes that only Maricopa County's Board may choose one of the nominees.

If the mention of "county" in the Arizona Constitution is
 invalid for purposes of the one-year residency requirement, why wouldn't it also be invalid for purposes of deciding which precinct committeemen get to nominate replacements?  And why wouldn't it be invalid for deciding which County Supervisors get to choose one of the nominees?

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Thu, 1/19/12, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Fwd: County Residency requirement and Equal Representation Cases
To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at UCI.EDU>
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 8:05 AM

    -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: 
          County Residency requirement and Equal Representation
            Cases

          Date: 
          Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:03:27 -0800

          From: 
          John hickle <john.hickle78 at gmail.com>

          To: 
          law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
            <law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu>, Hasen,
            Richard <rhasen at law.uci.edu>

    I was wondering if you could post this
      message to the election law mail list.  I was curious to see
      people opinions on this issue.  

    _________________________________

    Arizona has a vacant state senate seat
      after one Senate member resigned a couple of weeks ago.  

    Article 4, Part 2, Section 2 of the Arizona
      Constitution says "No person shall be a member of the Legislature
      unless he shall have been a resident of Arizona at least three
      years and of the county from which he is elected at least
          one year before his election."  

    Questions have been raised about one
      potential candidate meeting this residency requirement.  The
      Maricopa County Attorney's Office offered an opinion saying that
      the county residency requirement was a vestige of the old
      apportionment system (Arizona had one state Senator per county
      regardless of county population) and rendered unconstitutional
      under equal representation cases (Reynold v. Sims and
      subsequent Arizona cases).    I was wonder if  people on this
      lists agree that the equal representation cases render
      unconstitutional a state constitutional requirement that a person
      be a resident of the county for one year before his election?  It
      seems to me that the residency of candidates is a separate issue
      from equal representation.   

    Here is a link to the Maricopa County
      Office's opinion:
    http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arizona-legislative-vacancy-letter.pdf

    Here is a link to the Arizona Republic
      story about the issue:
    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/01/18/20120118arizona-senate-hopefuls-all-eligible.html

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d809109c/attachment.html>