Did Sandra Fluke violate California residency requirements in her run for office?

Sandra Fluke was resoundingly rejected by voters when she ran for the State Senate, but she may have been a fraudulent candidate for office.  The Beverly Hills Courier, which covers much of the affluent West Los Angeles district in which she ran, published an Election Day item that raised some awkward questions about the eligibility of the “human rights lawyer” to run for office in California.

According to the California Constitution, a person has to be a resident of California for at least three years immediately preceding the election to qualify as a candidate for State Legislature. There appears to be a legitimate question surrounding Fluke meeting that provision.

As verified by The Courier, Fluke first registered to vote in L.A. County on May 25, 2011. According to L.A. County Registrar Recorder/County-Clerk spokesperson Michael Sanchez, Fluke then re-registered to vote in L.A. County on Sept. 18, 2012 in what he said: “reflects a re-registration for her email address.”

But:

… what appears to have actually happened is that when Fluke voted on April 3, 2012 in Washington D.C. for the presidential primary election, she no longer qualified as a registered voter in California.

That would explain why she re-registered in California 5 months after voting in D.C.  But a 9/18/12 registration is not three years prior to the election in which she ran.

This discrepancy was first noticed by the Los Angeles Register in October, and Fluke’s attorney offered a startling excuse:

Fluke’s attorney James C. Harrison, with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, stated: “The official legal position of the California Secretary of State is that the residency requirement in question is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause.”

“Sandra absolutely meets all the legal requirements to run for this office,” Fluke’s General Consultant Lindsay Bubar assured The Courier.

While I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that questions of constitutionality belong in the courts, not in the hands of elected officials.  Unless the California or United States judiciary found that the state constitution’s requirements are unconstitutional, they remain in force.

Moreover, the California secretary of state’s website offers no such guidance.  In fact, it reads:

What requirements must a person meet to run for office?

These requirements are specific to the office and are posted on our Candidate Information webpage.

Following that link reveals nothing at all about residency requirements.  See for yourself.

I am not familiar with the paperwork required to run for office in California, but I wonder if Ms. Fluke signed an affidavit that she has been a resident of California for three years.  If so, this attorney is in for a world of hurt.

Sandra Fluke was resoundingly rejected by voters when she ran for the State Senate, but she may have been a fraudulent candidate for office.  The Beverly Hills Courier, which covers much of the affluent West Los Angeles district in which she ran, published an Election Day item that raised some awkward questions about the eligibility of the “human rights lawyer” to run for office in California.

According to the California Constitution, a person has to be a resident of California for at least three years immediately preceding the election to qualify as a candidate for State Legislature. There appears to be a legitimate question surrounding Fluke meeting that provision.

As verified by The Courier, Fluke first registered to vote in L.A. County on May 25, 2011. According to L.A. County Registrar Recorder/County-Clerk spokesperson Michael Sanchez, Fluke then re-registered to vote in L.A. County on Sept. 18, 2012 in what he said: “reflects a re-registration for her email address.”

But:

… what appears to have actually happened is that when Fluke voted on April 3, 2012 in Washington D.C. for the presidential primary election, she no longer qualified as a registered voter in California.

That would explain why she re-registered in California 5 months after voting in D.C.  But a 9/18/12 registration is not three years prior to the election in which she ran.

This discrepancy was first noticed by the Los Angeles Register in October, and Fluke’s attorney offered a startling excuse:

Fluke’s attorney James C. Harrison, with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, stated: “The official legal position of the California Secretary of State is that the residency requirement in question is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause.”

“Sandra absolutely meets all the legal requirements to run for this office,” Fluke’s General Consultant Lindsay Bubar assured The Courier.

While I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that questions of constitutionality belong in the courts, not in the hands of elected officials.  Unless the California or United States judiciary found that the state constitution’s requirements are unconstitutional, they remain in force.

Moreover, the California secretary of state’s website offers no such guidance.  In fact, it reads:

What requirements must a person meet to run for office?

These requirements are specific to the office and are posted on our Candidate Information webpage.

Following that link reveals nothing at all about residency requirements.  See for yourself.

I am not familiar with the paperwork required to run for office in California, but I wonder if Ms. Fluke signed an affidavit that she has been a resident of California for three years.  If so, this attorney is in for a world of hurt.