sr-102776-cao opinion+~ K:DTO::nms 10.27.76 CA
CITY ATTORNEY OPINION
Opinion CA76-54 - October 27, 1976
SUBJECT: Residence Requirements for City Office
Candidates
REQUESTED BY: Kenneth O. Grubb, City Clerk
OPINION BY: Richard L. Knickerbocker, City Attorney
Dennis T Omoto, Deputy City Attorney
QUESTION PRESETdTED
Generally, is any durational residency requirement
for local office candidates in excess of thirty (30) days
violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution?
CONCLUSION
Yes. In Johnson -vs- Hamilton, 15 Cal. 3rd 461,
125 Cal. Rptr. 129 (1975), the Supreme Court of California
held that any durational residence requirement for candidates
for local office in excess of thirty (30) days is violative
o£ the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
ANALYSIS
Loner Beach Charter Attacked on Constitutional_Grounds
The constitutionality of tcoo provisions of the
Charter of the City of Long Beach which imposed residency
requirements on candidates for ciiy offices was challenged
in the case entitled Johnson -vs- Hamilton, supra.
A candidate for the City Council of Long Beach
-1-
!tLK:DTO:mms 10.27.'16 CA
challenged two provisions of the City Charter, namely,
(1) §29, requiring a one-year residence in the city preceding
the election or appointment to any board or commission o£
the city, and (2} §30, requiring, as to a candidate for the
City Council, a six month's residence in the district from
which he is nominated, prior to filing his declaration of
candidacy.
rement in Excess of Thirty Days is Unconstitutional
The Supreme Court of California has had occasion,
in a series of cases, to hold invalid candidate residence
requirements on equal protection grounds. Thusly, in
Zeilenga -vs- Nelson, 4 Cal. 3rd 716, 94 Cal. Rptr. 602
(1971), a five-year durational residence requirement imposed
by the Butte County Charter on candidates-for the County
Board of Supervisors was held to be deficient. At the
same time, in Camara -vs- "Mellon, 4 Cal. 3rd 714, 94 Cal.
Rptr. 601 (1971), the Supreme Court of California invalidated
a three-year residence requirement of the Santa Cruz City
Charter for candidates to the City Council. More recently,
in Thompson -vs- Mellon, 9 Cal. 3rd 96, 107 Cal. Rptr. 20
(1973), said Court found vulnerable to similar attack a two-
year requirement contained in the same charter, and for the
same office as those involved in Camara -vs- Mellon, supra.
The evolving process finally culminated in the
holding of Johnson -vs- Hamilton, supra, wherein, the
California Supreme Court held as follows:
"Such a 30-day prefiling residence
-2-
RLK:DTO:mms 10.27.76 CA
requirement seems reasonably necessary
and convenient to accommodate the
needs of election officials and their
tasks of timely verification of the
candidate;'s true .residence prior to
the preparation and distribution of
ballots. Accordingly, we hold that
any durational residence requirement
for candidates for local office in
excess of the foregoing period is
violative of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
(Emphasis added).
In conclusion, pursuant to the express holding of
the Supreme Court of California, it is a violation of the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution to require that a candidate
for a local office be a resident- for a period of more than
thirty (30) days next preceding the date of filing of nomina-
tion papers or the equivalent declar on of candidacy.
Re tfully ub t ,
` ~~ ~°
DE -NIS T OI4OTO
Deputy City Attorney
-3-