California Bill Would Remove District Residency Requirement, Redefine Definition

A bill introduced by California State Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) would redefine “residence” for voting purposes. It may allow candidates and elected official to live outside of the district they represent.

Under Senate Bill 163, the bill would provide that a person’s domicile or residence may also be the place in which the person has legal tenancy—hold property, whether by lease or by title in the district.

According to the Bill:

This bill would define legal tenancy for voting purposes to mean a person’s right to possess or hold property, whether by lease or by title. This bill would provide that the conclusive presumption for determining a Member of the Legislature’s domicile applies if the person has legal tenancy at the residence address indicated on his or her affidavit of voter registration.

Existing law defines “residence” for voting purposes as a person’s domicile. Existing law describes the domicile of a person as that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. Existing law describes the residence of a person as that place in which the person’s habitation is fixed for some period of time, but wherein he or he does not have the intention of remaining. Existing law provides that a person may have only one domicile at a given time, but may have more than one residence. Existing law also provides that, for purposes of determining the domicile of a Member of the Legislature or a Representative in the Congress of the United States, it shall be conclusively presumed that the residence address indicated on that person’s currently filed affidavit of voter registration is that person’s domicile.

For more on State Senator Steven Bradford, click here.