The election did not go the way I wanted. Where it said "for governor" I voted NO and they elected one anyway



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2018 11:43AM by thedesertrat1.

I looked for the none of the above circle, but it seemed to be missing on my ballot.

I voted for the openly gay candidate for governor and he won so I guess I can't complain too much.

In elections we usually get some of what we wanted but not all of what we wanted.

That's how it works in the U.S.

God Bless America !

"God" bless most of the rest of the world!

Well here in morridor we got Romney as the Senator, What I can't understand is how he got in if he doesn't live here, is from Michigan and was Governor of Massachussets. His policies flip back and forth, now he's a Trumper, we'll see how long that lasts?

I don't think the founding people of The United States envisioned the same person being a governor of one State and a senator of another. Especially the man who was supposed to save The Constitution with his white horse.

States get to decide how they make the choice. I believe that in New York a senator doesn't even need to be a state resident.

Someone can correct me if I have that wrong.

they have to be a resident of the state.

Article I Section 3 U.S. Constitution (3rd paragraph)

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."

For the historical perspective:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitutional_Qualifications_Senators.htm

Just looked it up.

New York defines residency as requiring residency only on the day of the election. Several NY senators did that, including Robert Kennedy in 1964 and James Buckley in 1970.

So yes, you have to be a resident of NY--for at least a few hours!

If it is that easy some places one wonders if he gets ousted in 6 years if he doesn't come to Missouri to represent Joseph's holy land after his duties to Brigham's place?

Apparently that is the law in CA and the other parts of the 9th Circuit as well. A candidate only has to "reside" in the state on the day of the election.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/22/news/mn-43749

Page 4 below

https://elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/2018%20Election/2018%20Candidate%20Manual.pdf

"Resident of the U.S. for 14
years; resident of Utah when
elected"

It is curious.

I knew that the Constitution lets the states manage most of this and that NY was very lax. The California case is unusual because the state wanted to impose a longer residency requirement--83 days, I think--and the 9th Circuit overruled that, saying that states can't be stricter than the US Constitution. That appears to establish the day-of-election standard.

I'm not sure if that 9th Circuit opinion is binding outside of the court's specific bailiwick.

See the last 2 paragraphs in the link in my first post above.
Apparently the Constitutional Convention debated this very point and decided not to include a specific requirement.

Yes, but usually the constitution leaves electoral details up to the states. Gerrymandering is an example; until quite recently and even now in the vast majority of cases, the courts let the states decide how to manage things.

It appears that this general deference is the rule in most of the US. New Hampshire, for instance, requires citizenship for nine years. That would mean that the 9th Circuit, including CA, is the exception in effectively gutting the residency requirement judicially.


http://sos.nh.gov/Qualifications.aspx

New Hampshire requires a US Senator to be a US citizen for 9 yrs (as does the US Constitution - see above). There is no residency requirement. From your link:
"UNITED STATES SENATOR - Must be 30 years of age, a registered voter in New Hampshire and a United States Citizen for at least 9 years"
There is a residency requirement for state senator, but not for US senator.

See also US Term Limits, Inc. vs. Thornton in which SCOTUS ruled state term limits on Congressional candidates unconstitutional stating in summary:

"The Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation. That decision reflects the Framers' understanding that Members of Congress are chosen by separate constituencies, but that they become, when elected, servants of the people of the United States. They are not merely delegates appointed by separate, sovereign States; they occupy offices that are integral and essential components of a single National Government. In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a "more perfect Union."

That would appear to prevent states from establishing requirements beyond those in the US Constitution.

Yes, it appears that way.

The point wasn't obvious, it seems, since there are cases on the matter. But the California case, SCHAEFER v. TOWNSEND, is cited in a lot of subsequent cases and evidently is the controlling authority regarding all qualifications for federal office.

So Mitt could indeed run for office from Utah, then Missouri, and eventually the world. White horses for all.

Yes, but at this point could Mitt get elected anyplace but Utah?

Thank heaven for small miracles!

I’ll bet that Mitt has stopped calling himself a Mormon. Could be awkward correcting the DC crowd.