Fuller

Fuller v. Bowen

Good Law
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 394·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 243·203 Cal. App. 4th 1476
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 1, 2012No. C065237California4,751 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mauro, J.

In the 2010 primary election, Heidi Fuller and Tom Berryhill were both candidates for state senator in the 14th Senate district. Prior to the primary election, however, Fuller asked the superior court to issue orders that would prevent Berryhill’s name from being placed on the primary election ballot. Fuller alleged that Berryhill had not resided in the 14th Senate district for at least one year as required by the California Constitution.

The superior court declined to prevent Berryhill’s name from being placed on the ballot, concluding that the one-year residency requirement violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fuller now contends on appeal that the superior court erred in ruling that the one-year residency requirement is unconstitutional.

We do not address whether the one-year residency requirement is unconstitutional, because a threshold jurisdictional issue resolves this case. The California Constitution vests in each house of the Legislature the sole authority to judge the qualifications and elections of a candidate for membership in that house, even when the challenge to the candidate’s qualifications…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.