« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Why would folks in Alameda County, California want a Maryland resident representing them in Congress?

Yes, it's legal -- but only because the CA office of elections covers their ears and eyes and pretends not to know the 77-year-old Stark doesn't really live with his in-laws.

Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (Democrat-Californyland) has represented California’s 13th Congressional District since January 1973. In 2007 and 2008, though, he claimed Anne Arundel County, Maryland, as his home, filing for tax exemptions on a waterfront house he claims is his only residence.

A fact sheet provided by the California secretary of state’s elections division (“Summary of Qualifications and Requirements for Partisan Nomination for the Office of United States Representative in Congress“) suggests that any candidate, incumbent or not, must at very least be a resident of the state in order to run for Congress:

I. QUALIFICATIONS

Every candidate shall:

A. Be at least 25 years of age, a U.S. citizen for seven years, and a resident of California when elected.

Emphasis added. Further, the U.S. Constitution seems to be fairly clear on the issue of residency and eligibility for Congressional office. From Article 1 § 2:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

When contacted by Bloomberg news, Stark (D-CA? MD?)claimed the Maryland house as his only residence. “I don’t have, I don’t own another residence,” he said, adding that he spends “about two-thirds of the year” in Maryland.

Both Stark (D-CA? MD?) and his wife remain registered to vote in California, with the 77 year old representative using his in-laws’ home address as his official address for voting purposes, according to Bloomberg (who says you’re too old to move in with your parents?) — a fact that, apparently according to California election law, “conclusively” proves he is a resident of the Golden State, regardless of whether he actually lives there or clear across the country.

Stark’s (D-CA? MD?) eligibility to claim a homestead tax exemption on his “3,600-square-foot home located on 6.35 acres in Harwood, Maryland, on the Chesapeake Bay” (value: $1.7 million, according to state tax records) is currently being investigated by the state Department of Assessments and Taxation, which has said it is likely to deny Stark the exemption going forward, but is unlikely to demand a repaying of fraudulently-exempted taxes from the “California” representative or his Capitol Hill peers who similarly claim state and county tax exemptions in Maryland while supposedly hailing from — and representing — other states and districts.

Even if Stark (D-CA? MD?) is eligible to represent California’s 13th District because the state recognizes a candidate’s voter registration address, not their actual residence (even if they stand up in public and declare that outside residence to be their “only” home), as their “conclusively presumed” home of record, this brings up a question I’d very much like to hear an answer to: why in the world would residents of Fremont, California and the surrounding areas want to be represented in the United States Congress by a person who, by his own admission, works, lives, and claims residency in another state that is over 2,800 miles away from them?

COMMENTS

  • itdiehard

    Arnold can appoint a another Democrat to fill his seat… Seems how he has vacated it…

  • texas214

    Sounds like it’s time to play a little hardball with these clowns. If we as conservatives do not enforce/seek to enforce the basic laws of the election process, then by default we’ve let down the whole system of laws set up in the Constitution.

  • The_Gadfly

    The more interesting question in this context is: Given the penumbras emanating from other parts of the constitution, why doesn’t the residency requirement imply that they must actually live in their districts for 184 days per year?

    • red4ever

      I seem to remember quite a few who were arrested, tried and convicted while still holding their seat in Congress. The speech and debate clause only protects them from arrest while attending sessions of Congress or going to and from such sessions. The Founding Fathers certainly never intended to create a class of people completely exempt from the law. Only to allow the government to function without interruption through politicization of police powers.

      If someone does not live in the state, using an address that you do not live at for voting purposes constitutes voter fraud. Otherwise, we could all find friends in California, use their address and register to vote there.

      • The_Gadfly

        .

  • Jingles

    He’s a certified liberal and Fremont is liberal. This is Alameda County here, and while Fremont may be less leftist than Berkeley, it is quite solidly Democratic territory. Were he to be turned out by voters in a primary, it’s likely that he would be replaced by someone even more liberal, just as Rep. Taucher (in a neighboring district) lilkely will be replaced by a more liberal Democrat after she moves to the State Dept.

    And I say this as a resident of Alameda County.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      unless they move to another political post. The 2/3rds portion of the county west of the hills (which includes Stark’s district) has one of the bluest voting records in the state, bluer than San Francisco or Marin I believe. In Oakland, for instance, Bush got only 9% of the votes in 2004.

  • UpLateAgain

    You could have asked why Pete Stark was tolerated by the people of Alameda County fifty times over the past thirty years, for fifty different things that made no sense in any kind of rational or fiscally constructive way… and the answer always comes down to his heavy left foot. They like that in Alameda County. I worked for Alameda County for 25 years, and the politics there are only SLIGHTLY more sane than in the City across the bay.

  • baserunr

    oh, wait. The State Attorney General is Jerry Brown, former Dem governor of California, and perennial Dem candidate for President.

    Never mind.

  • Finrod

    Just a thought, IANAL.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      I mean if Senators Kennedy (MA) and Johnson (SD) could stay in office even though they’ve been gravely ill, it’s hard to see how residency issues could be a bigger barrier. After all, Stark is at work in Washington (at least as much as any Congress critter “works”).

      Plus, given Stark’s seniority and the Democratic machine in place, the consituents are probably getting better service than much of the country (or perhaps I should have written “getting serviced much better than…”.

      So it’s hard to see on legal or factual ground how there could be a contest for “lack of adequate representation”.

      Besides, once he’s taken his seat, only Congress could kick him out, if I read my Constitution correctly.

  • Sharp_Right_Turn

    Why for the same reason my brain dead neighbors here in New York wanted an Arkansas/Illinois resident (who never lived in New York) to represent them in the U.S. Senate…twice!

  • davo119

    This is what he thinks of his constituents who happen to be in the military:
    http://eddriscoll.com/archives/000487.php

    How this guy keeps from bursting into flames on the floor of the house is beyond me.

  • Rod_Patrick
  • Rod_Patrick