Tom Steyer Challenges Eric Swalwell's Residency in California Governor's Race

In a significant development in the California gubernatorial race, Tom Steyer's campaign has petitioned the California Secretary of State to enforce a five-year residency requirement for candidates. Steyer's campaign argues that rival Eric Swalwell, a Democratic congressman, "appears to live in California on paper only." This request escalates a previously conservative critique into a formal campaign attack, raising questions about Swalwell's eligibility to run for governor.

Politico

Steyer's campaign contends that Swalwell's potential election could lead to a "constitutional crisis," particularly given the Trump administration's history of targeting Swalwell following his role in impeachment proceedings against the former president. Steyer's general counsel, Ryan Hughes, expressed concerns that Swalwell's legitimacy as governor could be questioned, potentially jeopardizing California's federal funding and emergency response capabilities.

Politico

Swalwell's campaign has dismissed the residency allegations, asserting that it is common for candidates to use their treasurer or lawyer's address for safety reasons. Swalwell has faced threats since at least 2019, which further complicates the narrative surrounding his residency. Critics point to Swalwell's use of campaign funds for hotel stays in San Francisco and his registration to vote at an address linked to his in-laws as evidence of his questionable residency status.

Politico

Legal experts have weighed in on the issue, noting that the Secretary of State may lack the authority to enforce such a residency requirement. Fredric Woocher, an attorney familiar with California election law, indicated that the enforcement of residency requirements could conflict with constitutional protections. He suggested that any determination regarding Swalwell's residency would likely need to be resolved in court.

Politico

Legal scholars have noted that there are arguments supporting both sides of the residency debate. Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, stated that there is a valid argument for questioning Swalwell's residency if he is not domiciled in California. However, Steyer's campaign has not explicitly called for Swalwell's disqualification, instead seeking a legal review of his eligibility.

Politico

The political ramifications of this residency challenge remain uncertain. Steyer's campaign is reportedly testing various strategies to differentiate itself from Swalwell, who has been polling closely with Steyer and Katie Porter. Despite Steyer's significant financial investment in his campaign, some observers view his residency challenge as a desperate move to regain momentum in a highly competitive race.

Politico

Swalwell's campaign has criticized Steyer's actions as a low blow, accusing him of resorting to "petty" tactics in an attempt to undermine Swalwell's candidacy. A spokesperson for Swalwell remarked that Steyer's approach reflects poorly on billionaires and their influence in politics, suggesting that such actions contribute to public disdain for wealthy individuals.

Politico

• “If elected, questions of legitimacy would hang over Swalwell, allowing the Trump Administration to sow doubt, exploit the ambiguity, and advance its perverse agendas,” — Ryan Hughes, General Counsel for Steyer's Campaign

Politico

• “Tom Steyer has sunk to a new low, peddling far-right MAGA conspiracy theorist Joel Gilbert’s tired talking points.” — Swalwell Campaign Spokesperson

Politico

• “There’s a good argument that he fails the residency requirement if he isn’t domiciled in CA,” — Jessica Levinson, Law Professor

Politico

The unfolding situation highlights the complexities of residency requirements in political candidacies and the potential for legal challenges in the upcoming California gubernatorial election.

Politico