Main Menu

Vazquez v. State

ELECTION LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Erik Gordon

In Vazquez v. State, 544 P.3d 1178 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that a person meets the residency requirements to hold elected office if he or she meets the three-year state residency requirement under Title 1 rather than the more stringent requirements of Title 15. (Id. at 1181). Representative Armstrong began her campaign for election to the United States Congress on June 1, 2022. (Id. at 1181). Armstrong took a trip to Alaska to see her significant other, Kellie, an Alaska resident, from May 10–20, 2019, in which time she decided to move to Alaska and move in with Kellie. (Id. at 1182). After agreeing to move in with Kellie, Armstrong referred to Alaska as her “home base”, re-licensed her business in Alaska in July 2019, and obtained her Alaska driver’s license and voter registration in August 2019. (Id. at 1182). On appeal, Vazquez, Armstrong’s election opponent, argued that the use of the broader Title 1 definition of residency, would lead to a floodgate problem, providing cruise ship passengers as people who would qualify for residency under Title 1. (Id. at 1191). Moreover, Vazquez argued that many of the factual findings of the lower court were in error, and Armstrong’s residency began in June of 2019, rather than May of 2019. (Id. at 1189). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision reasoning that the Title 15 refers to the qualifications for being a voter and a resident of a district. (Id. at 1185). Title 1 refers to the requirements of residency for the state of Alaska more generally. (Id. at 1187–88). The court further reasoned that Armstrong met the two requirements of Title 1 because she was (1) physically present at the time that she (2) manifested the intent to make Alaska her home. (Id. at 1188). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a person meets the residency requirements to hold elected office if he or she meets the three-year state residency requirement under Title 1 rather than the more stringent requirements of Title 15. (Id. at 1181).

Vazquez v. State

ELECTION LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Erik Gordon

In Vazquez v. State, 544 P.3d 1178 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that a person meets the residency requirements to hold elected office if he or she meets the three-year state residency requirement under Title 1 rather than the more stringent requirements of Title 15. (Id. at 1181). Representative Armstrong began her campaign for election to the United States Congress on June 1, 2022. (Id. at 1181). Armstrong took a trip to Alaska to see her significant other, Kellie, an Alaska resident, from May 10–20, 2019, in which time she decided to move to Alaska and move in with Kellie. (Id. at 1182). After agreeing to move in with Kellie, Armstrong referred to Alaska as her “home base”, re-licensed her business in Alaska in July 2019, and obtained her Alaska driver’s license and voter registration in August 2019. (Id. at 1182). On appeal, Vazquez, Armstrong’s election opponent, argued that the use of the broader Title 1 definition of residency, would lead to a floodgate problem, providing cruise ship passengers as people who would qualify for residency under Title 1. (Id. at 1191). Moreover, Vazquez argued that many of the factual findings of the lower court were in error, and Armstrong’s residency began in June of 2019, rather than May of 2019. (Id. at 1189). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision reasoning that the Title 15 refers to the qualifications for being a voter and a resident of a district. (Id. at 1185). Title 1 refers to the requirements of residency for the state of Alaska more generally. (Id. at 1187–88). The court further reasoned that Armstrong met the two requirements of Title 1 because she was (1) physically present at the time that she (2) manifested the intent to make Alaska her home. (Id. at 1188). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a person meets the residency requirements to hold elected office if he or she meets the three-year state residency requirement under Title 1 rather than the more stringent requirements of Title 15. (Id. at 1181).