Lawyers representing former New York Times columnist Nick Kristof plan to argue that not only does Kristof meet the state鈥檚 residency requirements to run for Oregon governor, but denying him the chance to run could lead to voter suppression in future Oregon elections.
Secretary of State Shemia Fagan Kristof鈥檚 gubernatorial bid, arguing he does not meet the constitutional requirement that the governor must be a resident of Oregon for three years preceding the election. Fagan based that decision on Kristof鈥檚 history of owning property in New York and voting in that state as recently as 2020.
Kristof is hoping the well before the March 17 deadline for candidates to qualify for the May primary ballot.
On Friday, Kristof鈥檚 lawyers filed their first brief to the court revealing their legal arguments.
In the brief, Kristof鈥檚 lawyers note an Oregon court has never addressed what it means to be a resident of the state.
Kristof鈥檚 lawyers that he was raised in Yamhill and has maintained a home in Yamhill for his entire life, and that Kristof has described Oregon as his home for decades in both his professional writing and in his personal life. They add that the historical point of having a residency requirement in the Oregon constitution was to exclude those who were unfamiliar with the state, and that Fagan gave 鈥渘o weight to forty years of published writings in which Kristof鈥� claimed Yamhill was his home.
The brief says this decision violates the constitution because it is overly broad and does not serve to advance the state鈥檚 interest in 鈥渓imiting public office to those who are familiar with the state.鈥� This interpretation by the state鈥檚 election office could prove to deprive voters of their choice of candidate now and in future elections, they argue.
鈥淭here are many peripatetic Oregonians who, for various reasons, live in more than one place and may prefer candidates who understand the experience of living in multiple places or changing residences often,鈥� the legal document states. 鈥淪uch Oregonians come from all walks of life: houseless and housing-insecure persons; university students; seasonal migrant workers; servicemembers; snowbirds; the list goes on. These groups are disserved by the Secretary鈥檚 interpretation, contravening the spirit of free and equal elections.鈥�
The court will not hear oral arguments. Documents from both the secretary of state鈥檚 office and Kristof are due to the court by Jan. 26.
Oregon election officials have stated that to meet the three-year residency requirement for this year鈥檚 gubernatorial race, a person must be a resident in Oregon for the entire three-year period starting in November 2019.
鈥淏ut the objective facts, including your decision to vote in New York, convincingly suggest that you resided in New York at least from November 2019 to December 2020,鈥� Oregon elections director Deborah Scroggin wrote in a letter to Kristof.
Kristof suggested Fagan based her decision on 鈥減olitics, not precedent,鈥� and that Fagan has long ties to the state鈥檚 Democratic establishment.
Kristof has reported raising far more campaign funds than his highest profile Democratic rivals, House Speaker Tina Kotek and state Treasurer Tobias Read.
While he鈥檚 able to continue fundraising as he mounts a challenge, Kristof argues in the legal filings that he was a frontrunner in the race prior to Fagan鈥檚 decision, but that the secretary 鈥渕ay have predetermined the outcome of the primary election 鈥� or at least put a thumb firmly on the scale 鈥� even if this Court reverses her decision.鈥�
OPB politics reporter Dirk VanderHart contributed to this report.
Copyright 2022 Oregon Public Broadcasting. To see more, visit . 9(MDA4MzU1MzUzMDEzMTkyMzAwMzY5MjY1Mw004))
