Former Gov. Jesse Ventura’s flirtation with running for the U.S. Senate will end one way or the other in the next two weeks. With a filing deadline of July 15, it will become clear whether Ventura (or any additional viable candidates) will be joining Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken on the ballot.
Ventura’s candidacy seems like a considerable long shot, but suppose for a moment that he does ultimately climb into the race. There remains an unsettled question: Does Ventura legally reside in the state of Minnesota as required by law?
Ventura has repeatedly described himself as a resident of Mexico in newspaper interviews and appearances on talk shows to hawk his book, Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me. Most entertainingly, he described his current living situation on an appearance with Larry King in April. "I’m living now, at least half the year, down in the Baja in Mexico," he told the CNN host. "I live one hour from pavement and one hour from electricity, about 850 miles down there. Amazingly, I live with those brown-skinned people that frighten Lou Dobbs so much."
An Associated Press story, also from April, alludes to Ventura’s current residency status in a slightly different manner. "In between talking about leaving the gold standard and the virtues of Mexican property taxes, Ventura declared himself ‘the most powerful man in America.’ Why? Because, he said, Republicans and Democrats had to work together to stop him when he was governor."
So if Ventura is being truthful, two things are certain: He lives in Mexico at least half the year and he pays taxes on the property he owns there. However, Ventura also continues to own property and pay taxes on it in Maple Grove.
In filing for election, candidates must sign an affidavit vouching for their residency in the state. The section for U.S. Senate reads as follows: "I will be an inhabitant of this state when elected and I will be at least 30 years old and a citizen of the United States for not less than nine years on the next January 3rd, or if filled at special election, within 21 days after the election."
But just because Ventura signs such an affidavit testifying that he indeed lives in Minnesota, it doesn’t mean that his standing to run for office won’t be challenged, presumably by the Democrats or Republicans. According to David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University and an expert on campaign laws, Ventura would have to prove that his "domicile" is currently Minnesota. The Minnesota Supreme Court would decide such a matter.
"What they’ll look at is a whole host of things," says Schultz. "Where is your primary residence? Where are your bank accounts located? Where is your doctor located? Where have you voted most recently? The critical thing isn’t just where he is physically, but did he intend to give up his Minnesota citizenship when he moved away?"
Schultz believes the answer to this question is open to interpretation. "I could see a scenario where either Democrats or Republicans go to court to challenge him," he says. "It’s not a knockdown that he would be recognized as having domicile or not."
Strangely, if this ultimately becomes an issue, it would not be the first time that Ventura has found himself in a political dispute over his residency. In 1994, during the waning months of his tenure as mayor of Brooklyn Park, Ventura purchased a larger residence in nearby Maple Grove. He continued to maintain the Brooklyn Park home, but his political opponents in the city filed a lawsuit. Ventura defended himself in court, rather than saddle taxpayers with the bill for a private attorney, and ultimately prevailed.
Here’s the April clip of Ventura talking about his current living situation on "Larry King Live":
Earlier: The Jesse Years: rebate checks, petty bickering and a lot of squandered goodwill













4 Comments »
Comment posted July 2, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
I’m surprised Professor Schulz though this was a questionable legal issue. Ventura has to meet these requirements according to the Secretary of State’s candidacy guide: “Candidate must be living in Minnesota when elected, at least 30-years-old, and a U.S. citizen for at least nine years on January 3, 2009.” Note the living in Minnesota _when elected_, not at the time of filing. These requirements are directly from the U.S. Constitution.
The courts have held that states cannot impose restrictions on candidates greater than those found in the Constitution. Thus a state may forbid felons from running for state office but cannot forbid them from running for Congressional offices. States cannot impose residency requirements beyond a candidate living in the state when elected. If a candidate is living in Minnesota on election day, that requirement is solved.
For more confirmation of this, I’d suggest looking for articles regarding Alan Keyes selection as the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois in 2004. Keyes lived in Maryland when nominated and had never lived in Illinois. There was a lot of press on how his lack of residency did not disqualify him because of the items I mentioned above.
Comment posted July 2, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Jesse Ventura owns a house (and a large one, at that) in Dellwood, Washington County.
It’s the one with the big signs warning that you will be eaten by attack dogs.
Despite his bluster about Mexico, the Big Dude really lives here, I believe.
Any spec about his not being eligible for office in Minnesota can be filed under “Wishful Thinking.”
Comment posted July 2, 2008 @ 6:36 am
Jesse Ventura owns a house (and a large one, at that) in Dellwood, Washington County.
It's the one with the big signs warning that you will be eaten by attack dogs.
Despite his bluster about Mexico, the Big Dude really lives here, I believe.
Any spec about his not being eligible for office in Minnesota can be filed under “Wishful Thinking.”
Comment posted July 2, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
I'm surprised Professor Schulz though this was a questionable legal issue. Ventura has to meet these requirements according to the Secretary of State's candidacy guide: “Candidate must be living in Minnesota when elected, at least 30-years-old, and a U.S. citizen for at least nine years on January 3, 2009.” Note the living in Minnesota _when elected_, not at the time of filing. These requirements are directly from the U.S. Constitution.
The courts have held that states cannot impose restrictions on candidates greater than those found in the Constitution. Thus a state may forbid felons from running for state office but cannot forbid them from running for Congressional offices. States cannot impose residency requirements beyond a candidate living in the state when elected. If a candidate is living in Minnesota on election day, that requirement is solved.
For more confirmation of this, I'd suggest looking for articles regarding Alan Keyes selection as the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois in 2004. Keyes lived in Maryland when nominated and had never lived in Illinois. There was a lot of press on how his lack of residency did not disqualify him because of the items I mentioned above.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment