Raising residency questions
When Gov. John Sparks ran Nevada a century ago, state law required that he live in Carson City. But no one seemed to mind that “Honest John” regularly commuted by train between the capital city and his ranch near Reno.
Times have changed. At the least, modern-day candidates who appear to skirt political residency requirements can be sure their opponents will make it a campaign issue. Some candidates will face court challenges. Others, such as former Clark County Commissioner Lynette Boggs, will face criminal charges.
Boggs last week was charged with four felonies, accused of lying on campaign paperwork.
Two charges center on whether she lived at a house inside her southwest valley district. Authorities contend she lived outside the district and created a paper trail to cover up the arrangement.
University of Nevada, Reno political science professor Eric Herzik shakes his head when he thinks of all the political candidates who ignore residency laws when they should be living among their constituents.
“You’re not some sort of hired gun. You’re supposed to be for the people and by the people,” he said. “It’s basic government, which sometimes gets lost in the shuffle of American politics.”
Although federal candidates don’t have to live in the district they represent, state, county and local candidates are required to live in their districts for 30 days before the filing deadline.
But the law is vague when defining the residency requirement, saying candidates must actually, not constructively, live in their districts.
Figuring out what that means falls to the judges who hear the residency challenges raised by political opponents or authorities.
One of those challenges was raised last year by the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and Culinary Local 226, who filed a lawsuit to remove Boggs, a Republican, from the ballot in the commission’s District F race.
The two labor unions spearheaded the Boggs investigation by hiring a private investigator who captured video footage of the commissioner in her bathrobe picking up the newspaper at the house outside her district.
The lawsuit ended up being moot, however, when Boggs lost the election.
The unions also filed a complaint in September with the secretary of state’s office claiming she had illegally used campaign funds. The investigation of that complaint resulted in charges being filed last week.
Judges in other cases have thrown candidates off the ballot because they didn’t live where they claimed to.
In a 2002 case filed against Clark County Commission candidate Michael Williams, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled a candidate’s “home is where your cat lives” in keeping Williams off the ballot in his bid to unseat Myrna Williams.
The court found Michael Williams, a Democrat, had a house in Henderson where his fiancée and cat lived, while he lived in an apartment.
Judges have removed other candidates from ballots in recent years, including Assembly candidate David Parks, a Democrat who ran against an incumbent with the same name, and Republican university regent candidate Mark DeStefano.
The district attorney’s office investigated the DeStefano case but didn’t press charges, because prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proving intent is usually the biggest hurdle to filing a criminal case, especially since it’s hard enough proving where candidates live, said Matt Griffin, deputy secretary of state for elections.
“If we’re not sure where they live, how can we say what their intent was?” Griffin said.
The district attorney’s office has prosecuted at least one other candidate before Boggs. In 1998, Democratic Assembly candidate Judi Lynn pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for lying about where she lived.
Political observers were split on whether the Boggs case would curtail politicians’ attempts to ignore residency requirements.
“I’ll wait and see,” said Larry Lomax, Clark County’s registrar of voters and frequent ear for carpetbagging complaints.
Herzik said time would tell if the case had any lasting effect.
“You would hope that everybody looks at this, both voters and politicians, and at some point says, ‘Enough,'” he said.
From historian Michael Green’s perspective, the Boggs case could mean a boon for local real estate agents.
“We might be looking at ‘For Sale’ signs outside the homes of certain politicians who are now more concerned about this,” he said.