[outpostinmass2]

No, the residency laws are different here than NY. I believe you just have to move to NY and state residency and then run for NY. Bobby Kennedy did this when he was senator for NY.

In Massachusetts you have to be a resident for at least one year to run for senator. JFK had to do this when he ran for congress. Joe Kennedy Jr. needed to do the same when he ran for congress.

I think Mitt has been out of state for over two years at this point.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“In Massachusetts you have to be a resident for at least one year to run for senator.”

---

States can require that someone have resided in the state for X years prior to running for a state office, but states can’t do squat about persons running for the U.S. House or Senate. Article I of the U.S. Constitution merely provides that Senators and Representatives must be inhabitants of the state at the time of their election, and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that no state may impose additional qualifications for Senators and Representatives than those in the Constitution (which is why states can impose term limits on state legislators and officials but not on U.S. Senators or Representatives).

That being said, Mitt Romney is not going to move back to Mass. to make a long-shot bid for the U.S. Senate. If Romney didn’t even run for reelection as governor in 2006 because he thought he would likely lose (and, even worse for someone that wanted to run for Ppresident as a Republican, not be able to reinvent himself as a “conservative” and simultaneously face the Mass. electorate), he won’t run for the Senate now.

Do you think that Peter Blute could make a run? I can’t think of any other moderate-to-conservative Republicans that could run a competitive statewide race.