Why Tennessee’s New Residency Requirement for Congressional Candidates Is Blatantly Unconstitutional

Daily Signal ^ | 04/26/2022 | Hans von Spakovsky

[aimhigh]

After the Civil War, Southern politicians fearful of losing their grip on power decried the influx of “carpetbaggers” from the North. Tennessee lawmakers today seem to have similar fears.

On April 13, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, returned SB 2616 to the legislature (meaning it became law despite his lack of signature). The bill requires any candidate running for Congress to have resided in the state for three years to run in primary elections.

Given that the law is patently unconstitutional under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, you may wonder what suddenly inspired the Tennessee General Assembly to add this requirement to the state’s long-standing rules of eligibility. The answer to that question seems to be: Morgan Ortagus.

Article I, Section II of the Constitution provides that “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” That’s it.

Those are the only three qualifications of eligibility for a candidate running for the U.S. House. Imposing a state residency requirement might seem reasonable to some. Others might view it as bias against newcomers. But one’s opinion of the fairness or unfairness of such a requirement doesn’t really matter. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, such additional qualifications imposed by states are unconstitutional.

[DannyTN]

This article is about legislation that was passed, that affects all candidates. So it’s different from the TN GOP bylaw rules.

I thought the same thing when I read the headlines.