NKyTribune staff report
Boone Circuit Court Judge James R. Schrand has ruled Daniel “Danny” Seifried is not an eligible candidate in the Republican primary because he does not meet residency requirements.
Seifried, 23, sought to challenge incumbent State Rep. Adam Koening, R-Erlanger, for the 69th District Kentucky House Seat in Tuesday’s Republican primary.
Seifried was ruled ineligible because he failed to establish residency one year prior to the Nov.8 general election.
Erlanger resident Lucy Riffle asked for a summary disposition on the matter, contending Seifried voted in the Nov. 3, 2015 General Election as a resident of Rose Petal Drive in Florence . The address is outside of the 69th House District Seifried was seeking election from.
Riffle contended Seifried did not move to his new address on Palmetto Drive in Florence, which is in the 69th District, until after Nov. 9, and that his voter registration did not reflect that address until December.
The 69th District encompasses parts of Boone and Kenton Counties.
Election officers in Boone and Kenton Counties are instructed to “conspicuously post notice at the polling places advising voters of the change, and that votes for Seifried shall not be tabulated or recorded.”
The decision leaves Koening without an opponent in Tuesday’s primary.
The text of Judge Schrand’s decision is included below.
This matter came before the Court on May 10, 2016 for a hearing on Movant/Petitioner Lucy Riffle’s Motion for Summary Disposition of Challenge. The Movant/Petitioner was represented by Hon. Thomas L. Rouse, Respondent Daniel “Danny” Seifried was represented by Hon. Robert A. Winter, Jr., Respondent Kentucky Secretary of State, Alison Lundergan Grimes was represented by Hon. Lindsay Hughes Thurston, Respondent Boone County Board of Elections was represented by Boone County Attorney, Hon. Robert Neace, and Respondent
Kenton County Board of Elections was represented by Kenton County Attorney, Hon. Stacy H. Tapke. The Court having reviewed the memoranda filed by the Parties, and having heard argument from counsel, and being in all ways sufficiently advised, hereby finds as follows:
On April 19, 2016, a Verified Motion for Summary Proceedings Pursuant to KRS 1 18.176 was filed by Lucy Riffle, Pro Se, in which she alleged that Daniel “Danny” Seifried does not meet the residency requirements contained in Section 32 of the Kentucky Constitution. On May 2, 2016, the Hon. Thomas L. Rouse entered his appearance on behalf of Lucy Riffle at which time he filed this Motion for Summary Disposition of Challenge.
Section 32 of the Kentucky Constitution imposes on a candidate for State Representative a one (l) year requirement of residency preceding the election in the “county, town, or city for which he may be chosen.” Section 32 also requires that a candidate for State Senator meet the same one year residency requirement, but that the State Senator candidate must reside “in the district for which he may be chosen.” The Court of Appeals of Kentucky has addressed this apparent contradictory requirement to be a State Representative, one year residence in county, town or city versus to be a State Senator, one year residence in district.
The Court found Section 32 to be ambiguous on its face as no State Representative is chosen for a county, town or city, and therefore, as no other reasonable meaning could be found in the present Constitution, the Court looked to the former Constitution in finding that the one year residency requirement is for the State Representative candidate’s district. See Grantz v. Grauman, 302 S.W. 364, 365-367 (Ky. App. 1957), McConnell v. Marshall, 467 S.W.2d 318, 319 (Ky. App. 1971). This Court agrees and no party raised this as an issue.
There is no dispute that Daniel “Danny” Seifried signed a lease agreement for his current residence on November I I, 2015 and physically moved into the property on November 16, 2015.
The dispute lies in how the one year residency pursuant to Section 32 of the Kentucky Constitution is to be calculated. Riffle argues that Seifried was required to reside in the 69th legislative district for a full year preceding this year’s general election which is to be held on November 8, 2016. Seifried argues that he was required to reside in the district one year preceding November 28, 2016 as that day is the “time of his election” pursuant to KRS118.425(5) and (6).
He claims that the State Representative is “elected” for purposes of Section 32 of the Kentucky Constitution when the State Board of Elections issues its certificate of election to the candidate garnering the highest number of votes. As he physically moved into the District on November 16, 2015, he argues he has met the residency requirement set forth under the Constitution.
In order to resolve this dispute, the Court finds it must first determine the intent behind Section 32 of the Kentucky Constitution. There are several rules the Court must follow when addressing constitutional construction. Where the language of the Constitution leaves no doubt of the intended meaning, Courts may not employ rules of construction. See Grantz p. 365.
Further the Court cannot view one Section of the Constitution in isolation from the rest. In interpreting one section, the Court must look at all sections bearing on any particular subject to assure that any interpretation effectuates the whole purpose of the Constitution. Id. Section 32 of the Kentucky Constitution states as follows:
Ky. Const. S 32 — Qualifications of Senators and Representatives
No person shall be a Representative who, at the time of his election, is not a citizen of Kentucky, has not attained the age of twenty-four years, and who has not resided in this State two years next preceding his election, and the last year thereof in the county, town or city for which he may be chosen. No person shall be a Senator who, at the time of his election, is not a citizen of Kentucky, has not attained the age of thirty years, and has not resided in this State six years next preceding his election, and the last year thereof in the district for which he may be chosen.
Section 30 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that “[m]embers of the House of Representatives and Senators shall be elected at the general election in the even-numbered years.” Section 148 of the Kentucky Constitution provides:
Ky. Const. S 148 Number of Elections; day and hours of election; qualifications of officers; employees to be given time to vote.
[N]ot more than one election each year shall be held in this State or in any city, town, district, urban county or county thereof, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. All regular elections of State, county, city, town, urban-county, or district officers shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
All elections by the people shall be between the hours of six o’clock a.m. and seven o’clock p.m., but that the General Assembly may change said hours, and all officers of any election shall be residents and voters in the precinct in which they act. The General Assembly shall provide by law that all employers shall allow employees, under reasonable regulations, at least four hours on election days, in which to cast their votes.
In reviewing both this section and the Constitution as a whole, the Court finds that the language in Section 32 of the Kentucky Constitution regarding the definition of election and the time frame for residency is clear. Elections for state officers, such as State Representatives, are to take place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. It is necessary to have a date
certain for the general election to avoid voter confusion, which could arise if the Court were to agree with Seifried’s position that the residency requirement is not a date certain, but a date between the election and the third Monday thereafter, when the State Board of Elections meets to certify the election results. Therefore, the Court finds that under Section 32 of the Kentucky
Constitution “time of election” is defined as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, that date this year is November 8, 2016. The Court finds that as such, Seifried has not met Section 32’s Constitutional requirement for residency.
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Movant/Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Disposition of Challenge is GRANTED. As the ballots for this election were previously printed and cannot now be changed, pursuant to KRS 1 18.212 (3-5), both the Boone and Kenton County Clerks shall provide notice to their precinct election officers that Daniel “Danny” Seifried has been disqualified and withdrawn. The officers shall conspicuously post notice at the polling places advising voters of the change, and that votes for him shall not be tabulated or recorded.