The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday on whether the courts can address Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s Florida vs. Alabama residency.
First, the court did not decide whether Tuberville met the residency requirements. It used a workaround and upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the case.
AL.com reported that the issue was whether courts could enforce the law that requires a candidate to have a certain number of years of residency in the state before running for governor. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the law and that political parties are responsible for enforcing it.
“Today’s decision opens the door to ineligible candidates, including non-U.S. citizens, to seek elected office so long as the political parties fail to do their jobs in ensuring that their nominees comply with the Constitution,” said Barry Ragsdale, the attorney who filed the lawsuit.
“The statutory language is expressly limited to ‘any proceeding for ascertaining the legality, conduct, or results of any election’ or ‘any injunction, process, or order from any judge or court, whereby the results of any election are sought to be inquired into, questioned, or affected, or whereby any certificate of election is sought to be inquired into or questioned,’” the appeal brief said ahead of the arguments. “Appellants challenge only Tuberville’s constitutional eligibility to now serve as the certified nominee — which presumes that the results of the primary are valid and correct.”
Tuberville argued that the courts have no role in deciding whether he meets the constitutional legal requirements. The Alabama Republican Party already decided that he had lived in the state long enough.
In June, the Tuberville campaign released new documents to prove his residency, but it inadvertently exposed him to two potential charges. To prove he was an Alabama resident, his team recently produced seven years of tax documentation and property tax records. But it raised further questions about Tuberville’s voting record.
“Our decisions in such cases have generally adhered to the rule that a primary-election contest brought under the primary-election contest statutes is the exclusive method authorized by law to challenge a party nominee’s qualification for office before the general election,” the judges wrote.
“Additionally, there is no statutory right to appeal a committee’s decision to the circuit court or to this Court,” they added.
It was the key piece of the ruling since the state’s GOP had already decided he could be considered a qualified “resident.”
Read the ruling here.