I have a challenge for you. Look at the residency requirement for a candidate for Governor which requires that the candidate be both a “citzen and resident of kentucky” for the six year period. then look at the language in section 32 regarding legislators which only requires that the candidate be a citizen of Kentucky “at the time of the election”, and explain the difference.

As a lawyer, you are aware of the legal maxim that statute writers don’t use different terms unless they intend a different meaning. Also, the language regarding legislative candidates was once the same as the governor, but was specifically changed in the latest version of the constitution. Again the maxim is that the words weren’t changed unless the legislators intended a different meaning.

I can easily imagine a circumstance that led to the change. A Kentuckian may have lived in the state for a decade while still maintaining a citizenship (domicile)in our mother state of Virgina. the constitution writers felt that such an individual should be able to run for the Kentucky Legislature so long as the citizenship(domicile) was officially changed by the “time of the election”. Under the Kentucky constitution if you have resided in Kentucky for six years you can be a candidate so long as you have legal domicile at the “time of the election”.

Senator Stevenson restored her domicile to Kentucky three and a half years prior to the election, and has continuously “resided in” Kentucky all of her life. Her residential contact with Kentucky was far greater than that of Governor John Y. Brown Jr., and he had the higher standard under the constitution.

There is no intent to dupe anyone here. If you don’t think Judge Willet can get it wrong, read Justice William Kellers opinion in the Kentucky Supreme Court. He is a highly respected Jurist from Lexington, appointed by Governor Patton, and has written the only opinion so far by a Supreme Court Justice. He says both Judge Willet and Judge Graham got it dead wrong when they ignored 100 years of clear precedent and took jurisdiction of the case after the election was over. He agreed with the Senate in our claim that once the voters have chosen their legislative candidate only the Chamber to which the candidate has been elected is entitled to judge ” the elections, returns and qualifications” of the presumptive winning candidate.

If Judge Graham and Willet had followed the constitution as Justice Keller plainly sees it we would not be in the mess we are in now and the person elected by the voters would be serving as a fully qualified Senator in accordance with the decision of the Senate.

As an attorney (although not licenced in KentuckY), a political reporter, and someone who has argued residency cases before a state supreme court I can tell you without doubt that Stephenson is not was legal residence for the required period of time. Residency is a two part test. You have to have domicile and place of abode. A place of abode is simply a place to live (a house, apartment, or even a card board box in some states) and domicile is the intent to stay. One can have multiple places of abode, but can only have one domicile at a time. That reason Stephenson did not meet the constitutional requirement is because she did not meet both conditions.

By requesting in-state tuition, for a that period of time her domicile was in Indiana and not Kentucky. Even if her long term goal was to return to Kentucky, for that period of time, her domicile was Indiana.