Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
5. In this case, the court should
An ordinance of a particular city requires that its mayor have continuously been a resident of the city for at least five years at the time he or she takes office. A candidate, who is thinking about running for mayor in an election that will take place next year, will have been a resident of the city for only four and one-half years at the time the mayor elected then takes office. Before he decides whether to run for the position of mayor, the candidate wants to know whether he could lawfully assume that position if he were elected. As a result, the candidate files suit in the local federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the city's five-year-residence requirement is unconstitutional and that he is entitled to a place on his political party's primary election ballot for mayor. He names the chairman of his political party as the sole defendant but does not join any election official. The chairman responds by joining the candidate in requesting the court to declare the city's residence requirement invalid.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The qualifications of an elected official, even for a local election, do present a substantial federal constitutional question.
C is incorrect. The court may not reach the merits of the case if the candidate lacks standing. Moreover, it is not clear that this residency requirement would deny candidates equal protection of the law.
D is incorrect. The federal courts may not modify the state law by finding substantial compliance enough if the state law is otherwise constitutional.