Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, finds himself in the crosshairs of a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for governor, with opponents claiming he doesn’t truly reside in the state.
The legal action, filed by filmmaker Joel Gilbert, alleges Swalwell primarily lives in Washington, D.C., and fails to meet California’s five-year residency requirement for gubernatorial candidates. Swalwell’s team has fired back, asserting he has always maintained a Bay Area residence, holds a California driver’s license, and pays state taxes.
The issue has ignited sharp debate over what constitutes residency in modern politics. Critics question whether a campaign office address listed on filings undermines Swalwell’s claim to call California home.
Swalwell’s campaign insists the use of a Sacramento office address on documents ties directly to safety precautions, not a lack of residency, as reported by the New York Post. “Because of the thousands of death threats the Congressman has received, it is perfectly legal to list a campaign office address on filings,” said Kate Maeder, his campaign’s general consultant.
That explanation might hold water for some, but it leaves a bitter taste for those who value transparency in public office. If threats justify obscuring personal details, where does accountability draw the line?
Maeder also pointed to Swalwell’s nearly 2 million airline miles since 2012 as proof of his constant travel between Washington and California. That’s a lot of jet fuel to burn for someone supposedly detached from the Golden State.
The lawsuit’s filer, Joel Gilbert, isn’t exactly a neutral observer, with Swalwell’s team labeling him a right-wing blogger known for promoting outlandish theories. They quip that his credibility might be better suited to tabloid fiction than courtroom fact.
“This nonsense comes from a MAGA blogger who once made a film claiming Elvis is still alive,” Maeder scoffed. Her jab underscores a belief that the suit is less about residency and more about scoring partisan points.
Yet, Gilbert’s complaint isn’t without specifics, homing in on a December filing listing an attorney’s office address rather than a personal home. For skeptics of political elites, that detail fuels suspicion of clever loopholes over genuine ties.
Under the California Constitution, gubernatorial candidates must reside in the state for five consecutive years before an election. Gilbert argues Swalwell falls short, pointing to a D.C. home listed as his “official” address in some contexts.
Swalwell’s defenders counter that such arrangements are common for public figures facing real security risks. They paint the lawsuit as a distraction from deeper issues facing the state.
Still, the optics of a congressman splitting time between coasts don’t sit well with everyone. Voters might wonder if a leader’s heart can truly be in Sacramento when their mailbox is in Washington.
This case cuts to a broader question of how residency applies in an era of mobile, high-profile politicians. If racking up airline miles counts as living somewhere, plenty of frequent flyers could claim dual citizenship.
Swalwell’s camp remains confident, framing the suit as a desperate tactic by opponents fearing his influence. “Do you think someone without a California residence racks up almost two million miles going back and forth?” Maeder challenged, daring critics to disprove his commitment.
Ultimately, the courts will decide if Swalwell’s roots are deep enough in California soil. Until then, this spat serves as a reminder that in politics, even a home address can become a battleground. Expect more fireworks as the race heats up.