Tucson City Councilwoman Karin Uhlich no longer lives in the ward she represents, which could put her in violation of state law regarding residency requirements for elected officials.
Uhlich, who represents the midtown Ward 3, switched her voter registration on April 29 to a house near East Tanque Verde and North Pantano roads. The house is in the city’s Ward 2.
Uhlich bought the home at the beginning of the year, Pima County Recorder’s Office documents show.
City Attorney Mike Rankin said Uhlich is on safe ground as long as she remains a city resident — whether or not she lives in her elected ward. But state law may not be so clear-cut.
Arizona law says that whenever an elected official stops being a resident of the “district, county, city, town or precinct” where he or she was elected, that seat becomes vacant. But Rankin said that doesn’t apply to Uhlich’s situation because Tucson’s council is elected citywide. However, he said, people can be nominated to represent only the ward in which they live to be eligible to advance to a city general election.
Tucson’s City Charter requires council candidates to live within the city limits for three years and says specifically they must live in their ward for one year before qualifying for the ballot.
The charter says only that a council member can’t relocate outside the city while serving, Rankin said.
A candidate would have to move back into the ward where he or she plans to run one year before the election, he said. In this case, Uhlich would have to return to the ward she represents in 2016.
She decided not to wait. She changed her voter registration address again on Sept. 3, this time to an apartment near East Glenn Street and North Columbus Boulevard, within her Ward 3.
Uhlich said she bought the east-side home because her family was going through a transition. “My intent was to focus on my family,” Uhlich said.
Despite the move, Uhlich said she never had intentions of abandoning Ward 3 or relinquishing her office. She said she has continued to be connected to the ward and its issues.
While she spoke casually with Rankin and others about the potential consequences of relocating, Uhlich said she relied mainly on her reading of the city charter and a “gut-check” to ultimately decide on the move.
With the August primary approaching, Uhlich switched her voting registration to her new address because she didn’t want to cast a vote in a ward in which she no longer lived. She also already had rented the house she still owns within the ward.
“I’m very committed to being open and transparent,” Uhlich said. “I’m not going to pretend I live somewhere when I don’t.”
Uhlich rented the apartment in early September and shortly thereafter changed her voting address to that location.
“It has made sense to have that,” Uhlich said. “It was the right decision and it will be made use of both related to my Ward 3 work, but also to my family.”
Uhlich said her family has used the apartment, and she did not rent it strictly to maintain an address in the ward.
“It’s important for me and my family right now to have things arranged exactly as they are,” she said. “I’m following what my family needs first and foremost, and my service and loyalty to Ward 3, and the city, remains real clear.”
MURKY regulations
State law is clear on what can trigger a vacancy, said Tom Belshe, deputy director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which publishes a primer for council members on municipal government rules.
However, what qualifies as a permanent departure from a city or ward’s boundaries isn’t as cut and dried, Belshe said.
In the past, state law was silent on who gets to determine what constituted a vacancy. So cities decided for themselves or lawsuits would get filed contesting an elected official or candidate’s residency claims.
But a recent state law puts that authority in the hands of a county attorney’s office, Belshe said. State law doesn’t specify who can file a complaint to a county attorney, he said.
The league’s packet for local officials interprets the law as saying a vacancy exists when a council member leaves the ward in which he or she was elected.
Rankin says that applies to cities with ward-only elections. If the city operated on a ward-only election, Uhlich’s move might have been a problem, Rankin said.
Rankin referenced a 1994 Arizona Court of Appeals decision that ousted a board member of the Yavapai Community College District for moving out of his elected precinct.
In that case, the court drew a distinction between a precinct-only and districtwide election. It determined that, since the election was precinct-only, the board member vacated his seat by relocating.
Even if the city did go to ward-only elections, which the city’s charter review committee may soon consider, it’s likely that the charter change would specify that council members must continue living in their wards during the terms, Rankin said.
TOUGH SELL
Proving that someone doesn’t live in the city or ward where he or she serves or is running for office has been a difficult proposition.
That is mostly because officials in question maintained a home or apartment within those legal borders that they could claim as their primary residence. And courts tend to take candidates at their word.
“It’s not an extraordinarily high threshold to declare a primary residence,” Rankin said.
Sometimes a judge would throw a politician out of office, such as what happened to former Nogales Mayor Mary Macias in 1989.
But most often the accused politicians win out, such as when former City Councilman Roger Sedlmayr claimed a residence and kept a voter registration address within the boundaries where he was elected.
Others who have survived residency challenges are former City Council members Bruce Wheeler, Roy Laos and Robert Cauthorn; Pima County Supervisor E.S. Walker; and former U.S. Rep. Morris K. Udall.
Even if an elected official’s move is found to be in violation of state law, the consequences are unclear.
The state constitution doesn’t address what should be done if an elected official becomes unqualified yet continues to serve, said Rodolfo Espino, assistant professor of political science at Arizona State University.
It also offers no advice on what happens to the votes an elected official cast once he or she was no longer eligible to serve, Espino said.
