By the Oregon Capital Bureau and Oregon Capital Chronicle
The Oregon Supreme Court is now more likely to take up the question of whether former New York Times columnist Nick Kristof is eligible to run for governor.
In a Tuesday filing, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan agreed with Kristof’s lawyers that the question needs to be resolved by the top court soon. Attorney General Ellen Rosenbaum filed an 11-page response that also asked the Supreme Court to decide the issue as soon as possible.
On Jan. 6, Fagan ruled Kristof has not lived in Oregon long enough to run for governor, largely because he had registered and voted in New York while working for the Times. Kristof challenged the ruling with the court the next day, arguing he considers his home to be Oregon, where he was raised, owns property, and has returned for summers for the past 30 years.
“The Secretary’s priority is building trust with Oregonians by maintaining elections processes that are prompt, predictable, and fair. In this case, that means having an accurate May 2022 primary ballot for Oregon voters that includes all qualified candidates,” Fagan’s filing said.
Oregon ballots must be printed by March 17. In her filing, Fagan said the parties have agreed that Kristof’s brief will be due on Jan. 14, her response will be due on Jan. 20, and Kristof’s reply will be due on Jan. 26.
“That schedule would ensure that the proceeding can be submitted by or shortly after the end of January, including oral argument on January 31 or February 1 if the court chooses. Most critically, the Secretary asks this court to issue a final decision before March 17, 2022, the deadline for finalizing the list of candidates for the primary ballot, so that ballots can be printed and mailed on time,” Fagan’s filing said.
Kristof filed as a Democrat for governor on Dec. 20. Fagan’s office, which regulates elections, sent him a letter the next day asking for more proof of his Oregon residency.
The Supreme Court must now decide whether to accept the case or make Kristof start his challenge in Marion County Circuit Court.
In an 11-page response obtained by the Oregon Capital Chronicle, Rosenblum and Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman agreed with Kristof that the state Supreme Court is the best avenue to resolve the dispute. State law says anyone adversely affected by an election official’s decision should appeal to a state circuit court, but attorneys agreed that decision might take too long given the rapidly approaching primary election.
But Rosenblum and Gutman said the tight timetable is Kristof’s fault, noting he could have filed to run as early as Sept. 9, 2021. He announced his campaign in October but didn’t file to run until Dec. 20 – nearly three weeks after the Secretary of State’s Office said it contacted his campaign to urge him to file quickly because election officials anticipated challenges to his residency.
The state’s attorneys wrote that the court can either decide whether Kristof is a resident of Oregon based on the information election officials considered or request additional information from Kristof.
“While plaintiff provided a copious supplemental response, he offered few new facts other than a personal affidavit and two affidavits from friends,” the response said. “The Elections Division made its decision based on the information plaintiff provided and publicly available facts.”
The response quotes Kristof at a press conference Thursday, during which he said he would have provided any records, including his income tax returns, to election officials if they had asked.
Kristof ignored explicit requests last month for redacted versions of his tax returns, as well as other documents, from the Oregon Capital Chronicle, and he said during that press conference that he did so to “honor” the secretary of state’s investigation.
Oregon taxpayers indicate on their tax forms whether they’re part-year residents, full-year residents or nonresidents.
“To date, however, plaintiff has been unwilling to stipulate in these proceedings to his tax filing status for either state (resident, part-time resident, or nonresident) for the relevant period, whether or when he amended his tax returns, or—if he was a part-time resident—to specify the date his residence changed,” the state’s response said.
In a previous letter to Fagan’s office, Kristof’s attorneys said there has only been one Oregon court case that considered the question of whether voter registration determines residency, over a state House seat in 1974. A Marion County judge ruled that “the question of domicile is largely one of intent,” a precedent that supports Kristof, who has owned property in Yamhill County since 1993.