Summary
I am calling out Missouri lawmakers for pushing unconstitutional residency rules for U.S. House candidates. The Constitution is clear, the Supreme Court settled this decades ago, and states do not get to add extra barriers.
By Ricky Dana, Candidate for U.S. House – Missouri’s 4th District
Missouri congressional residency rules are back in the spotlight, and not because they protect voters. Missouri lawmakers are attempting to impose new residency requirements on candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and that effort runs straight into the U.S. Constitution.
This is not a policy disagreement. It is a constitutional problem. States do not have the authority to invent new qualifications for federal office, no matter how those rules are labeled or justified.
⚖️ Missouri Congressional Residency Rules Were Settled by the Supreme Court
This question is not new, and it is not unresolved. The U.S. Supreme Court answered it clearly in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).
The Court ruled that states may not add qualifications for members of Congress beyond what is written in the U.S. Constitution. Allowing each state to invent extra rules would fracture national elections and undermine Congress itself.
If a rule blocks otherwise qualified candidates from running for Congress, calling it a residency requirement does not make it constitutional.
- Not sometimes.
- Not creatively.
- Not under another name.
- They cannot. Period.
📜 What the Constitution Actually Requires
The Constitution itself spells out the qualifications for the U.S. House of Representatives, and they are intentionally limited to prevent political manipulation.
A House candidate must be at least 25 years old, must have been a U.S. citizen for seven years, and must live in the state at the time of election. That is the full list.
- No extra hoops.
- No invented residency tests.
- No legislative power grabs disguised as reform.
Missouri congressional residency rules that go beyond these qualifications are not protecting democracy. They are narrowing it.
🔒 The Supremacy Clause Means States Do Not Get the Final Say
The Supremacy Clause makes one thing clear. The U.S. Constitution and federal law override conflicting state laws.
When a state statute conflicts with the Constitution, the statute loses immediately. Not after a court fight. Not after an election. Immediately.
This means Missouri lawmakers cannot override constitutional qualifications by passing a bill and hoping no one challenges it.
🤔 Missouri Lawmakers Should Know Better
Missouri legislators know this. Or they should. This is basic civics. States can administer elections, but they cannot rewrite the eligibility rules for Congress.
The Supreme Court said no. The Constitution says no.
🚫 This Is Not Election Integrity
Blocking candidates by state statute is not election integrity. It is unconstitutional gatekeeping.
These kinds of rules do not protect voters. They protect incumbents and insiders by shrinking the field and limiting real choice.
Missouri congressional residency rules should never be used to decide which candidates voters are allowed to hear from.
🗳️ Voters Choose Their Representatives
In the United States, voters choose their representatives. Politicians do not get to rewrite the rules to protect themselves from competition.
The Constitution exists precisely to stop that temptation, even when it is politically inconvenient.
🔥 Bottom Line
Missouri congressional residency rules cannot add qualifications for Congress.
The Supreme Court settled this decades ago. The Constitution is clear. Attempts to stack extra residency barriers onto congressional candidates are unconstitutional, plain and simple.
💙 Chip in now to help defend fair elections and the Constitution.
💪 Join our team and help protect voters’ rights across Missouri.
📖 Stay updated: https://rickydana.org/news-you-should-know/
Leave a Reply