“No Legs” to Cooper’s Election Complaint
I asked a lawyer with significant experience dealing with elections law if Patrick Cooper’s legal challenge in the Birmingham mayoral race had any legs. The sharp and quick reply, “No. Legally it’s bad, and politically it’s worse.”
The attorney believed that Cooper could have been in a good position political after a strong rookie outing but was burning up considerable good will with a challenge that will not succeed. “I don’t know if he got bad advice, or if he got good advice and didn’t listen to it.”
Residency requirements for candidacy are not so different from residency requirements for voting, and the courts have allowed wide latitude for voters to meet residency requirements in court challenges, according to the lawyer.
“Even if Cooper were to win the challenge, it would take so long to wind through court that [Mayor-elect Larry] Langford will have spent enough nights in Birmingham to qualify for the next election. He would be running against Langford again.”
Langford wouldn’t be disqualified from running if another election were held? I asked.
“No. No chance. There is no chance that Langford would be disqualified from running in the next election if he met the requirements.”
Related Articles:
I’m hearing similar comments from non-attorneys who live in the city and are involved in politics. These are people who backed Cooper but think the challenge is a bad move. I confess to being torn — if Langford were otherwise squeaky-clean, it would be easier to let this slide and say he made a good-faith effort. Given his reputation, I’m not sure the citizens of Birmingham are wise to let him get away with anything else. It just encourages him. I don’t live in the city, but I would love to see better regional cooperation. Time will tell if Larry is committed to that.
Comment by Kathy — October 22, 2007 @ 9:04 am
While I agree that the challenge is probably a bad political move . . . and might not end up working . . . I think there is
certainly a strong legal argument for the challenge. I read the briefs by both sides and did a little research on Alabama
Supreme Court rulings. The standard for residency seems to be where you are “domiciled”, which requires much more than just
voter registration. The Supreme Court has said a person needs to leave there former residence and actively be living in the
new residence. The law seems pretty clear on this and I think if the judges followed the law strictly Cooper would win.
That said, it seems unlikely they would thwart the will of the voters that directly, and so I imagine they will do every-
thing they can to not have to void the election.
Comment by ptclearer — October 22, 2007 @ 9:16 am
The problem for Cooper is, it seems like sour grapes. Why wasn’t it challenged before the election? Why wasn’t it raised as an issue in ads? Now it just seems like he couldn’t beat him straight up, so he will try for a technicality, and it will let Langford grandstand about living in the city, etc….TERRIBLE MOVE.
Comment by Anonymous — October 22, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I agree it should have been challenged before the election (not after). I think Cooper would have won if he had done it before the voting started. What amazes me is how lightly Langford took this requirement. He always knew he had a good shot of winning. And he knew he needed to establish residency. He SHOULD have known that a residency challenge was likely and made sure he established himself appropriately. It’s not like it would have been that hard . . . put his other house on the market and move to Bham. Let the dog stay with a friend until after the election or something. Instead, he was sloppy and did not follow the rules. It might not cost him the election, but this certainly could have been avoided.
Comment by ptclearer — October 22, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
If Langford didn’t meet the residency requirement his name should not have been on the ballot in the first place.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — October 22, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
[…] It’s looking like he’s going to be safely back in the driver’s seat soon enough, that is according to a conversation had recently by Danny over at Doc’s Political Parlor with a lawyer about the contest. […]
Pingback by Travelogue: The other Patrick Cooper — October 23, 2007 @ 9:29 am
[…] An elections lawyer told the Parlor over a month ago that Patrick Cooper’s challenge to Larry Langford’s election to the Birmingham mayorship had “no legs.” Today, Circuit Judge Allwin Horn granted Langford’s motion to dismiss Cooper’s challenge. Cooper’s challenge claimed that Langford did not meet the residency requirement to qualify be on the ballot, but Horn did not agree. […]
Pingback by Mayor Langford Has Election Challenge Dismissed — November 26, 2007 @ 4:40 pm