Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Follow-up on Sen. Hashmi

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in , ,

Sen. Ghazala Hashmi (D-Chesterfield)
Photo credit: VPM

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

Kerry Doughtery has evinced a certain amount of outrage on this blog about state Sen. Ghazala Hashni (D-Chesterfield) not living in the district in which she ran and won re-election. (See here and here.)

The recent redistricting had placed Sen. Hashmi’s long-time residence just outside the district which she represented. In order to be able to run in her old district, the senator rented an apartment in that district and listed it as her primary residence. A group of residents filed a petition with the court claiming that she had not abandoned her longtime residence in which her husband still lived. They monitored the movement of the family’s vehicles and claimed that Hashmi still spent time there.

A retired judge has ruled that the evidence showed that Sen. Hashmi had established a domicile at the apartment and thus met the requirements of the law and had not falsified her residency in papers she filed with the Board of Elections. In her testimony, Hashmi said that she had moved furniture and personal effects to the apartment, established an office there, and changed her voting registration and driver’s license to reflect her new address. She did not deny spending some nights at her former home, partly to help care for her husband, who was dealing with a medical issue. She said that she and her husband plan to buy a home in the new district.

My Soapbox

The actions taken by Sen. Hashmi to deal with being redistricted out of her legislative district are not unusual; other legislators have resorted to similar moves in the past. They may not seem right, but they are not illegal. It is amazing that legislators will go to the hassle and expense of renting apartments and then moving, and perhaps uprooting their families, just to remain in the General Assembly.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

97 responses to “Follow-up on Sen. Hashmi”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    “It is amazing that legislators will go to the hassle and expense of renting apartments and then moving, and perhaps uprooting their families, just to remain in the General Assembly.”

    Power is addictive. There are many rewards. The former congressman Mr. Santos’s main crime was in getting too greedy, calling too much attention to the depth of the trough, violating the old legislative warning that “pigs get fat but hogs get slaughtered.”

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Cynical, cynical, cynical. Better be careful. You could wind up like me. Whatever happened to “Home is where the heart is”?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs5IH76mwCM

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Cynical, cynical, cynical. Better be careful. You could wind up like me. Whatever happened to “Home is where the heart is”?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs5IH76mwCM

  2. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    So, how many nights did she domicile in the new district where she didn’t spend much time in during the election?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Obviously enough to satisfy the judge that she met the requirements of the law. However, she did spend a lot of time in the new district campaigning.

      1. Turbocohen Avatar
        Turbocohen

        Same thing happened here in VB but a neighbor with a door bell cam had proof he never stayed overnight in the district where is was domiciled. First and only time an election has been overturned for this.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Sometimes, you are not supposed to spend the night just the afternoon.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcslkrBMLGc&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo

      2. VaPragamtist Avatar
        VaPragamtist

        I think it’s more that the opposition didn’t have enough evidence to override the presumption, which is that she resides wherever she put on her paperwork.

  3. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    Thanks for the follow-up, Dick. I’m guessing we have not heard the end of this, though.

  4. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    She is worthless.

  5. Theron Keller Avatar
    Theron Keller

    I thought part of the story was that she omitted listing her primary home in the old district.

    As usual, we see that “laws are for Republicans,” but certainly not Democrats.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Thought youse guys were all “too many laws, too many laws,” anyway.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Oh, Republicans have used this dodge, as well. This year, for example, Del.-elect Tim Griffin (R-Bedford) listed a detached garage of a friend of his as his residence (no kitchen, no bath). https://cardinalnews.org/2023/10/02/some-voters-dont-believe-candidate-tim-griffin-lives-in-his-district-they-hired-a-pi-to-investigate/

      Then there was the case of Mark Earley, Jr., who, two years ago, moved his family into his father’s house in order to declare that his residence in his race for election to the House. https://www.wric.com/news/p…

      1. Theron Keller Avatar
        Theron Keller

        Neither of your two “examples” addresses the fraudulent omission of her primary residence on the required disclosure forms.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        Her effort to establish residence is subjective, and I’ll grant that she’s probably done that.

        Her lying on the Certificate of Candidate Qualification, however is not subjective. She flat out lied about having interest in their home.

        The form says “knowingly making any untrue statement or entry in this document is a felony under Virginia law. The punishment is a maximum fine of $2,500 and/or confinement for up to ten years. Also, you lose your right to vote.”

        https://www.dailywire.com/news/virginia-dems-could-lose-control-of-state-senate-because-one-of-its-members-may-have-lied-about-her-residence

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRvvzm-HYKw

  7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Seems like a law that needs to be overturned. Let the voters decide who should represent them.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      If the voters knew and still chose her (or one of the others around the state playing this game), then they made an informed choice. If the voters didn’t know, then shame on the competition for not doing its due diligence. It becomes a bigger deal in some national races like the last Senate contest in PA, when the R candidate (Dr. Oz) was pretty successfully tagged as really being from Jersey. 🙂

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        And the voters were smart enough to choose properly….

  8. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    This is not a Democratic or Republican thing. But, as Haner states a power and ego thing. My political career is so important to the world, that I can create a pseudo residence to be reelected.

    On a more positive note, I see that Senator Fetterman has called for the expulsion of Senator Menendez now that Santos has been tossed. Imagine – one set of rules that apply to everyone.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      I don’t like the idea of politicians overriding the voters on who represents them. Ever.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        I don’t understand your answer. If you mean a candidate has the right to run for office when he/she doesn’t really live in the district, I disagree as explained above. If you mean legislative bodies should not expel but rather, leave to the voters in the next election, that is certainly a valid position supported by many people. I respect that position. My Fetterman point is simply that if Santos is expelled (and voters overridden), so too should be Menendez. And kudos for Senator Fetterman for taking a consistent position instead of simply playing politics.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          I was specifically referring to the Santos/Menendez part of your comment. Santos should not have been ejected by the legislature and neither should Menendez, imo. Leave it to the electorate to do so or not. Impeachment and recall are really the only processes I support outside of election and both should have a very high bar to clear.

          I also believe the voters should be able to elect anyone they want to as their representative. The legislature should set very few (if any) restrictions. My opinion and I understand why you think otherwise.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Agree. And they do… just take a look at some who have been elected …

            it’s the way our country was set up… we elect all manner of folks who are really “unfit” for office in my view but it’s totally legitimate and legal.

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Yes, and empowering congress to expel members for misconduct (as defined by them) is also how our country was set up.

            And if enough people think they should not have that power, then there is a way to change that as well.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You are correct. Question. If they run again in the new election, and win.. Do they
            essentially reverse the Congress action?

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I would assume so. As far as I know, nothing short of actual impeachment bars a person from future elected office.

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I would assume so. As far as I know, nothing short of actual impeachment bars a person from future elected office.

          6. VaPragamtist Avatar
            VaPragamtist

            I’d agree with you. . .if this was a new process. But it isn’t. There are rules, policies, and processes that govern the legislature and, by running for office and accepting their position, a member agrees to those rules, policies, and processes. They certainly have the right, as a member, to seek their change, but they can’t argue against what they’ve implicitly agreed to.

            This goes even further. . .it’s a power given to Congress in Article I Section 5 of the Constitution. The voters have no say in these internal processes.

            They do, however, have a say in whether or not they want to re-elect Santos. He could, in theory, run for office again, much like Fightin’ Joe when he resigned, ran from jail, and won his seat back.

  9. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    I doubt if the The Daily Wire will report on the final ruling.

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      The Daily Wire reported accurately, and provided documentation.

      Will Mr. Hall-Sizemore comment on his omission of the most damning part of the Daily Wire report – the fact that she lied on the candidacy form? I hope he does.

      1. Teddy007 Avatar
        Teddy007

        The Dailywire reported the initial story but did not report on the final court ruling. They are trying the same thing on Democrats in the U.S. Congress who own homes in Virginia or Maryland.

  10. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    The problem here is that the presumption for residency (domicile + abode) is that the candidate resides in wherever they list on the form. Domicile, as opposed to abode (where you sleep at night, which can come down to where your bedroom is in your house), is also very subjective. In addition to things like tax forms, lease, and driver’s license, factors like work, community involvement, and so on can be factored in.

    I think a reasonable person would view renting an apartment down the road from your house and husband as not meeting the abode requirements. Domicile is a bit more complicated, as many of the variables are blurred. . .the local Publix you shop at or your Kiwanis Club meetings might be in either district, but still part of the same community.

    I think its pretty obvious she rented the apartment to keep her seat and doesn’t really consider it “home.” But common sense and an “eye test” aren’t enough to override the legal presumption.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Of course she rented the apartment and jumped through some hoops (voting registration, drivers license) in order to establish residency in that district so that she could keep her seat. I bet she would admit that in private if she could be assured that she would not be quoted. The same goes for Del.-elect Griffin (R-Bedford) (his lawyer once told a judge he did not know where Griffin resided) and for others in previous years. It is unseemly, but legal.

      The fix would be to amend the law to require residency in the district for at least a year or two. But that would create other problems.

      1. VaPragamtist Avatar
        VaPragamtist

        Certainly unseemly, regardless of party. And it does happen too often (I’m thinking of Chris Hurst moving into a friend’s basement in Blacksburg until he won his election).

        But I’m not so sure its legal. It’s just too difficult to prove otherwise.

        I think your solution is best. Otherwise the GA would have to clarify domicile and abode, which can get entirely too complicated.

        But of course the GA members aren’t likely to put restrictions on themselves like that. . .

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Other problems? The whole concept is a conundrum. See my response to VaPrag’s original post.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Under the/your definitions, persons who live on boats or in RVs are homeless. What of the uber wealthy who can (and do) move from hotel to hotel?

      Are they to be denied representation? They are denied the right to vote.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Under the/your definitions of abodes, etc., persons who live on boats or in RVs are homeless. What of the uber wealthy who can (and do) move from hotel to hotel?

      Are they to be denied representation? They are denied the right to vote.

      I have a boat. It has two staterooms with closets, two heads with showers, a galley with stove and refrigerator, hot and cold running water, heat pumps, an outdoor seating area with BBQ/fire pit.

      It’s as big as many people’s homes. I could live on it for years.

      Should I choose to do so, I become Stateless (homeless to some). My driver’s license, voter registration, passport, even the boat federal registration become invalid. My insurance policies are canceled or at least non-renewable. My bank and investment accounts and credit cards become fraudulent. I have no representative, no senator.

      The humor(to me anyway) is that if I spend any days in Virginia so that (365/days)*annual income is greater than $5,000 I must file a 760PY.

  11. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Well, more than a few incumbents “retired” rather than run in a newly-created district.

  12. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    As mentioned by other commenters, the issue of lying on the Certificate of Candidacy Qualification form is not discussed in the article.

    From Daily Wire:

    The form also asks, “Do you or a member of your immediately family, separately or together, hold an interest valued at more than $5,000 in real property? DO NOT INCLUDE your principal residence.” She checked “no,” and did not list the Midlothian home. Real estate records show that she and her husband have owned that — worth nearly $600,000 — since 1999.

    The form says “knowingly making any untrue statement or entry in this document is a felony under Virginia law. The punishment is a maximum fine of $2,500 and/or confinement for up to ten years. Also, you lose your right to vote.”

    See Schedule E on page 7.

    https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Ghazala-F.-Hashmi-501-soei_Redacted.pdf

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Yes.

      Either she lied on the document and committed a felony, or her principal residence is located outside the district in which she ran for office.

      The judge has already agree with her claim that her apartment within the district is her principal residence, so she clearly made an “untrue statement or entry” on the document.

      However, if she were to sell her house in Midlothian to me for, say, $4,999.00, it would prove that the real estate she owned outside her district is worth less than $5,000 and her lie would go away…

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        It’s unfortunate that the issue wasn’t front and center at the trial. The report I read made no mention of her checking “no” for owning any other property and failing to list the valuable home she owns with her husband.

        The falsehood is a felony, and should not be ignored. Would a Republican get a pass on this as she did?

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        It’s unfortunate that the issue wasn’t front and center at the trial. The report I read made no mention of her checking “no” for owning any other property and failing to list the valuable home she owns with her husband.

        The falsehood is a felony, and should not be ignored. Would a Republican get a pass on this as she did?

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Judge has ruled – she was a resident of the Senate district. The exemption for real estate declaration says “principal residence”. I think the distinction may be significant – this apartment is a residence that she lives in thereby meeting the candidacy requirements but is not her “principal residence” – seems pretty simple to me but I am not a lawyer..

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          As has been noted in other comments, in Virginia a person may only have one domicile.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      You can have more than one residence. One being “principal” and the other not. Many people rent an apartment in another city to live part time and would apparently meet the “residency” requirements for office.

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        The form establishes her residence as being the apartment within the district. Only the principle residence is excluded from the discloser question which she answered “no” to.

        To get a pass, the home she and her husband own must be her principle residence. So now you are saying that she doesn’t “reside” in her “principle residence”?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          I am saying you can “reside” at two places. People do it all the time. Apparently the judge agrees that the apartment (not her “principal residence”) meets the requirements of residency for office. Dick did a much better job at drawing the distinction below than me. But I think he is correct.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “Domicile” means a person’s primary home, the place where a person dwells and which he considers to be the center of his domestic, social, and civil life. Domicile is primarily a matter of intention, supported by an individual’s factual circumstances. Once a person has established domicile, establishing a new domicile requires that he intentionally abandon his old domicile.

            “Residence,” “residency,” or “resident” for all purposes of qualification to register and vote means and requires both domicile and a place of abode.

            The law does not allow her to claim domicile (primary home) in two locations at once.

            https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title1/agency20/chapter40/section10/

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            That’s more on point than what I found in the code. The two agree with each other, though.

          3. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            If you and I can figure this out, then surely Sen. Ghazala Hashni should have been able to do so.

            Those who make laws for others, should understand and comply themselves.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You don’t think she got legal advice before filing? The judge agreed with that advice.

          5. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            It looks like the discloser of property on page 7 of the document was not mentioned in the lawsuit, so the judge didn’t address it.

            Residency was challenged, and that’s what was ruled on. Judges don’t rule on matters not mentioned in a complaint. Surely you understand that.

            Failure to include her false statement in the form should have been part of the complain. That’s a point I made elsewhere.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The judge said that the apartment meets residency requirements and certainly saw her filing. If they legally meant the same thing he would not have found her compliant.

          7. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Part of establishing residency is registration to vote. She had to register to vote at the new location.

            See question #4 of the Certificate of Candidate Qualification.

            “4. I am registered to vote at the above address…”

            The law I cited clearly establishes that the location where you are registered to vote is your primary residence.

            The form requires documentation of any property worth more than $5,000, with the one exception being one’s primary residence.

            Sen. Ghazala Hashni said “no” when asked if she had any such property. That’s not true.

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            ‘”Abode” or “place of abode” means a physical place where a person dwells. One may have multiple places of abode, such as a second home.”

            Student who are going to school at a university can (and do) register to vote there even though they are still living elsewhere.

          9. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            You are in a hole. Stop digging.

            You may abode in more than one place, but you can only have one designated primary residence for legal purposes, voter registration and running for office. Virginia law makes that crystal clear.

            The judge has ruled that the apartment is her primary residence. Therefore the home she owns with her husband is not, and she falsified the form.

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            No, the judge ruled that she met the residency requirements with the address on her filing. I am sure he read the entire thing. If residence and principal residence were the same thing legally, he could not have found the way he did. He was clearly aware that she owned a house outside of the district as the plaintiff provided just such evidence making the case that THAT address was her “residence” and not the apartment. So the judge disagrees with your reading of the law.

          11. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            If residence and principal residence were the same thing legally, he could not have found the way he did.

            Yes he could. He is a judge.

          12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Word play. By ruling the way he did, he is saying that it is his opinion as a judge that the two are not legally the same. Better?

          13. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            The law I referenced established that they are the same.

            Residency requires voter registration (question #4). Voter registration establishes primary residence.

            The incorrect answer and failure to disclose the home is a separate issue not related to her ability to run for office. As Mr. Hall-Sizemore mentioned, that is likely a criminal matter and must be addressed by a prosecutor in a criminal trial.

            Here’s what was at issue before the judge.

            A Virginia judge on Friday dismissed a legal challenge that sought to prevent the certification of the election of a state legislator, rejecting claims that Democratic Sen. Ghazala Hashmi had not met the state’s residency requirements.

            https://apnews.com/article/virginia-general-assembly-ghazala-hashmi-residency-hearing-5898306f89307bd9cb7429de18723414

          14. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Word play. By ruling the way he did, he is saying that it is his opinion as a judge that the two are not legally the same. Better?

          15. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The judge ruled that she met the residency requirements to run for and hold the office for which she ran.

            As far as I can tell he did not rule on the accuracy of any other part of the documents she completed to run for office.

            Major EDIT – 12/04 at 1240

          16. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            As far as I can see “principal residence” is not a Virginia defined term but is an IRS term (it is after all a part of the financial disclosure section of the application so that makes sense). Looks like the IRS simply uses the amount of time you stay in the residence as the determining factor for “principal residence”. The IRS requires “most” of your time while the residency rules in Virginia do not. The Judge knew they were different things and ruled accordingly.

          17. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            That is a possibility I had not considered.

            BY the way, there is a section of the Code of Virginia which defines “principle residence” but is appears to apply only within that section, which relates to home mortgages.

          18. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Maybe the AG should get involved?

          19. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Nah. If these repubs got what they wanted on this one it would come back to bite them eventually – possibly at a very inopportune time. I think Mr. Miyares realizes that.

            The folks with objections had their day in court, so I suspect the brouhaha is now over and everyone’s going to agree to let sleeping dogs continue to lie.

          20. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Nah. If these repubs got what they wanted on this one it would come back to bite them eventually – possibly at a very inopportune time. I think Mr. Miyares realizes that.

            The folks with objections had their day in court, so I suspect the brouhaha is now over and everyone’s going to agree to let sleeping dogs continue to lie.

          21. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Is this the form?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6df8461ba72929b7b56b46b88a9d5fb6a4d03b3489ef135d204c150514253978.png

            what part did she lie on?

          22. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Obviously not. That one is blank…

          23. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Is this the form?

            Obviously not. That one is blank…

          24. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            yes, but which question did she lie on?

          25. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            which question did she lie on?

            None of them. As I stated before, it is a blank form. It’s impossible for anyone to lie on a form they have not filled out.

            But why are you asking me anyway?

            You have to admit it’s a rather bizarre response to the comment I made.

          26. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            bizarre? geeze… No.. she’s accused of lying on a question. I’m asking which one on the form?

          27. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Yes, Larry, it was a bizarre response to the comment to which you were replying.

            When did I accuse the woman of lying? In a comment posted hours ago that was essentially a long lead-in to a joke? Okay, fine. My joke did not go over with you. I’m sorry about that.

            None of my other comments on this thread even contain the word “lie”*, much less make an accusation.

            So once again, why did you ask me that question?

            You know what, never mind. I’ve already given you my answer twice and I see no reason to discuss it further.

            * Apart from this comment, of course.

          28. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I was only asking if you had seen something… typically you are pretty observant. That’s it.
            sorry it bothered you!

          29. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The peremptory nature of your questions belies your claim that you were merely asking for my observations.

          30. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Peremptory? good lord!

          31. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Whatever you say, sir.

          32. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            He ruled that she had established residency and was qualified to run for office.

            The judge did not address potential discloser of assets on page 7 of the form. That’s a legal issue, which would likely require a prosecutor to address with a criminal complaint.

          33. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            The law I referenced established that they are the same.

            Residency requires voter registration (question #4). Voter registration establishes primary residence.

            The incorrect answer and failure to disclose the home is a separate issue not related to her ability to run for office. As Mr. Hall-Sizemore mentioned, that is likely a criminal matter and must be addressed by a prosecutor in a criminal trial.

            Here’s what was at issue before the judge.

            A Virginia judge on Friday dismissed a legal challenge that sought to prevent the certification of the election of a state legislator, rejecting claims that Democratic Sen. Ghazala Hashmi had not met the state’s residency requirements.

            https://apnews.com/article/virginia-general-assembly-ghazala-hashmi-residency-hearing-5898306f89307bd9cb7429de18723414

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        The judge used the term “domicile”, if I am not mistaken.

        My own inexpert opinion, based on the following portion of the tax code, is that “domicile” and “principal residence” should be considered synonymous in Virginia:

        from Code of Virginia 23VAC10-110-30.Definitions.

        4)… A domicile once established continues until the individual moves to a new location with the bona fide intention of making his fixed and permanent home there.

        A person can have only one domicile. If he has two or more places of abode, his domicile is the one which he regards and uses as his permanent home.

        —————————–

        I supposed a lot depends on how much lawyerly word-play a judge allows…

        I do not know if the issue with the document was raised as part of the lawsuit, but regardless of any of this, I stand by my original prediction:

        Nothing will come of this.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          If they should be synonymous then why have two expressions? Ambiguity is not the purpose of the law. The Codes should use global find and replace.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            If they should be synonymous then why have two expressions?

            So that lawyers can generate billable hours, I suspect.

    3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      The law is general enough that I think she did not make an untrue statement. Here is my logic:

      1. The state constitution requires a candidate for the House of Delegates to be a “resident of the house district which he is seeking to represent.” (Article IV, Section 4). Notice that it does not say that the principal residency of the candidate must be in the district.

      2. The state Code defines residence as requiring “both domicile and a place of abode. To establish domicile, a person must live in a particular locality with the intention to remain. A place of abode is

      the physical place where a person dwells.” https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1/section24.2-101/ The law does not specify how long one must “intend to remain.” but it presumably means more than a week or so in a hotel room. It does not say that the residence in this case has to be one’s principal residence. Many people have more than one residence, one of which is the principal residence and the other is one in which they remain for part of the time. Furthermore, she could say that, if she won the election, she intended to remain a resident of the district , which she has said.

      In summary, she may have relied on vagueness in the law and capitalized on a loophole or two, but she did not commit a felony by failing to list her principal residence on the Certificate of Candidacy Notification. If anyone thinks she did, they can take it up with the Attorney General. Under state law, “The Attorney General shall have full
      authority to do whatever is necessary or appropriate to enforce the election laws or prosecute violations thereof.” https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1/section24.2-104/ I am sure that he would be eager to jump in if he thought there was a case to be made.

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        The AG won’t go after her because it would look political.

        “In court documents and during testimony Friday, Hashmi said she had moved furniture and personal effects into the apartment, established an office there and changed government paperwork including her voter registration and driver’s license to reflect the new address.”

        https://apnews.com/article/virginia-general-assembly-ghazala-hashmi-residency-hearing-5898306f89307bd9cb7429de18723414

        And you are saying that those steps didn’t make the apartment her primary residence? That’s having it both ways.

        At the very least, she should apologize and amend the document. Additionally, any Republican who makes an omission should be given similar treatment.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          You are right–that is having it both ways. But the law allows that. The constitution and the law do not say anything about a “primary” residence, only a “residence”. To qualify as a residence, she only had to live in the apartment “with the intention to remain” in the district. She intended to remain in the district. And, she did. That apartment functioned as residence for several months. Furthermore, she could say that, if she won the election, she intended to remain in the district.

          As for the Attorney General, looking political has not stopped him before.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            I too can read the form and the law, and am not seeing your contention that “the law allows that.” Quite the contrary.

            In establishing the apartment as her residence for purposes of voting, and running for office, she has by definition has made that her primary residence.

            And if the apartment is her primary residence, then the home must be disclosed. The law and qualification form are clear.

            Check this out.

            “Domicile” means a person’s primary home, the place where a person dwells and which he considers to be the center of his domestic, social, and civil life. Domicile is primarily a matter of intention, supported by an individual’s factual circumstances. Once a person has established domicile, establishing a new domicile requires that he intentionally abandon his old domicile.

            “Residence,” “residency,” or “resident” for all purposes of qualification to register and vote means and requires both domicile and a place of abode.

            The law does not allow her to claim domicile (primary home) in two locations at once.

            https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title1/agency20/chapter40/section10/

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            It’s a big word game.

            I know one thing, though: The tax folks in one’s place of primary residence (domicile) look very unfavorably upon one if they discover that one has titled and registered all of one’s vehicles at a vacation home in a rural county with a lower tax rate.

          3. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            In this instance, the law isn’t vague as Mr. Hall-Sizemore has suggested. It’s actually quite clear.

            “Once a person has established domicile, establishing a new domicile requires that he intentionally abandon his old domicile.”

            Sen. Ghazala Hashni has established domicile within the new district, yet must claim that the old domicile remains to avoid having lied on the form.

            https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title1/agency20/chapter40/section10/

          4. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            In this instance, the law isn’t vague as Mr. Hall-Sizemore has suggested. It’s actually quite clear.

            “Once a person has established domicile, establishing a new domicile requires that he intentionally abandon his old domicile.”

            Sen. Ghazala Hashni has established domicile within the new district, yet must claim that the old domicile remains to avoid having lied on the form.

            https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title1/agency20/chapter40/section10/

  13. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The first thing you have to realize is you are not people. You are an address. From there all things are clear.

    You don’t have representation in the GA, or Congress. Your house does.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      You may be an address, but I find that far too limiting. Henceforth, I shall ‘identify’ by the much more general term “noun”.

      I am Noun…

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I think you should be saying I am a pronoun…

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          In a very specific, constricted and limited sense I am indeed a pronoun.

          However, in a more general, universal, sense I identify as a noun, and I reject the limiting terms by which others try to define me…

          …or something like that…

  14. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This has been a stimulating discussion, one worthy of this blog. I commend Nathan for his
    research and bringing to our attention the definition of “domicile” in the Department
    of Elections’ (DOE) regulations.

    However, the discussion has caused me to dig deeper and I discovered that we have been arguing about the wrong thing.

    The issue has been whether she lied when she filed her notice of candidacy and she said, on her financial disclosure form that, aside
    from her principal residence, she owned no real estate worth more than $5,000. The contention by Daily Wire and commenters on this blog is that she lied because her principal residence was no
    longer the house that she and her husband owned, but the apartment she had rented in order to qualify for residence in the new Senate district.

    The key is the form shown in the Daily Wire link. https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Ghazala-F.-Hashmi-501-soei_Redacted.pdf The first page is her “Certificate of Candidate Qualification” for Senate District 15, signed March 14, 2023. The remainder of the link is another form, her “General Assembly Statement of Economic Interests” filed as representing Senate District 10, signed February 17, 2023. It was on this form that she stated that, excluding her principal residence, she and her husband did not own real estate worth more than $5,000.

    Each member of the General Assembly is required by law to file annually a statement of personal and economic interests. That statement is available to the public.

    Candidates for public office are required to file
    similar statements. However, that requirement “shall not apply to a candidate for reelection to the same office who has met the requirement of annually filing a statement pursuant to §2.2-3114,
    2.2-3115, 2.2-3116, or 30-110.” Therefore, because she was running for reelection to the same office (Virginia State Senator), Sen. Hashmi was not
    required to file a statement of economic interests when she submitted her “Certificate of Candidate Qualification.” At the time she signed and filed the “General Assembly Statement of Economic Interests”, she was not a candidate and her principal residence was the one in Chesterfield owned by her husband and her, which she was not
    required to include in her list of real estate assets.

    In summary, the Daily Wire took two different
    forms, filed and signed at different times for different purposes and represented them as being her declaration of candidacy and lying about her
    principal residence.

    The questions do not stop there. In
    addition to any residency requirement, a candidate for office “must be qualified to vote for and hold that office.” Sen. Hashmi stated in her certificate for candidacy that she was registered to vote at the address she had provided in the new Senate district.

    The Code provides that “any person who is not registered to vote, but would otherwise be
    a qualified voter, is entitled to register to vote.”
    Those “otherwise” qualifications to register are
    being: one, 18 years old or older and two, a resident of the precinct in which one
    proposes to vote. There is that “resident”
    requirement again. And it brings us back to the definition of “domicile” in the DOE regulations that Nathan pointed out.

    The application to register asks for a mailing address that is a residence and not a post
    office box. It does not require that the
    applicant swear or affirm that the address constitutes the applicant’s “domicile”
    as defined by the DOE regulation. If one
    is already a registered voter and has a new address, one can use this form or simply send
    a letter to the local General Registrar stating name, Social Security number, current address, previous address, and signature. In any case, the DOE regulation provides that the “the registrar shall presume that domicile is at the address of residence given by the person on the application. The registrar shall not solicit evidence to rebut this presumption if the application appears to be legitimate.”

    In summary:

    1. In accordance with law, Sen. Hashmi, as a member of the State Senate representing
    district 10, in February 2023 submitted a “General Assembly Statement of Economic Interests” in which she stated that, apart from her principal residence, her husband and her did not own real estate worth $5,000 or more.

    2. Sen. Hashmi rented an apartment in the new Senate district 15 and moved furniture and other personal effects to that apartment where she spent some nights.

    3. Sen. Hashmi changed the address on her driver’s license and voter registration to
    reflect the address of the apartment.

    4. In accordance with DOE regulations, the registrar presumed that the new address
    was her “domicile” as defined by law.

    5. On March 14, 2023, Sen. Hashmi filed her Certificate for Candidate Qualification”
    for Senate District 15. She was not
    required by law to include a “General Assembly Statement of Interests” with
    that filing.

    6. On November 7, 2023, Sen. Hashmi was elected to represent Senate District 15.

    7. On December 1, 2023, a judge rejected claims that Sen. Hashmi had not met the residency requirements for election to the seat.

    I see no law being broken.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” In summary, the Daily Wire took two different
      forms, filed and signed at different times for different purposes and represented them as being her declaration of candidacy and lying about her
      principal residence.”

      doesn’t sound like great journalism… but not really surprised…

Leave a Reply

Read More