NYS needs clearer guidelines for proving residency of election candidates

One question for candidates for elected office is simple: Where do you live?

The answer shouldn't be complicated, either.

Yet time and again, New York voters must evaluate candidates who can't quite answer the question. Some have part-time residences. Others moved into a district to be able to run, and the timing is up for debate. Others live outside the area they want to represent but satisfy the general residency requirement. Still others, like fabulist George Santos, never satisfactorily answer the question.

This year, it's voters in the 16th Assembly District who have to make sense of one candidate's messy residency conundrum.

Daniel Norber says he has lived in Great Neck since September 2023. He has a lease that began in October 2023, and paperwork that certifies his children began school in Great Neck as of October 2023. But last year, Norber voted in Queens during early voting, on Nov. 3. Additional social media posts show him supporting a New York City Council candidate and pushing city residents to vote, right up until Election Day on Nov. 7. 

An Assembly candidate has to live in the district for a year prior to Election Day. In a redistricting year, like this one, the rule is more elastic to accommodate the redrawing of boundary lines and the candidate only has to live in the county for the year.

Did Norber? And if he did, why did he vote last year in Queens? Voters should vote in the district in which they currently live — not the one in which they previously resided.

These controversies arise because the New York State Constitution and state election law lack clear and definitive guidelines and requirements for proving residency. The current muddled standards have allowed situations where someone holds a lease on a house in which they do not live, votes in a district they don't really call home, or has more than one "residence." We need bright-line rules and tighter enforcement by state election officials.

A bill introduced before the latest controversy — ironically by Norber's opponent, incumbent Assemb. Gina Sillitti, to deal with the Santos deception — could help. It requires candidates to attest they meet their position's residency requirements upon penalty of perjury. But even that doesn't go far enough.

The state should establish specific criteria and documentation required for candidates to prove residency. If additional legislation is necessary to enforce residency requirements, state lawmakers should get that done. And political parties must focus more closely on residency when vetting candidates. In the post-Santos era, everyone should know better than to assume a candidate is truthful without proof.

Voters need to know whether candidates are following the law. Candidates should live and vote in the area they seek to represent. Guidelines for establishing that should be clear and simple, and enforcement vigorous. The question of where someone seeking public office lives should be no question at all.