Art. III, § 18 does not preclude judicial resolution of issues arising prior to the general election
How later courts described this case
- Art. III, § 18 does not preclude judicial resolution of issues arising prior to the general election
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
• DONNELLY, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur only in the result for at least two reasons:
(1) State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh, 483 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. banc 1972), cited with approval in the principal opinion, merely perpetuates the fiction that the courts, even before a general election, may usurp the *541 right of each house of the General Assembly to be the sole judge of the qualifications of its own members. Mo.Const. Art. III, § 18. I would disavow the holding in Gra-like.
(2) I doubt the present constitutional viability, under the “compelling state interest” standard articulated in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , of that portion of Mo.Const.Art. Ill, § 4 which requires that each representative shall have been a resident of the district which he is chosen to represent for one year. The justifications for upholding the constitutionality of such a provision (e. g. ensuring that the representative is exposed to the problems, needs and desires of the people and that they have a chance to observe him and gain first-hand knowledge of his habits and character — Cf. Chimento v. Stark, 353 F.Supp. 1211 , affirmed 414 U.S. 802 , 94 S.Ct. 125 , 38 L.Ed.2d 39 ) are no longer available to Missouri because of the decision in State ex rel. King v. Walsh, 484 S.W.2d 641 (Mo. banc 1972) which holds that a provision for residency for a given period of time “does not mean and require actual, physical presence * * *.” ( 484 S.W.2d, at 644 ).