A candidate for mayor files a federal suit challenging a city residency requirement of five years, seeking to appear on the party primary ballot. The candidate has not yet run and has not been barred from running. What is the proper conclusion?

A candidate for mayor files a federal suit challenging a city residency requirement of five years, seeking to appear on the party primary ballot. The candidate has not yet run and has not been barred from running. What is the proper conclusion?

• A. There is no case or controversy, so no standing and no ripe dispute at this time
• B. The residency requirement presents a substantial federal constitutional question and may be adjudicated now
• C. The court should rule on the merits since the injury is certain once he runs
• D. Federal courts can modify state law to permit the candidate to appear on the ballot

Answer: (A)

Standing and ripeness govern whether a federal court can hear a pre-enforcement challenge to an election rule. Because the candidate has not yet run and has not been barred, there is no concrete injury or credible threat of enforcement—the injury would occur only if he attempts to run and is prevented by the residency requirement. Without an imminent, actual injury or enforcement action, the dispute is not ripe and there is no standing, so there is no justiciable case now. That is why there is no case or controversy at this time. The other possibilities would presume an adjudication or a change in state law that aren’t warranted because the court lacks an adjudicable controversy and cannot bypass the standing and ripeness requirements by altering state policy.

Standing and ripeness govern whether a federal court can hear a pre-enforcement challenge to an election rule. Because the candidate has not yet run and has not been barred, there is no concrete injury or credible threat of enforcement—the injury would occur only if he attempts to run and is prevented by the residency requirement. Without an imminent, actual injury or enforcement action, the dispute is not ripe and there is no standing, so there is no justiciable case now. That is why there is no case or controversy at this time. The other possibilities would presume an adjudication or a change in state law that aren’t warranted because the court lacks an adjudicable controversy and cannot bypass the standing and ripeness requirements by altering state policy.