A Different Twelfth Amendment "Habitation Clause"

The relevant clause of the Twelfth Amendment reads, "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, *one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves*..." [emphasis added] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html
The emphasized language was borrowed from the original constitutional provision on the election of the President (Article II, Section 1). http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

Now, suppose during the debates on the amendment, one member of Congress objects "This can too easily be gotten around. A vice-presidential candidate may be an inhabitant of the same state as the presidential candidate for decades--and then technically comply with this provision by changing his habitation the month before the election." He moves to change the amendment to read "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not have been be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves for the twelve months preceding the election." His fellow members of the House (or Senate), concerned that (for example) some day a ticket of two Virginians (one of whom changes his residence to Kentucky at the last minute) may be elected, agree to the change. The Twelfth Amendment passes both houses, as so amended, and is ratified by the necessary number of states.

Presumably this eliminates any possibility of a Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000, since the GOP would hardly be likely to gamble on being able to elect both a president and vice-president without the electoral votes of Texas. (Or if you think Cheney was crafty enough to anticipate by late 1999 that Bush would win the nomination, and was already angling for the vice-presidential nomination, and would therefore change his legal residence by that time, make the residency requirement longer.) Any other effects? (William McAdoo moved from New York to California in 1922, so he probably lived there long enough that he could have selected a New York running mate had he been nominated in 1924, even under this alternate Twelfth Amendment. Or Al Smith, if nominated that year, could have selected McAdoo...)

Even in OTL incidentally, Sanford Levinson argued that under the habitation clause Cheney was still an inhabitant of Texas. But this was predictably rejected in court http://www.leagle.com/decision/2000835122FSupp2d713_1757 (the plaintiffs' appeal was rejected by the Fifth Circuit in a one-sentence opinion: "All requested relief is DENIED." https://www.courtlistener.com/ca5/7GH/jones-et-al-v-bush-et-al/) and indeed hardly anyone took the argument seriously, as Levinson acknowledged. ("Both of us [Levinson and his co-author] agree that there are plausible—that is, nonfrivolous—arguments that Mr. Cheney, like Mr. Bush, was a Texan and that, therefore, the Twelfth Amendment’s bar meant that the votes of the Texas electors did not count, with the result that either Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, or both did not in fact gain a majority of the electoral vote. We are all too aware that most constitutional analysts find this argument almost literally incredible and some, no doubt, would find it covered by the ban of Rule 11 on frivolous arguments..." http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=fsulr)
 
Last edited:
shall not have been be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves for the twelve months preceding the election
That just pushes the problem back by a year though.

Why not 'shall not ever have been an inhabitant...'
 
That just pushes the problem back by a year though.

Why not 'shall not ever have been an inhabitant...'

Which, for example would mean that Gerald Ford could never be on the same ticket with someone from Nebraska, even though Ford only lived there for the first 2 years of his life.
 
That just pushes the problem back by a year though.

Why not 'shall not ever have been an inhabitant...'

"Ever" is a long time. A year doesn't really push back the problem, but adequately solves it. As pointed out, in 2000, a year's time would mean Cheney would have to be crafty enough to anticipate by late 1999 that Bush would win the nomination, and (already angling for the vice-presidential nomination) would therefore change his legal residence by that time. That's pretty prescient. I don't see it happening often.

If you want to play it safe, make it four years. Or even ten. No one's that good at predicting the future. But 'ever' is ridiculous.
 
They could use the phrase 'citizen of the same state as themselves', which could have some interesting legal ramifications (states rights, say) later.
 
If part of the Constitution since the beginning, don't you think that there would have evolved a strategic view among candidates and campaign managers to "look the long term" and consider this well in advance of Presidential elections?

Under such a scenario, there very well could have been a Bush-Cheney ticket, and many historical campaigns from our own timeline could have been matched differently.
 
Top