From the top, I will state the following: from a democratic theory point of view, I have no strong feelings about how long a person should be required to reside in a given location before becoming an elected official of a given jurisdiction (or even if they need to reside in a place to represent it). An immediate example that comes to mind: even though I was decidedly not a fan of Hillary Clinton at the time, the notion that she could be elected to be a U.S. senator from New York did not bother me. In the modern era, it isn’t like a person can only learn about the political needs of a place by living there for an extended period. And, likewise, the voters can adequately inform themselves about a candidate without having been their neighbor.
I just don’t think it matters all that much.
Still, it is not unusual for the law to set requirements. Just this last week, for example, a member of the Montgomery, AL city council was ousted because she moved within the city. WSFA reported: Montgomery City Councilwoman Marche Johnson’s seat declared ‘vacant,’ special election set.
The Montgomery City Council has declared a sitting city councilwoman’s seat “vacant” and is moving to hold a special election to fill it.
On Tuesday, District 3 Councilwoman Marche Johnson learned she no longer represents the constituents who voted her into office.
WSFA 12 News has reached out to Johnson’s representatives seeking reaction to the news.
Johnson made headlines weeks ago after property records showed she purchased a home near Windsor Hill Lane in 2024, which is in District 7.
City councilors are required to live in the district that they represent.
Voting records also indicated Johnson voted in a different district than her primary residence.
I can argue it both ways as to whether councilors can only adequately represent their constituents if they live in a specific part of town. For example, there are a lot of cities that have at-large elections for their councils, and somehow councilors know who their main constituencies are. Regardless of absrtractions the case above is one of those cases where the rules are the rules.
It is not hard, by the way, to find other examples of candidates being denied the right to run because of where they live. We have seen, for example, the redistricting wars force incumbents to run against one another for their party’s nomination because new lines put them both in the same district. Sometimes, officials move to find more attractive electoral opportunities, as Lauren Boebert did back in 2024. Dick Cheney has to formally move his residence from Texas back to Wyoming to meet the constitutional require to run as Dubya’s veep, because both candidates cannot be from the same state (for reasons that mattered a whole lot more in 1789 than they do now).
All of this brings us to the Alabama Constitution:
The governor and lieutenant governor shall each be at least thirty years of age when elected, and shall have been citizens of the United States ten years and resident citizens of this state at least seven years next before the date of their election (Article V, Section 117)
The text appears to clearly state the need for seven years of continuous residency prior to being elected to the office.
This, in turn, brings us to Tommy Tuberville, the current GOP nominee for governor in Alabama. He is currently slated to face Doug Jones in November. There is little doubt that Coach will win this contest.
However, Tuberville is facing legitimate questions as to whether he meets the constitutional requirements for office. He has been challenged by one of his GOP primary opponents, Ken McFeeters. And, beyond, there has long been press speculation that Tuberville really isn’t an Alabama resident. This has not been as big an issue for his Senate seat, given the lack of strong residency requirements for that office. But his run for governor raises real questions.
There are known facts in this case, some semi-known facts, and then some obfuscation of what should be easy-to-produce materials.
The bottom line is this: Tuberville owns a beachfront house in Santa Rosa Beach, FL (near Destin) that press reports value between $5 and $6 million dollars. Here’s a reference to the house in a piece about SEC coaches who have properties on Florida’s Gulf Coast from a local property rental company: Famous Football Coaches of Destin and 30A.
Here’s the view from Tommy’s place from a 2017 ESPN video:
There is also a house in a modest suburban Auburn neighborhood that was originally purchased by Tuberville’s wife and son. Tuberville’s name was added to the property a couple of years later.
And here is a photo of the Auburn property from reporting by the Lagniappe Daily:
Setting aside anything else, it strains credulity to believe that his primary residence is the house above and not the larger, nicer, and better-located home in Santa Rosa Beach.
Sure, maybe that is his primary residence. After all, Auburn is a nice place to live (one of my sons lives there, in fact). Still, other evidence raises questions.
For example, his travel patterns. Via the Alabama Political Reporter: Tuberville’s travel trail points to home in Florida, not Alabama, and the Lagniappe Daily: FLORIDA MAN? Senate travel records deepen residency questions.
Or, you know, his own mouth:
How did Tuberville view himself during that time period? The complaint recites that: “At a meeting of the Shoals Republican Club on August 3, 2019, Tuberville candidly conceded that he ‘has property’ in Alabama but is not an ‘everyday resident of Alabama,’ describing himself as a ‘carpetbagger.’”
Then three years later, the Tubervilles listed their Florida home as their primary residence on legal documents associated with the purchase of a piece of property. (Where is the Trump Justice Department when you need them?)
[…]
in April of 2026, per the complaint, “Tuberville admitted to an interviewer at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame that ‘I go back to Auburn for 3 or 4 ballgames a year.’ When he realized his admission, Tuberville quickly tried to cover it up by adding, ‘Actually, I live in Auburn.’”
The complaint notes Tuberville played loose and fast with that exemption. For instance, it alleges that “In 2025, Tuberville and his political allies fed false information to a favorable online blog claiming that Tuberville had maintained a homestead exemption on the Auburn house since 2018. That was a lie, as the records show that it was Tucker [the son], not Tuberville, who claimed that homestead exemption.” Tuberville wasn’t added to the deed for the house until mid-2024 when he removed his son’s name from the deed and replaced it with his own. It was 2025 before he took a homestead exemption. (Source: Joyce Vance)
And of course, stuff like this via The Lagniappe: Records: Tuberville’s son held homestead until ‘24. And Vance (from the link above) notes:
Tuberville didn’t claim a homestead exemption for the Auburn house when it was purchased, yet another indication that it was not his primary residence. When she signed the form, Ms. Tuberville crossed out “spouse” and wrote in “mom.”
And there is the voter registration issue (more from Vance):
He registered to vote in Alabama in March 2019, but did not advise the Florida supervisor of elections, as he was required by law to do, that he had changed his residence until March 2020. He was registered to vote in both states during that period.
Ok, so why bother about all of this?
The main thing, to me, is that all of this should be incredibly easy for Tuberville to clear up, and yet he has stubbornly refused to do so. His income tax records would do it. His full voting record would do it. And full property tax disclosures would do it.
At best, there have been half measures to provide answers. He has produced some tax records, but not all. Vance, again:
The complaint explains that he recently provided some heavily redacted returns to the Alabama Republican Party. But, they “included a readable bar code that revealed most of the relevant information that Tuberville’s lawyers had attempted to redact,” and “A number of media outlets and others were able to read the information in the bar code.” They say the inadvertently disclosed returns “raise far more questions than they answer,” including some with tax implications.
When a politician (you know, a public servant) actively avoids providing personal information about their legal eligibility to hold office, red flags go up in my mind.
Worse than Tuberville’s evasiveness is Alabama’s Secretary of State and AG arguing that the courts shouldn’t get involved. Via WHNT: Tuberville, AL Secretary of State move to dismiss residency lawsuit.
Josh Moon elaborates in an op/ed at the Alabama Political Reporter:
the AG’s office argues, it should be a matter left up to voters and the parties, which have their own established remedies for determining candidate eligibility.
That should bother the hell out of everyone.
Because let’s forget for a few moments that we’re talking about Tuberville and Republicans. This specific issue isn’t really about him and the situation he now finds himself in. It’s about how we enforce our laws.
There are but three requirements for a candidate for governor: 1. That he or she be at least 30 years old; 2. That he or she be a United States citizen; and 3. That he or she be a resident citizen of this state at least seven years next before the date of their election.
That’s it. Those three things haven’t changed in more than 120 years. And in 2022, when lawmakers rewrote our constitution, removing a whole bunch of racist language and reworking some portions, those three things remained. Nearly a million Alabama voters approved it.
But you’re telling me that no court has jurisdiction to enforce those three things?
What if the person who won the Democratic nomination might actually be a non-citizen?
I concur with Moon: it is baffling to suggest that the state’s courts can’t rule on the application of the plain language of the state’s constitution.
So, to circle back around to how I started, I have no moral or theoretical view that suggests Tuberville’s residency is that big of a deal, but I also think that an elected official should conform to the constitutional and legal order.
The bottom line is that all of this should be easy enough to prove in court, and Tuberville could then rub that ruling in his opponents’ faces. If he has the documentary evidence, this is all slam-dunk, is it not? The fact that his own words and actions raise real doubt, coupled with his unwillingness to simply prove what he claims is the case, is all very suspicious, to put it mildly.
This is all especially true for a party that claims to worship at the feet of Law and Order and wants to increase the documentary burdens on American citizens to vote. No doubt that discerning readers have a guess as to Coach’s views on the SAVE Act. Click through, if you dare!
By the way, given Tuberville’s public displays of intellect, I don’t put it past him to have just mangled the situation instead of settling it the easy way.
A concluding thought: it should be noted that the Trump DOJ has used far flimsier issues about primary residency to use the courts to go after New York AG Leticia James, US Senator Adam Schiff, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Update from this morning on the current state of the legal case via the Alabama Political Reporter: Tuberville court challenge rests on one big question.
