A legal challenge has been filed in Sacramento Superior Court that could dramatically alter the landscape of the 2026 California gubernatorial election. A petition seeks to disqualify Congressman Eric Swalwell from appearing on the ballot, alleging he doesn’t meet the state’s constitutional residency requirements.
The case, filed by a registered California voter, centers on a fundamental question: can a candidate claim California residency while officially designating a Washington, D.C. home as their “principal residence”? Publicly recorded mortgage documents from 2022 appear to directly contradict Swalwell’s eligibility, a point the petition emphasizes.
California’s Constitution is clear. Article V, section 2 mandates that a gubernatorial candidate must be a resident of the state for five years prior to the election. The petition argues this isn’t a suggestion, but a firm, enforceable requirement – a “ministerial duty” for the Secretary of State to verify before certification.
The core of the argument rests on a District of Columbia Deed of Trust, signed by Swalwell and his wife. This document, standard for federally backed mortgages, explicitly declares the Washington, D.C. property as their primary residence. Clause 8 of the deed further reinforces this, stating that representations regarding principal residency are “material.”
Adding to the challenge, Swalwell has never owned a home within California. California law, specifically Elections Code section 349, determines domicile through objective actions, not simply stated intentions. The petition contends that these combined facts present an insurmountable barrier to Swalwell’s candidacy.
The challenge extends to Swalwell’s Candidate Intention Statement, a sworn document submitted under penalty of perjury. This form requires a verifiable home address, intended to confirm identity and prevent fraud. However, Swalwell listed the address of his attorneys at Greenberg Traurig, LLP – a clear departure from a legitimate residential address.
This isn’t a request for financial compensation, but a demand for the enforcement of the law. The petition invokes a Writ of Mandate, a legal tool designed to compel public officials to fulfill their clear, non-discretionary duties. This approach is crucial, as altering an election after ballots are printed becomes exceedingly difficult.
The petitioner argues a compelling case based on three key elements: a clear legal duty of the Secretary of State, a direct benefit to the voter in ensuring a lawful ballot, and the lack of any other effective remedy, particularly given the potential for irreparable harm caused by allowing an ineligible candidate to proceed.
The stakes are high. Allowing Swalwell to remain on the ballot, the petition asserts, would render the five-year residency requirement meaningless, effectively nullifying a core tenet of the California Constitution. Once votes are cast, the damage of an unlawful ballot would be irreversible.
This case transcends partisan politics. It’s a fundamental question of constitutional integrity. The petition isn’t about Swalwell’s past controversies – his alleged ties or political statements – but about whether the Constitution will be upheld. Constitutions aren’t open to interpretation when it comes to basic qualifications for office.
The petitioner believes the courts will recognize the urgency and enforce the law. A Writ of Mandate, they argue, is the only way to ensure California voters receive a ballot that reflects constitutional requirements. The rule of law demands consistent enforcement, especially when the integrity of an election is at stake.
Ultimately, the petition seeks not punishment, but constitutional necessity. California voters deserve a lawful ballot, and the courts are the final safeguard to ensure that fundamental right is protected.
