Skip to main content
Democratic candidate for governor Nicholas Kristof made a two-part filing with the Oregon Supreme Court today.
Kristof filed what’s called a “writ of mandamus,” essentially a request for the state’s highest court to hear his appeal of his Jan. 6 disqualification from the ballot by the state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan. He also filed a supporting brief that lays out the case for why he should be on the May primary ballot.
Fagan disqualified Kristof because her elections compliance officials determined he did not meet the three-year residency requirement in the Oregon constitution for candidates for governor. Kristof grew up in Yamhill but has spent much of his adult life in New York and in various postings around the world as a New York Times journalist.
Elections officials found, however, that because Kristof voted in New York in 2020, he does not meet Oregon’s residency requirements. His attorneys dispute that finding, noting that Kristof has owned property here since the early 1990s, has spent time here every year, and has always considered himself an Oregonian.
The issue will likely now play out in the state’s top court, although Kristof and his rivals for the Democratic nomination are certain to litigate the matter in the court of public opinion as well.
On Thursday, Kristof made his case to be public, bluntly criticized Fagan’s ruling, saying, “A failing political establishment in Oregon has chosen to protect itself, rather than give voters a choice.”
State Treasurer Tobias Read, who like Kristof is a moderate and therefore may stand to gain the most if Kristof’s disqualification stands, slammed the former journalist in a campaign email today.
“The secretary of state issued the ruling and Kristof has every right to challenge it,” Read wrote to supporters. “However, attacking the process with conspiracies is beyond the pale. I can think of another out of touch New Yorker who does the same thing.”
Kristof’s attorneys at the Perkins Coie law firm cast the issue in different terms, saying Fagan’s “unilateral” decision flies in the face of Oregonians’ right to choose their next governor.
“At stake is nothing less than the right of Oregon voters to freely choose their next governor,” the lawyers wrote in their supporting brief.
“If Kristof’s eligibility is not promptly resolved, not only could voters lose the opportunity to cast their ballots for Kristof, but they will also face an election clouded by the uncertainty of ongoing litigation. Both results would undermine confidence in the democratic process.”
Now it’s up to the Oregon Department of Justice, which advised Fagan on her decision and will defend it in court, to respond to Kristof’s request for an expedited hearing.
