Residency, Diversity, and What Truly Makes a Good Candidate in California Politics

In American politics, one of the most persistent debates is whether a candidate needs to

live inside the specific district they want to represent. Many voters, especially Republicans, treat residency as a requirement of legitimacy. The intention behind that belief is understandable — people want leaders who understand local needs. But in practice, rigid residency purity often harms voters more than it helps, especially in a state where district lines move more than the candidates do.

The Constitution only requires that members of Congress live in the state, not the district. That’s because districts are political constructs — boundaries drawn by people, not nature. And in California, those boundaries shift constantly. Redistricting after the census can dramatically reshape districts overnight, and measures like Proposition 50 have even changed them mid-decade. A representative who spent years serving a community can suddenly find themselves outside the new lines through no fault of their own.

Kevin Kiley is a perfect example. His District 3 once stretched along the Nevada border. Prop 50 split it apart. Placer County was absorbed into Sacramento’s District 6. Other areas were moved into District 5 under Tom McClintock. Kiley now faces a choice: run in a district he doesn’t technically live in, or challenge a fellow Republican. The situation says more about the fluidity of political maps than it does about Kiley’s commitment to the region.

Doug LaMalfa’s District 1 experienced a similar transformation — once a rural North State conservative stronghold, it was pushed south and west, picking up the northern Bay Area and communities around Lake Tahoe. LaMalfa never lived in Marin County, but because of redistricting, he now represents voters there. Again, the map changed — not the man.

These examples highlight a simple truth: if voters insist on strict residency rules, they risk excluding strong candidates who are already proven leaders. Democrats understand this and operate with far more flexibility. Republicans, meanwhile, often limit themselves by insisting on criteria that the law doesn’t require and the map won’t support. In today’s political environment, adaptability matters more than an address.

But residency is only one piece of the landscape. California’s political identity is shaped by its extraordinary diversity. Latinos form the state’s largest voting bloc. Asian American communities — Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese — continue to grow in influence. Punjabi, Sikh, and Hindu Indian communities are thriving in the Central Valley and Bay Area. Black voters play a crucial role in urban coalitions. While it’s natural for voters to gravitate toward candidates who share their background, rigid identity politics and racial stereotyping weaken democracy. Leadership should be based on character and capability, not ancestry.

So what actually defines a strong candidate in California? In my view, it comes down to three qualities: charisma, personal fortune, and work ethic.

Charisma is the ability to connect — to make voters feel seen. Leaders like Antonio Villaraigosa and Kamala Harris built coalitions that crossed demographic boundaries because they knew how to communicate with people from all walks of life.

Personal fortune matters more than most people admit. California is enormous, and its media markets are some of the most expensive in the nation. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman, Michael Huffington, Tom Steyer, and John Duarte all used their personal resources to remain viable in large, competitive races. Money doesn’t guarantee a win, but it gives a candidate the staying power needed to compete.

Finally, there is work ethic — the trait that can’t be bought, faked, or outsourced. California demands a candidate who shows up. Someone who can speak to farmworkers in Merced, tech workers in the Bay Area, and small business owners in the North State. Leaders like Dalip Singh Saund, the first Indian-American elected to Congress, succeeded because they put in the work, meeting voters where they were, even in communities that doubted them at first.

In business, companies don’t hire based on zip code. They hire the most capable person. Politics should operate the same way. District lines may move every decade, but leadership qualities don’t. California’s future will belong to the candidates who build bridges across communities, who have the charisma to inspire, the resources to compete, and the work ethic to earn respect.

Residency purity and identity silos limit us. Vision, character, and commitment move us forward. District boundaries are temporary. Leadership is not.

-- Gene D. Johnson Jr., Chair, Republican Party of Merced County