The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that state courts cannot enforce Alabama's candidate residency law, upholding a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit over Sen. Tommy Tuberville's Florida-versus-Alabama residency without deciding whether he met the state's residency requirements. The ruling leaves the underlying question of where Tuberville actually lives unresolved, even as it settles who is responsible for vetting candidates' qualifications.

The challenge centered on whether the judiciary can enforce the statute requiring a candidate to have a certain number of years of residency in the state before running for governor. As AL.com reported, the state's highest court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the law, leaving responsibility for enforcement with political parties.

“Today’s decision opens the door to ineligible candidates, including non-U.S. citizens, to seek elected office so long as the political parties fail to do their jobs in ensuring that their nominees comply with the Constitution,” said Barry Ragsdale, the attorney who filed the lawsuit.

In briefing ahead of the arguments, Ragsdale's appeal noted that the statutory language is “expressly limited to ‘any proceeding for ascertaining the legality, conduct, or results of any election’ or ‘any injunction, process, or order from any judge or court, whereby the results of any election are sought to be inquired into, questioned, or affected, or whereby any certificate of election is sought to be inquired into or questioned.’” The brief added: “Appellants challenge only Tuberville’s constitutional eligibility to now serve as the certified nominee — which presumes that the results of the primary are valid and correct.”

Tuberville, a Republican who was first elected to the Senate in 2020, argued the courts have no role in deciding whether he meets the constitutional requirements, and the Alabama Republican had already determined that he had lived in the state long enough.

In June, the Tuberville campaign released new documents to prove his residency, producing seven years of tax documentation and property tax records. The move, however, inadvertently exposed him to two potential charges and raised further questions about Tuberville's voting record — a reminder that a candidate's effort to document eligibility can itself open the door to new scrutiny.

In its ruling, the court wrote: “Our decisions in such cases have generally adhered to the rule that a primary-election contest brought under the primary-election contest statutes is the exclusive method authorized by law to challenge a party nominee's qualification for office before the general election.”

“Additionally, there is no statutory right to appeal a committee's decision to the circuit court or to this Court,” the judges added.

That holding was the key piece of the decision, since the state GOP had already concluded that Tuberville could be considered a qualified “resident.” In practical terms, the ruling makes a party committee's certification the last word on a nominee's qualifications before a general election: the primary-election contest window is the only statutory avenue for a challenge, and there is no route to appeal a committee's decision to a higher court. That is the gap Ragsdale warned about — one that now falls entirely to Alabama's political parties to police.

Read the ruling here.