Senator Ted Kennedy was more Massachusetts than clam chowder. Robert La Follette inspired more Wisconsin pride than Packers football. These favorite sons, and countless others like them, were able to translate the trust and admiration of their home states into illustrious careers in the U.S. Congress. In contrast, former New York Senators Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton were famously labeled political “carpetbaggers” during their successful Senatorial campaigns. From its roots in the Reconstruction Era South, to its prominence in today’s political discourse, the pejorative term “carpetbagger” generally refers to a political candidate who runs for office in a state or district where he has not lived for an extended period of time. Politicians identified as carpetbaggers have long been a source of local distrust and hostility, often perceived by long-time residents as having ulterior motives and being power-hungry. While U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton made clear that states cannot alter or add to the Constitution’s list of qualifications for U.S. Congressional candidates, states retain the right to—and often do—codify qualifications for state and local offices that reflect this anti- carpetbagger sentiment. However, not all of these “durational residency requirements” placed on candidates are created equally. While some less restrictive requirements seem to further potentially legitimate state interests, others are far more draconian and discriminatory than justifiable. But how are courts to separate those measures that are invidious from those that are not? T he consensus of courts, absent a suspect classification, now views analysis under the Equal Protection Clause’s “intermediate scrutiny” standard as the proper means of doing so. This article argues that under this test, most durational residency requirements should fail. View More