Staff Reports
California voters woke up to a petition in Sacramento this week asking a court to do what common sense demands: keep ineligible candidates off the ballot. Conservative filmmaker Joel Gilbert filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate arguing Rep. Eric Swalwell does not meet California’s five‑year residency requirement and that the address he listed on his Candidate Intention Statement is actually his attorney’s office, not a home. The lawsuit seeks to force Secretary of State Shirley Weber to refuse certification of Swalwell as a gubernatorial candidate.
The complaint leans heavily on public mortgage documents that, Gilbert says, show Swalwell declared a Washington, D.C. house as his principal residence when he took out a mortgage in April 2022. Prosecutors and voters should be alarmed by the apparent mismatch between sworn mortgage paperwork and the residential address Swalwell used on California campaign forms—an issue that goes straight to honesty under oath. If the facts in the filing are true, this isn’t political theater; it’s a potential qualification failure and possible perjury.
California law is clear: to be governor you must have been a resident of the state for five years immediately preceding the election, and the petition argues the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to enforce that requirement before certifying ballots. Gilbert’s petition, filed as case number 26WM000011 in Sacramento Superior Court, even names the judge and department assigned, underscoring that this is a live, procedural attempt to protect the integrity of the ballot. Courts routinely intervene when election machinery risks being defrauded, and this looks like one of those moments.
This challenge lands amid the broader controversy over a federal referral alleging mortgage fraud tied to Swalwell’s D.C. home, a referral that led Swalwell to sue Bill Pulte and the FHFA director for what he says were unlawful disclosures. That background doesn’t excuse dodgy paperwork; if anything, it amplifies why transparency and accountability matter when someone tries to jump into the highest office in the state. Voters deserve answers, not legal obfuscation or Washington double‑dipping.
Swalwell’s celebrity endorsements and late‑night TV kickoff don’t wash away the plain legal question at the heart of this case: where does he actually live? California cannot allow technicalities and political influence to let a candidate who has sworn a different primary residence onto its ballot. If he wants to be governor, he should meet the same rules every ordinary Californian would have to meet.
Patriotic Americans who care about the rule of law should watch this fight closely and demand that election officials do their duty. The courts exist to enforce constitutional requirements, and secretaries of state must not become rubber stamps for candidates who flout residency rules. If the allegations hold up, removing Swalwell from the ballot would be a narrow, lawful remedy that protects voters and the integrity of California elections.
