Order by
Advanced Search
Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:37

Former Congressional Candidate Eggman Plans Run for Two Offices

Written by  Janie Costa
Michael Eggman Michael Eggman Courtesy of Michael Eggman
Former congressional candidate Michael Eggman (D-Fresno), who ran and lost against incumbent U.S. Representative Jeff Denham (R-Turlock) in the November 2014 General Election by nearly 13 points, has declared his intention to run again for the same office.

Eggman’s voter registration was canceled in Stanislaus County due to no activity in the past two federal elections, according to Stanislaus County Clerk Recorder Lee Lundrigan, making him unable to vote for himself in the previous election.

Eggman announced his intention to run again for the 10th District seat via his various social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and an email.

Additionally, Eggman has filed papers to run for California State Assembly District 31 located in western Fresno County with the California Secretary of State for the Primary Election to be held June 7, 2016.

However, Eggman is a current registered voter in Fresno County, according to the Fresno County Clerk Registrar of Voters Office, and has voted in both the General and Primary Elections in 2012 and 2014.

Eggman’s intentions, as they appear to run for the two offices simultaneously, are prohibited under the State Elections Code as it states that “no person may file nomination papers...for more than one office at the same election.”

Though federal law does not require a candidate running for Congress to reside in the congressional district in which they seek office, State law does require that a person must have lived in the legislative district for which they seek office for at least one year to be eligible.

This is not the first time Eggman, an almond farmer and beekeeper, with operations in both Turlock and Fresno, has raised controversy. He has stated that he splits time between the two cities, though, the Stanislaus County Tax Collector was previously unable to find a business license for a business operating at the address of Eggman’s Turlock property, as reported by TurlockCityNews.com last November.

The Eggman campaign did not responded to TurlockCityNews.com’s request for comment

Comments (0)

There are no comments posted here yet

Leave your comments

Posting comment as a guest.
Attachments (0 / 3)
Share Your Location

Add comment

Security code