By LES ZAITZ/Oregon Capital Chronicle

SALEM – The legal arguing is done and now it’s up to the Oregon Supreme Court to settle whether Democrat Nick Kristof goes on the primary ballot for governor.

The court set Friday as the deadline for filing legal submissions in a case brought by Kristof. He’s challenging the decision of Secretary of State Shemia Fagan that he hasn’t lived in Oregon long enough to qualify to run for governor.

The issue keys on the mandate in the Oregon Constitution that a governor must have “been three years next preceding his election, a resident within this State.”

That has triggered a string of legal submissions to the Supreme Court exploring Oregon history, what it means to be a “resident,” and whose rights would be vanquished by a decision supporting or overturning Fagan’s decision.

The court has set no schedule to decide the case, and it won’t hear oral arguments. County clerks have a March 17 deadline to set their ballots for the May primary that includes the governor’s race.

Kristof, a former New York Times columnist, has insisted that he has all along been an Oregonian despite living in New York for years. He now lives on the family farm about four miles outside of Yamhill.

Fagan judged that Kristof’s decision in November 2020 to vote as a New Yorker and not in the Oregon election established he had not been a resident in Oregon by November 2019 – the date that would match the constitutional requirement.

She announced her disqualification decision on Jan. 6 and Kristof appealed the next day.

He has continued campaigning, telling local journalists he is confident the Supreme Court will see matters his way. He has been on the trail in central Oregon, the coast and last week in northeast Oregon. He has reported $164,000 in donations in January through Jan. 24 and has about $1.9 million on hand, according to campaign finance reports.

Kristof got in the last word with the justices, taking more legal swipes at Fagan and also responding to a legal brief submitted by Derrin “Dag” Robinson, the Harney County clerk.

Robinson urged the Supreme Court to set a clear standard to guide county clerks on how to consider residency requirements. He said following Kristof’s reasoning, clerks would have to rely on what candidates say about where they lived.

READ IT: County clerk’s brief

“Some county clerks could interpret ‘resident’ to allow candidates to run in their counties based on the candidates’ sentiments, rather than where the candidates actually live,” Robinson wrote. “County clerks would be forced to make imprecise credibility determinations about the sincerity of a person’s subjective intent.”

But Kristof, in a brief filed Friday afternoon, said Robinson’s views indicate that “many” county clerks “have bullish ideas about their own role in disqualifying candidates and voters.”

READ IT: Nick Kristof’s final argument

He wrote of the concern that “elections officials see for themselves a muscular role in smoking out and disqualifying supposed nonresidents.”

He said the Supreme Court should not “license” elections officials to “second guess, interrogate and demand proof of the residency of candidates and voters.” Instead, he said, the rule should be to defer to what a person says about where they reside.