Roderick Wright was wrong -- residency matters in where he lived

California doesn’t require that much of its candidates for state and local office. One of the few rules is that they must live in the district they seek to represent. How hard is that? Apparently too hard for some politicians.

State Sen. Roderick D. Wright, a Democrat, was convicted this week on perjury and voter fraud charges. Prosecutors said he lied on his voter registration and candidacy filings by saying he made his home in an apartment in working-class Inglewood. In fact, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, Wright was really living with his Maserati, artwork and three guns in a swanky 11-room home in Baldwin Hills, outside the district.

Wright’s conviction was quite rare for a state official. Although candidates are frequently alleged to have lied about their true residence, there are few prosecutions. The exception is in Los Angeles County, where the district attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, which brought the case against Wright, has successfully prosecuted eight candidates or public officials for lying in official filings about where they live. It has a similar case pending against former L.A. City Councilman Richard Alarcon.

Wright and his attorneys argued that the D.A.’s office wasted time and taxpayer dollars pursuing him. After all, they said, Wright won reelection in 2012 — even after he was indicted — with 77% support, suggesting that voters were not terribly bothered about the allegations.

It’s true that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the importance of residency requirements. Who says an elected official has to live in a community to represent the concerns and interests of its residents? There are plenty of men and women who have rich histories of activism and leadership and have their fingers on the pulse of a region, yet don’t live within its boundaries. In fact, under the Constitution, members of the House of Representatives don’t have to live in the districts they represent.

But while those are interesting points, the fact is that California has decided that residency matters. We want our elected leaders to live among us and come from our communities. Residency is a proxy for engagement with and knowledge of a district. We believe that legislators will be able to understand and articulate the needs of their constituents because they live in their midst and run into them at the grocery store and in the park.

That’s why the residency requirement for state legislative candidates was enshrined in the California Constitution. (Interestingly, the law doesn’t say anything about staying in the district once elected, and several state politicians have moved outside the boundaries after taking office.)

While attorneys may argue over the letter of the law, the spirit is clear: Politicians must live in their districts. With luck, Wright’s conviction will remind other candidates and officials of the importance of that rule.