It’s pretty basic: Wyoming legislators should live in their own districts

Whether a state lawmaker must live in the legislative district where they were elected is the biggest no-brainer in Wyoming politics.

Everyone can get behind that concept, even Rep. Joel Guggenmos, R-Riverton, who is under investigation for living outside his district for several months while serving in the Legislature. He told WyoFile last week he thinks a residency requirement should be in the Wyoming Constitution.

“It’s only right that people live in and around the people that they represent,” Guggenmos said. “That’s my belief.”

Mine too. In fact, it might be the only issue the freshman Freedom Caucus legislator and I will ever agree upon. Still, that’s at least proof that polar political opposites can find some common ground. Can we get an “amen” for bipartisanship?

Not from me. Like all disputes over legislative residency that have transpired in Wyoming over the years, the hole Guggenmos dug for himself comes with its own special set of circumstances that are difficult to equate. 

Coupled with the challenge of matching constitutional requirements with evolving state laws, it’s no wonder that the saga of Guggenmos’ house District 55 residency, and what happens next is as clear as mud.

Guggenmos, elected to the House in 2024, was living with his wife in a log cabin in his Riverton district until last September, when he said his landlord shocked him by raising the rent by six times the amount his family had been paying.

Anyone would be stressed by that unbelievable situation. Guggenmos said the immediate answer was moving his family to live in an RV parked at a relative’s place in neighboring House District 33, where Rep. Ivan Posey, D-Riverton, is the elected representative.

Guggenmos told WyoFile that before he moved to HD-33, he asked the Legislative Service Office for advice. The LSO confirmed it gave him a copy of the agency’s memo based on historical and legal precedent, including a dispute in 2022 when the Wyoming Republican Party charged that a moderate GOP House member, Dan Zwonitzer, was living outside his Cheyenne district.

The House voted to not form a committee to investigate the Zwonitzer case, but the hoopla surrounding the incident took its toll on the legislator, who lost his 2024 primary bid for an 11th term.

LSO’s memo explained the reasoning behind what it shared with Guggenmos: “The Wyoming Constitution does not require a member to continue to reside in his district after his election for purposes of being qualified to continue to serve in the House of Representatives.”

Just when I think Wyoming politics can’t get any stranger, a story like this darkens our skies. In addition to being disheartening because of its conclusion, the memo is counterintuitive to everything we learned in civics class about how the democratic process is supposed to work.

Guggenmos said based on the LSO memo, he believed his move to the RV outside of his district did not create a vacancy. He also said he submitted a “routine” ethics disclosure form to the Secretary of State’s Office at the end of December, listing the RV location as his residence. The Guggenmos family didn’t move back to HD-55 until last month, when they rented a different house.

The window to file as a candidate for office is May 14-29.

Guggenmos’ departure from HD-55 raises several questions. If he filed paperwork with the Secretary of State’s Office detailing exactly where he lived, doesn’t the office have a responsibility to check if that address is in a legislator’s district?

I’m confident that the vast majority of Wyomingites would say we can fix this hole in our election laws, but it’s not going to be easy — and it may indeed be impossible. Think “Catch-22” to infinity.

The Legislature thought it worked this residency problem out in a straightforward way in 2003. It passed a law that reads: “A vacancy shall occur in the office of a member of the state Legislature when the person fails to reside in the legislative district from which he is elected.” 

Under this law, the fate of Guggenmos’ term would be obvious: He left his district, creating a vacancy that must be promptly filled. The Fremont County GOP’s precinct committee women and men would need to seek and review applications for a new representative, interview the candidates and send three nominees to Fremont County commissioners for the final selection.

It’s so obvious, in fact, that when Fremont County Clerk Julie Freese received a complaint from a HD-55 resident, she decided it had merit and forwarded it to the Fremont County Sheriff’s Office, the secretary of state and attorney general. The sheriff is investigating, and the other two officials did not respond to WyoFile’s inquiries.

Freese did exactly what she should have under that law. However, in 2004, a year after the vacancy statute went into effect, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the state’s statutorily imposed term limits are unconstitutional.

What does that have to do with this controversy? On the surface, nothing, but it had an important impact nonetheless. The justices ruled that the qualifications to be a legislative candidate are precisely what the state Constitution spells out, and nothing more.

It’s a fairly short list: U.S. citizenship, at least 25 years old, and a resident of the district you want to represent for at least a year. The state is prohibited from passing other laws limiting who can run for the Legislature.

Or put another way: The Wyoming Constitution requires lawmakers to live in their district when they’re elected, but it doesn’t mandate they continue residing there for their entire term.

Why are there no guidelines for how long a lawmaker is “away from home” for any reason before voters can reasonably expect him or her to return to the job of representing them? Why doesn’t the Wyoming Constitution establish that lawmakers must continue to live in their district after being elected?

Is this any way to run a state legislature? I’ll answer that one: No, it’s crazy.

Amending what the state’s founders included in the constitution is an incredibly high bar. 

First, the House and Senate must both approve putting the amendment on the next general election ballot by a two-thirds majority. It may be a common sense change, but special interests might fight it regardless.

Guggenmos raised the spectre of people playing political games with the issue. So did the Wyoming Republican Party, which recently voted to ignore state election laws and endorse primary candidates.

“Somebody’s coming after me now to try to discredit me. And that’s fine. I didn’t do anything,” Guggenmos told WyoFile. “My conscience is clear.” 

Ginger Bennett, chair of the Fremont County Republican Party, issued a statement strongly supporting Guggenmos. She told Cowboy State Daily he has built a “strong conservative record” in the Legislature and shown “principled and unwavering commitment to conservative ideals.”

Bennett praised Guggenmos for “his honesty throughout this matter” and “demonstrating the integrity that defines true public service.”

Guggenmos would earn those compliments if he skipped this year’s election, reestablished his residential requirements in HD-55, and got back on the ballot in 2028. He likely will not need to do that, because the courts determined in Zwonitzer’s case that if there’s a question about a candidate’s residential status, it’s up to the House to decide whether to have a special committee further investigate. I doubt the Freedom Caucus-led House would pursue such an inquiry.

In my view, Guggenmos no longer meets the requirement to have spent the past year in his district before the Aug. 18 GOP primary. Instead of resolving the issue in a way that would earn him voters’ respect, Guggenmos is making excuses that what he did wasn’t a big deal because he was living “just outside [my] district.” But it doesn’t matter whether it’s a mile or 100 miles. He wasn’t living where his constituents expected him to be.