Rhode Island state Rep. Julie Casimiro is facing growing calls to resign after moving roughly 1,000 miles away to South Carolina while continuing to represent parts of North Kingstown and Exeter.

Casimiro, a Democrat who has represented House District 31 since 2017, made her home in Hardeeville, South Carolina, her primary residence on July 1, according to reporting by the Boston Globe. She had already announced that she would not seek reelection this fall, but her current term does not end until January.

She says she is still doing the job remotely and plans to finish the term. Critics—including several prominent Democrats—say the move may leave her legally ineligible to hold a Rhode Island office and leaves constituents represented by someone who no longer lives in their state.

That makes this more than a debate about whether remote work is convenient. Elected representation is tied to a specific place, and Rhode Island officials now must decide whether Casimiro can legally represent a district in which she no longer appears to reside.

Casimiro says resigning would leave the district unrepresented

Casimiro defended her decision in an interview with WPRO host Tara Granahan reported by WPRI.

“I’m doing the work right now as we speak,” Casimiro said. She called the controversy politically motivated and “a whole lot of fuss over nothing.”

Her central argument is practical: Rhode Island would not hold a special election this late in the term, and there is no process for appointing a temporary replacement. If she resigns, District 31 would have no state representative until the winner of the November election takes office in January.

“Who is going to do the work for District 31 if I resign?” she asked.

That is a legitimate concern. Constituent service does not disappear when the General Assembly adjourns, and residents can still need help navigating state agencies, benefits and other government problems. Casimiro says she continues to handle that work from South Carolina and plans to return to Rhode Island for meetings in September. She also says she would attend if lawmakers are called back into session this fall.

But the absence of a quick replacement does not answer the legal question. If Rhode Island law requires a sitting representative to remain a qualified elector in the state or district, continued remote work cannot substitute for eligibility.

Rhode Island’s Constitution puts residency at the center

Article III of the Rhode Island Constitution states that no person may hold a civil office unless that person is a “qualified elector” for the office.

The Rhode Island Secretary of State’s eligibility guidance says candidates for the General Assembly must be registered Rhode Island voters and must live within the district they seek to represent.

Those rules clearly govern candidates. The immediate dispute is how they apply to a lawmaker who was eligible when elected but then made an out-of-state home her primary residence before the term ended.

Attorney General Peter Neronha said his office is reviewing the applicable law. He has not announced a final legal conclusion, but his advice to Casimiro was direct: resign.

Until the review is complete, it would be premature to declare that Casimiro has definitively violated the Constitution. It would be equally premature to dismiss the issue as mere political noise. The state’s top legal office is examining the question, and the House speaker says the move creates legitimate concerns about her eligibility.

Democratic leaders join the pressure campaign

The calls for Casimiro to leave office are not coming only from Republicans or partisan opponents.

House Speaker Chris Blazejewski, also a Democrat, said that if Casimiro is no longer a permanent Rhode Island resident, she should consider resigning “in order to address legal questions about her eligibility to serve the balance of her term.”

Helena Foulkes, a Democratic candidate for governor, also said Casimiro should resign. State Rep. Jason Knight, a Democrat running for attorney general, called on her to step down as well.

Casimiro pushed back at Knight, arguing that he should resign his own House seat because he is campaigning for another office. But running for a different office while remaining a district resident is not the same question as moving one’s primary residence to another state. The comparison does not resolve the residency issue.

The pay is modest, but taxpayers still deserve an answer

According to the Globe, Casimiro continues to receive $794.38 every two weeks for serving in the part-time Legislature, along with health insurance. She told WPRO that Rhode Island lawmakers “get paid peanuts.”

The compensation is not large compared with a full-time salary, and the General Assembly’s regular session ended in June. Still, the amount of the paycheck is not the controlling issue. A small public salary does not make eligibility rules optional, just as a larger salary would not automatically prove that Casimiro had stopped serving constituents.

The public deserves a clean answer to two separate questions:

  • Is Casimiro legally eligible to remain in office after establishing her primary residence in South Carolina?
  • If she is eligible, is remote representation from another state adequate for District 31 during the final months of her term?

The attorney general should answer the first question promptly and publicly. The second belongs to the voters of North Kingstown and Exeter, who are entitled to know what services Casimiro is providing, how constituents can reach her and whether she can return quickly if the House reconvenes.

Her leadership assignments make the issue more consequential

Casimiro is not merely one of 75 rank-and-file House members. The General Assembly identifies her as a deputy majority leader, first vice chair of the House Oversight Committee and chair of its Children and Families Subcommittee. She also serves on the Education, Judiciary and Veterans’ Affairs committees.

Those assignments carry responsibilities that can involve hearings, oversight work and coordination with other lawmakers. Remote constituent calls may cover part of the job, but they do not fully answer how an out-of-state lawmaker would perform those duties if legislative activity resumes.

The House could be called back this fall, including for action on Gov. Dan McKee’s nominee to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Casimiro says she would return if needed. The state should not have to rely on an informal promise, however, while the legal status of the seat remains unsettled.

Rhode Island should settle the matter before it becomes a precedent

Casimiro’s explanation deserves to be heard. Resigning now would leave District 31 without a voting representative for several months, and she says she is continuing to help constituents rather than abandoning them.

But representation in a state legislature is inherently local. District lines determine who may vote for a representative, and residency rules establish the representative’s continuing connection to the people and community she serves.

If the attorney general concludes that Casimiro is no longer a qualified elector for the office, she should resign immediately. If the law allows her to remain through January, the attorney general and House leadership should explain the basis for that conclusion so voters understand the rule.

What Rhode Island should not accept is months of ambiguity. The public should not be left wondering whether a person living in South Carolina legally holds a Rhode Island House seat while collecting state compensation and exercising legislative authority.

This controversy is ultimately bigger than one lawmaker or one modest paycheck. It concerns the basic bargain between a representative and the represented: voters choose someone from their community to carry their voice to the State House. When that representative makes another state her primary home, Rhode Island owes those voters a clear and timely answer about whether the bargain still stands.

Sources and further reading