Moreover, while Wellford has never been overruled, the United States Supreme Court affirmances cited above may undermine the reasoning and holding of the Wellford decision. Therefore, we have reviewed court decisions from other states that address the constitutionality of one year durational residency requirements. Our research shows that courts of other states resolving challenges to durational residency requirements of one year may differ as to analysis, but agree as to result, which is to reject the challenge. The analyses by courts addressing the constitutionality of durational residency requirements are varied. Most often, perhaps, courts engage in an equal protection analysis.
Some courts analyze the issue as a constitutionally protected right to travel issue.
Others view the issue as implicating the right to vote. Finally, some courts perform a First Amendment analysis, based on the freedom to associate. See 65 ALR 3d 1048. The majority of courts appear to apply a strict scrutiny test, but there are courts that scrutinize for a rational basis or an important governmental interest instead. Regardless of the specific analysis, however, most courts rule in favor of the constitutionality of one year durational residency requirements, whether the public office at issue is state or local, or the requirement is contained in a statute or a constitution.