Ahlers’ property records dispel false allegations
A Woodland Hills law firm has launched a residency challenge against a candidate in the 40th Assembly District, a territory that comprises nearly all of the Santa Clarita Valley.
A complaint shared with The Signal, which was made by Volchok, Volchok & Swire, alleges “an abundance of evidence, which I am presenting herein which clearly shows that (Elizabeth Wong) Ahlers is not a resident of District 40. Please accept this as a formal ‘Election Residency Challenge.’”
The letter is addressed to the chief of the California Secretary of State’s Election Division, with the county’s Elections Division and the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission CC’ed on the correspondence.
The law firm did not respond to a message requesting comment Wednesday.
In a phone conversation on Wednesday morning, Ahlers confirmed that property records obtained by The Signal — for the deed of a home purchased in October, using a trust in her and her husband’s name — were accurate.
“The allegations in this complaint are false and contradicted by public records. My residency is documented and verifiable,” Ahlers said. “A quick Google search would have saved this individual the ink and the time.”
The trust for the Ahlers’ SCV home purchase lists the “current address” for them as a Montrose home owned by the same trust since 2004, according to the complaint.
Ahlers has made no secret of her longstanding ties to the Crescenta Valley and Montrose areas, the complaint alleges, and she has run campaigns for neighboring districts in the past, using her Crescenta Valley Town Council experience as proof of her community ties.
Ahlers ran for California’s 25th state Senate District in 2024, a territory that stretches from Glendale east through the Angeles National Forest and hitting part of Glendora before stopping in north Rancho Cucamonga. Ahlers made it past the primary in that race before losing to Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, D-Alhambra, 59.6% to 40.4%.
She said the attack was evidence that her grassroots campaign was growing, which is what spurred the “petty lies,” and the “last-minute political stunt.”
Ahlers’ website for her 40th District campaign says she is a longtime Californian — “Momma bear is here, take her back” — and makes reference to many who have recently said they’re leaving the state for a variety of reasons.
“I’m not a transplant who showed up yesterday. I’m a fifth-generation Californian. Born here. Raised here. Married here. Raised my kids here. My roots are DEEP in this soil, and I am NOT leaving. California is my home,” the site states.
Ahlers said she has enjoyed living in the SCV since the purchase, calling it “like a dream,” adding that she’s enjoyed connecting with other friends who’ve moved to the area over the years.
While residency and community understanding are certainly things some voters might consider more than others, it’s not of particular concern to the office responsible for enforcing such rules and regulations, California’s Attorney General.
California voters have been the de-facto deciders on residency since the 1980 election, due to a longstanding opinion.
An opinion that has remained since 1979, when former Gov. George Deukmejian was the AG, stated the California Supreme Court finds “only the Legislature has exclusive jurisdiction to judge the qualifications and elections of its members,” according to the July 13, 1979, official report.
“It is concluded that the Secretary of State is not authorized to enforce the provision of article IV, section 2, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution imposing a one-year residence prerequisite for membership in the Legislature,” it states. “Consequently, we do not reach the question of the effect of article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution upon the exercise of such authority.”
An August statement by California’s Secretary of State regarding the June 2 primary, which states the residency requirements, also notes the contradiction at the bottom in fine print:
“Article IV, section 2(c), of the California Constitution requires one year of residency in the legislative district and three years of residency in California; however, it is the legal opinion of this office that these provisions violate the U.S. Constitution and are unenforceable.”
