Dok Harris and residency

An investigation by KDKA turned up information suggesting that Dok Harris may be ineligible to be mayor.  The home rule charter lays out the requirements for taking office as mayor:

The mayor shall have been a resident of the City for at least three years immediately preceding election

Harris held a press conference today, where he admitted (1) he only registered to vote in Pittsburgh this year, (2) he has never voted in the City of Pittsburgh, and (3) he had an apartment in the City of Pittsburgh, while voting in Sewickley.

There’s a couple of facts that are not really up for dispute:

1. As a student, temporarily living in Pittsburgh, Dok had a legal right to vote at his permanent address in Sewickley.  In other words, charges of voter fraud are ill-founded.  The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that students have a right to vote at their school address OR their permanent address.
2. Dok’s name cannot–at this point–be removed from the ballot.  Just as when a candidate dies between the time that the ballot is set and when an election occurs, that candidate’s name would likely remain on the ballot.

At the press conference, Harris produced copies of leases showing that he had an apartment in Pittsburgh, but by focusing on the two issues above, the media may be missing the boat on a bigger issue.  By exercising his right to vote from his parents’ address in Sewickley, is that an implicit establishment of that address as his permanent residence?  If this is the case, and Dok only established residency in the City of Pittsburgh this year, then would that make him ineligible to serve as mayor, if he were elected?

My guess is that the story may be over for now, but if the election ends up the way that Dok is hoping it will, then the question of residency and eligibility will be front-and-center.