A Circuit Court judge ruled Friday that the state House can intervene in the legal challenge to state Rep. Calvin Say’s residency.

Six Palolo voters have alleged that Say does not live in the Palolo state House district he has represented since 1976 and instead lives with his family in Pauoa Valley. State Circuit Judge Karen Nakasone has ordered Say to prove he lives in Palolo, since the state Constitution requires lawmakers to be qualified voters in the districts they represent.

The state, on behalf of the House, argues that the House has exclusive jurisdiction under the state Constitution to determine the qualifications of its members.

Judge Nakasone agreed to allow the House to join the case, finding that the House will make the same legal argument about jurisdiction as Say. The judge also found that the House’s entrance would not unduly delay the case or prejudice Say’s or the voters’ arguments.

A court hearing on motions by Say and the House to dismiss the legal challenge is set for Sept. 18.

Say, who has said his primary residence is a 10th Avenue home in Palolo but that he also stays in Pauoa Valley for family reasons, has survived three previous challenges to his residency by political opponents. But the latest legal conflict is unfolding in the midst of the Democrat’s November re-election campaign against Julia Allen, a Republican, and Keiko Bonk, a Green Party candidate.

The issues involved, however, are broader than where the former House speaker actually lives.

The courts could potentially clarify what constitutes residency for election purposes. State election law defines residency as the place where a person’s habitation is fixed, and where, whenever the person is absent, the person intends to return. The law also recognizes that a person may live in a place separate from that person’s spouse or family.

The case could also resolve whether the courts or the Legislature have the authority to decide whether lawmakers meet the constitutional requirements for state office.

State Deputy Attorney General Valri Lei Kunimoto, representing the House, told the judge on Friday that the attempt to oust Say through the courts disregards the House’s constitutional right to govern its members.

Lance Collins, an attorney for the six Palolo voters, said that the voters "strenuously disagree" with the state’s characterization of the House’s power as a constitutional right. "Rights are things that individuals possess that restrain the powers of government," he said. "Organs of the state do not have rights, they have powers."

Collins told reporters afterward that he believes the reason the House is intervening is because of "collusion between the parties and that just complicates issues. It doesn’t simplify anything."