To run for the Assembly, a candidate must be a registered voter in the district at the time nomination papers are issued. According to Article 4, Section 2(c) of the California Constitution, the candidate must have one year of residency in the legislative district and California residency for three years -- prior to entering a contest for a state assembly seat.

Chang lived at a house in Assembly District 28 and only moved to his current rental property address in February 2016 and re-registered as an elector thereafter. This unlawful "qualification" disqualifies him as a candidate for the Assembly District 24 contest.

Some people refuse to play by the rules. If they can figure out a way around the rules they will. Looks to me Chang is beholden to many. Reminds me of when I lived in Beijing...local corruption was the norm, in fact it was part of the culture and people always got what they wanted as long as the price was met.
I'm guessing they weighed the risk vs the penalty and went fwd. I'll bet the penalty is meaningless compared to winning the election, so why not?

I don't know about Chang, but I'm mighty suspicious of Berman. I've been getting a different Berman mailer via USPS on average once a day! Each from a different pressure group like realtors and such. That's a lot of money for a lot of mailers - unprecedented in my 26 years at the same address. Only one so far from Chang (who doesn't look great to me anyway). Is there anyone NOT sending out Berman mailers? Ye gods...

Mr. Chang is about to see (predictions) 1) his utter defeat in the June primary, 2) a bunch of NEW fines from the FPPC, 3) hopefully indictment by a county criminal grand jury for election fraud (candidate residence).

Maybe the third will just come from the District Attorney office for Public Integrity. Mr. Chang is about to see (another prediction) the crashing end to his political career! Good riddance.

"It could be because I didn't understand the law," he said. "But I know I haven't done any wrongdoing at all, so I'm not worried."

Let's see. If he didn't understand the law, how could he know that he didn't violate any law? I guess he would claim that he didn't know many of the donors of $42,000 are associated with developers or each other. Well, he didn't know. Could you blame him?

I've studied Chang's donations from the start. 90% are from developers and their subs with projects coming into Cupertino where he now resides as Mayor. They are listed in a way that if you just perused the list you would miss that there were multiple donations coming form the same developer/person. One guy gave 5 times through different LLCs of which he was the owner and they had only 1 or 2 employees.

Sorry, but the man is a pathological liar.

Barry Chang likes to tell people he was not afraid of Steve Jobs and Apple. A recurring old story filled with exaggeration. The fact was they couldn't care less about him.

Chang is disrespectful to the people he supposedly represents and his ethics is questionable. His decision-making as a Cupertino council member is shady and clouded by his personal business gains.

In fact, he is using Cupertino resources to fund his effort to siphon money back to his friends through a smart city conference which supposedly helps Cupertino. Behind the scenes are his friends working as paid "consultants" whom he has also elected as Cupertino commissioners, including a rather charming Chinese woman who does not even live in Cupertino or care about the commission she serves.

Shady dealings, questionable ethics and lack of integrity. Yet, Cupertino residents keep silent.

The press and public need to not support the re-election or promotion of local politicians who lie. Unless he is locked up, Chang will keep running for office and will need to be opposed and exposed.