Following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s directive to reevaluate judicial candidate Michael Huff’s residency under a broader legal framework, Judge Lori Dumas has issued her reconsideration—and her conclusion hasn’t changed: Michael Huff is not domiciled in Philadelphia and does not qualify to appear on the ballot.
The Huff Test—And Why Huff Failed It
In its recent opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the narrow statutory test that had disqualified Huff initially, instead laying out a six-part “totality of the circumstances” standard. Though rooted in existing precedent, the opinion’s detail and emphasis may well make this the new go-to framework for future residency disputes. Call it the “Huff Test.”
Michael Huff is the first candidate to be measured against it—and he failed.
The Court’s Words—A Matter of Credibility
Judge Dumas left no doubt that credibility was at the heart of her decision:
“Unless otherwise stated herein, we generally disbelieve Candidate’s testimony, including his testimony that he would remain in Philadelphia following an election loss, based on his demeanor and temperament, i.e., it rang hollow.”
“We emphatically do not believe Candidate was routinely present at, regularly returned to, or stayed overnight at Greene Street.”
“Further informing our assessment, we note that Candidate’s license to rent the Greene Street property expired in 2022, yet he continued to collect rent. We are deeply troubled by a judicial candidate collecting rent for almost three years without a license. Candidate’s apparent inattention to such legal requirements detracted from his credibility.”
“We also find Candidate not credible because his presence at the Greene Street address is belied by the electric bills, particularly during the summer months of 2024, when he allegedly lived in the second-floor apartment with his daughter.”
“We are simply not persuaded that these extraordinarily low utility bills for a two-bedroom unit with a single window air conditioner accurately reflect Candidate’s presence.”
These statements strike at the very core of Huff’s case. Without credible testimony or compelling proof of actual residency, his argument unravels—regardless of paperwork or voter registration.
The Evidence Didn’t Add Up
Dumas assessed each of the six Supreme Court-defined factors—and her findings were consistent and critical across the board:
- Candidate’s presence or absence at an address: Judge Dumas emphasized that there was no corroborating evidence of Huff’s presence at the Greene Street property. She noted that his testimony about being present 5–6 nights a week was not credible and unsupported by records or witnesses.
- Where the members of his household reside: Huff’s wife and daughter reside full-time in Montgomery County. He stipulated to this fact, which weighed heavily against his claim of Philadelphia residency.
- Whether he rents or leases the property: Huff had been renting out the Greene Street apartment until shortly before declaring his candidacy. Judge Dumas noted that he collected rent illegally for years without a license, which she found troubling and damaging to his credibility.
- Where he sleeps: Huff claimed to sleep at Greene Street regularly, but again, Dumas found this statement lacked credibility and was not supported by other facts, including low utility usage.
- What belongings and personal effects he keeps at the address: While Huff moved some belongings into the Philadelphia apartment, the court found this move was timed with his political candidacy and gave it minimal weight.
- Whether he owns another home to which he is more permanently attached: Huff and his wife own a home in Bala Cynwyd, where she and their child live, where they hold a mortgage, and where she is politically active. This, combined with his ongoing ties to the Montgomery County community, suggested a more permanent attachment.
In addition to these six core factors, Judge Dumas also considered marital status and living arrangements—both of which reinforced that Huff’s true residence remained in Montgomery County.
The court concluded that Huff’s Philadelphia presence was a matter of legal convenience, not genuine residency.
Voters Deserve Clarity
The Supreme Court had ordered the Commonwealth Court to rule by 3:00 p.m. on April 30—a deadline Judge Dumas met. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia City Commissioners, in anticipation of the Court’s ruling, locked the ballot earlier this week with Huff’s name still included.
He appears as candidate #4 for Common Pleas Court and #18 for Municipal Court on the printed ballot. However, if the ruling stands, votes for Huff will not be counted. Clear signage will be posted at polling places to inform voters of his disqualification.
Conclusion
Despite a second chance, a broader legal standard, and every opportunity to prove otherwise, Michael Huff failed to convince the court that he genuinely lives in Philadelphia. Under the expanded criteria—the so-called “Huff Test”—Judge Dumas found his claims lacking in both credibility and substance.
His attempt to transform a rental unit into a campaign-qualifying address didn’t hold up to scrutiny. And in a race for judge, where truthfulness and transparency matter most, that failure is disqualifying.