The state Attorney General's office has knocked down an attempt to require that anyone running for elected offices in Wareham be a registered voter for one year.

Town Meeting approved the measure last spring, but it needed to be OK'd by the Attorney General's office before taking effect. That office declared the proposal "invalid."

Any registered voter can run for office in Wareham, regardless of how long the person has been registered to vote. In order to register to vote in Wareham, a person must provide a Wareham address and sign and attest under penalties of perjury that the information given on the form is true, according to the Town Clerk's office.

The issue of residency became a hot topic during last spring's race for a Board of Selectmen seat.

During the race, rumors spread that candidate Amit Johar did not live in Wareham, even though he is a registered voter in Wareham.

In May, an article requiring candidates to be a registered voter for one year before running for elected office was presented to voters.

The petitioner of the article, Robert Brousseau, said the article was not a residency requirement, but a requirement for candidates to have spent a year to get to know the town and its issues.

The article passed by a vote of 121 to 50 and was sent to the Attorney General's office to ensure that there were no conflicts with state law.

But according to the Attorney General's Office, there was.

Changing the requirements for candidates running for office requires amending the Town Charter.

According to a written opinion from the Attorney General's office, neither the citizen's petition to include the article in the Town Meeting warrant nor the actual article itself included a statement referring to the fact that the article would amend the Town Charter.

"The warrant article does not adequately inform Town Meeting voters that … [the article] was a proposed amendment to the Town Charter," the opinion states.

When the motion was made to pass the article, the fact that the Charter was being amended was stated.

But, according to the opinion, proper language in the motion was not enough.

"The fact [that] the motion under [the article] does refer to a proposed charter amendment does not cure the flaw in the text of the warrant itself," the opinion read.

The opinion ended by stating that the office did not need to comment on the legality of the subject matter of the amendment because the procedural issues already invalidated the article.

But, the opinion stated, "We strongly urge the Town to consult with Town Counsel on that issue if it intends to attempt such a charter amendment in the future."