Right.
So firstly, I am pretty confident that when they said that domicile suffices, it makes it necessary, since the statute only allows one kind of people, “residents”.
The term resident cannot mean to intend to return, or to actually live there.
Also, the court pokes fun at the idea of needing to actually live there, asking how such a standard would be measured. This implies that the court was not comfortable using a “living there” standard for anything.
I’m guessing there could be a 14h amendment problem, since they are discriminating between people living in the state on the basis of whether they have taken up domicile. But then, that is way past my expertise. This whole discussion is past my expertise. I am just adding up the pieces.