.
Well, paineinthearse, let's turn to the highest law of the land - the starting point from which any and all our laws must comply . . .
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen." (U.S. constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 3)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/
"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." (U.S. Constitution, 17th Amendment, Clause 2)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment17/
And the analysis ends there, because no state may promulgate any laws that attempt to "over-ride" the U.S. constitution.
As for residency requirements of a state governor or other state officials, of course, each state may promulgate reasonable laws. But not as for a U.S. Senator. And as for the word "inhabitant" or resident or domicile or residency, its defined in case law to mean, generally speaking, "I am in your state and I intend to reside in your state, period." It's factually determinative, that is, proven with the facts and circumstances as demonstrated.
All that being said, remember Hillary Rodham Clinton and New York? Indeed. Any other Senator you can think of? How about Robert F. Kennedy (deceased) when he ran from New York too? Or Alan Keyes in Illinois? Then there's flack about the re-election of Rick Santorum in PA due to his
apparent lack of being an "inhabitant" in PA while he and his wife and children are "living" in VA outside D.C. It's factually driven, factually proven, and the facts and circumstances vary, case to case or as proffered anyway.