278 So.3d 1104
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Jason Trevor Brown filed to run for Bossier Parish Police Juror District 9 on Aug 8, 2019, listing 2606 Village Lane, Bossier City as his domicile.
- Objectors petitioned, alleging Brown had not been domiciled in District 9 for the year before qualification; a hearing followed with seven witnesses and documentary evidence.
- Evidence showed Brown owned and used multiple Shreveport/Caddo Parish addresses (notably 858 Prospect Street), listed that address on various public records (deeds, tax returns, candidate reports, mortgage documents), and had utilities and vehicle registrations tied to Village Lane but paid utilities and spent most time in Caddo Parish while working as an ADA in Calcasieu Parish.
- Minimal water usage and neighbor testimony suggested little activity at the Village Lane address in 2018–2019; Brown’s wife moved to Village Lane in spring 2019.
- Trial court found objectors made a prima facie case that Brown changed domicile to Caddo Parish and that Brown failed to rebut that showing; it declared him ineligible to run. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown was domiciled in District 9 for the year before qualifying | Objectors: documentary and testimonial evidence show Brown established domicile in Caddo Parish and abandoned Village Lane | Brown: he always considered Village Lane his domicile, maintained voter/driver/vehicle registrations there, and used it as his primary address | Court: Objectors made prima facie case of domicile change; Brown failed to overcome it — not domiciled in District 9 for the required year |
| Proper allocation of burden of proof on domicile in candidate challenge | Objectors: once prima facie showing made, burden shifts to candidate to rebut | Brown: his testimony and some records suffice to maintain domicile | Court: Agrees burden shifts after prima facie showing; candidate must present sufficient countervailing evidence; Brown did not |
| Standard for determining domicile (factfinding/credibility) | Objectors: rely on documentary indicia of domicile (deeds, tax returns, utility use) | Brown: asserts intent and continuity of domicile despite contrary documents | Court: Domicile is fact-based; objective evidence can overcome attestations of intent; trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference |
| Effect of liberal construction of election qualifications | Brown: doubts should be resolved in favor of candidacy | Objectors: domiciliary requirement serves legitimate local-representation purposes and must be enforced | Court: While construed liberally for candidates, requirements have force; here enforcement appropriate given evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Landiak v. Richmond, 899 So. 2d 535 (La. 2005) (domicile defined; presumption against change; burden to prove change)
- Messer v. London, 438 So. 2d 546 (La. 1983) (constitutional domicile requirements for office eligibility)
- Kelley v. Desmarteau, 184 So. 3d 55 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (when a domicile-length requirement exists, candidate must meet it; factors for determining domicile)
- Thebeau v. Smith, 148 So. 3d 233 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014) (documentary indicia and testimony weighed to determine domicile; appellate review deferential)
- Russell v. Goldsby, 780 So. 2d 1048 (La. 2000) (burden on objector to prove candidate is disqualified; election laws construed to favor candidate choice)
- Jones v. Brown, 799 So. 2d 1278 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2001) (discusses domicile/residence distinctions and qualifications for candidacy)