176 So. 3d 1142
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Markeita Prevost qualified as a candidate for Louisiana House District 99 in the October 25, 2015 primary; Dionisha and Derrick Graham challenged her qualifications alleging lack of domicile in District 99 for the required one-year period.
- Constitutional and statutory law require a candidate to be domiciled in the legislative district for the year preceding qualification; domicile requires physical residence plus intent to remain.
- Plaintiffs introduced evidence that Prevost's driver's license listed a Bellaire Drive address (outside District 99), her voter registration had recently changed from Odin Street to Flood Street, and her 2014 Louisiana income tax return used a Chalmette (St. Bernard Parish) address.
- Prevost testified she resided with her boyfriend at Flood Street (stated at trial as 725 Flood Street, sometimes referenced as 825 Flood Street) and that Flood Street had been her domicile for about one year and two months; she explained the Chalmette tax address as a temporary address while working in Chalmette.
- The trial court credited Prevost's testimony and found she had been domiciled in District 99 for the required year; the district court judgment was appealed and affirmed by the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prevost was domiciled in District 99 for the year before qualifying | Grahams: objective records (driver's license, voter registration changes, 2014 tax return) show Prevost lived outside District 99 and thus lacked domicile | Prevost: sworn testimony that she resided and was domiciled at Flood Street for ~1 year 2 months; Chalmette tax address was temporary | The court credited Prevost's testimony and found she met the one-year domicile requirement; judgment affirmed |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding testimony from the Dept. of Revenue custodian | Grahams: trial court erred in not considering the Revenue custodian's testimony about Prevost's 2014 tax address outside District 99 | Prevost: explanation that the Chalmette address was temporary and did not reflect domicile; credibility question | Appellate court found no abuse of discretion; trial court weighed evidence and credited Prevost's explanation |
| Whether the Grahams met their burden to prove disqualification | Grahams: documentary evidence cast doubt on Prevost's intent to remain in District 99 | Prevost: her uncontroverted sworn intent was sufficient given lack of conclusive documentary proof to the contrary | Court held plaintiffs failed to meet burden by preponderance; burden shifted and Prevost satisfied it by her credible testimony |
| Proper standard for resolving candidate challenges involving domicile | Grahams: (implied) documentary evidence should outweigh self-serving testimony | Prevost: courts must weigh testimony and documentary evidence; in absence of conclusive contrary documents, sworn testimony may suffice | Court applied Landiak standard: resolve doubts in favor of allowing candidacy and weigh credibility; upheld candidate's qualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Landiak v. Richmond, 899 So.2d 535 (La. 2005) (explains domicile proof: physical residence plus intent; documentary evidence may rebut sworn testimony and courts should weigh evidence; doubts resolved in favor of candidacy)
- Becker v. Dean, 854 So.2d 864 (La. 2003) (supports liberal construction of election laws to maximize electorate choice and places burden on objector)
- Russell v. Goldsby, 780 So.2d 1048 (La. 2000) (aligns with precedent that election laws favor allowing candidates and burdens objectors)
- Dixon v. Hughes, 587 So.2d 679 (La. 1991) (addresses burden on those challenging candidacy)
- Messer v. London, 438 So.2d 546 (La. 1983) (addresses standards for candidate qualification challenges)
- Russo v. Burns, 147 So.3d 1111 (La. 2014) (discusses timing of tax returns and relevance when assessing domicile evidence)