74 So. 3d 268
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Morton challenged Hicks’s candidacy for Louisiana House District 2 on the basis Hicks lacked a one-year domicile in the district.
- Hicks moved to Holcomb Drive (District 2) in August 2010 and began sleeping there, but documentary evidence suggested Willow Point (District 4) remained his residence for some time.
- Various records (property deeds, homestead exemptions, voting, tax, driver’s license) indicated Hicks maintained connections to Willow Point through late 2010.
- Voter registration changed to Holcomb Drive in January 2011 with an earlier November 2010 date entered on the form; Hicks testified intent to move occurred in fall 2010.
- The district court found Hicks did not establish domicile in Holcomb Drive before September 6, 2010, and thus Hicks was ineligible for the election; Hicks appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hicks changed domicile to Holcomb Drive before qualification | Morton: Hicks failed to establish a real domicile in District 2 by Sept. 6, 2010. | Hicks: He established domicile at Holcomb Drive by Aug. 29–Aug. 30, 2010. | No manifest error; Hicks did not establish domicile by deadline. |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed evidence of intent | Morton: Documentary evidence overrides Hicks’s intent to change domicile. | Hicks: Documentary evidence arose from wife’s illness and moves, not true lack of intent. | Appellate review declined to reweigh; trial court’s factual determination supported. |
| Burden of proof in candidacy challenges | Morton bears burden to prove lack of domicile. | Hicks bears burden to prove he had domicile; Morton must overcome presumption in favor of candidacy. | Burden appropriately allocated; not manifest error given record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landiak v. Richmond, 899 So.2d 535 (La. 2005) (liberal construction favors candidacy; burden on objector to prove lack of domicile)
- Becker v. Dean, 854 So.2d 864 (La. 2003) (resolve doubt in favor of candidacy; proof of intent and conduct matters)
- Russell v. Goldsby, 780 So.2d 1048 (La. 2000) (actual residing/domicile requires real residence with intent to remain)
- Messer v. London, 438 So.2d 546 (La. 1983) (establishing domicile requires substantial evidence of intent and establishment)