Steve Hale v. Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee
2015 Miss. LEXIS 376
Miss.2015Background
- Bill Stone moved from Ashland (Benton County) to Holly Springs (Marshall County) in Oct 2013, rented 305 Peel Lane, then purchased 200 Johnson Park in July 2014. He testified he intended to remain in Marshall County indefinitely.
- Stone updated numerous indicia of residence: Senate comptroller change-of-address, voter registration (Apr 2014), vehicle registrations (2014), federal tax address (2014–15), and homestead exemption for the Johnson Park home (2015); he canceled homestead exemption for the Ashland home (2014).
- Challenger Steve Hale (Tate County), also seeking the Democratic nomination for Senate District 10, objected claiming Stone failed the Mississippi Constitution’s two‑year residency/domicile requirement for the Senate.
- The Democratic Executive Committee rejected Hale’s objection; Hale sought judicial review in Hinds County Circuit Court, which found Stone had established domicile in Marshall County as of Oct 2013; the circuit court alternatively found tacking would apply.
- The Supreme Court (majority) affirmed, finding no manifest error in the domicile finding and upholding exclusion of a utility-usage expert; the dissent argued the statute’s "absolute proof" standard required reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hale) | Defendant's Argument (Stone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stone established domicile in Marshall County (two‑year residency) | Stone failed to abandon his Benton County domicile; utility usage and ongoing use of Ashland home show he did not actually reside in Marshall County by Nov 2013. | Stone showed intent and objective acts: rental/purchase in Holly Springs, voter/vehicle/tax/address changes, cancelled Ashland homestead, church and civic shifts; testified intent to remain. | Court: No manifest error — Stone established domicile in Oct 2013 by preponderance; affirmed. |
| Whether tacking doctrine establishes domicile | Hale argued tacking not applicable or proved. | Stone argued tacking as alternative basis. | Moot: Court declined to decide tacking because domicile finding resolved dispute. |
| Admissibility of utility-usage expert (Wallace Majors) | Hale proffered expert to show Ashland house "occupied" and Peel Lane "unoccupied" from usage patterns. | Stone argued expert methodology unreliable. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding Majors; methodology lacked scientific basis and peer acceptance. |
| Proper evidentiary/burden standard ("absolute proof" under §23-15-299(7)) | Hale (and dissent) contended statute requires absolute proof candidate will meet qualifications by election (so residency needing two years must be proven absolutely at filing). | Stone and majority: underlying domicile is factual and reviewed for manifest error; §23-15-299(7)’s absolute-proof requirement applies only to proof that candidate will meet qualifications by election date, not to supplant manifest-error review of facts. | Court: Majority rejects imposing an absolute-proof burden on underlying domicile finding; manifest-error standard governs factual domicile determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Stevens, 968 So.2d 1260 (Miss. 2007) (standard: factual findings in candidate qualification challenges reviewed for manifest error)
- Hinds County Election Comm'n v. Brinston, 671 So.2d 667 (Miss. 1996) (rebuttable presumption of residency where homestead exemption filed)
- Garner v. State of Miss. Democratic Exec. Comm., 956 So.2d 906 (Miss. 2007) (distinguishing factual domicile review from §23-15-299 absolute-proof analysis)
- Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (adopted modified Daubert test for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Stubbs v. Stubbs, 211 So.2d 821 (Miss. 1968) ("foundation of domicile is intent")