Can T.J. Mayfield run in Ward One?

The City of Vicksburg changed the lines and wards putting some citizens in the position of being in a new ward. The question is can they run for office in the new ward since they haven’t met the two year residency requirement set by the state?

New lines were adopted in 2022

In June of 2022, the City of Vicksburg adopted newly redrawn lines between the North and South Wards. At the same time, they renamed them Ward One, the former North Ward, and Ward Two, the former South Ward.

Public meetings were held and people were given the opportunity to reivew the newly drawn lines prior to the city adopting those lines.

Earlier this month, Alderman Michael Mayfield passed away after a short battle with pancreatic cancer. State law says this necessitated a special election to fill his seat since it was more than six months before the next regularly schedule election.

One of the people who was in the South Ward but now, as a result of the redistricting, are in the Ward One is T.J. Mayfield. Mayfield announced yesterday he will be seeking the seat vacated by his father.

A legal question

This creates a legal question. State code 23-15-300 states, “Any candidate for any municipal, county or county district office shall be a resident of the municipality, county, county district or other territory that he or she seeks to represent in such office for two (2) years immediately preceding the day of election.”  Mayfield has been in the new district since it was adopted in June of 2022, a month or so short of the two years mandated by state law.

However, Mayfield did not change his residence, the city changed his district.

This is not a new scenario for Mississippi and rulings have been made in this situation by prior courts in Mississippi and other states. The rulings in those cases are called “Case Law” and are commonly referred to when a new situation arises, such as the one involving Mayfield. When someone questions if the case law is applicable they send the question to the Attorney General who then makes a determination based on the available information. In this case there is a wealth of available information.

This isn’t the first time that has happened

In April of 1991, then Attorney General Mike Moore was presented a similar situation from the Hinds County Election Commission. While that inquiry asked eight separate questions, three of them apply to this exact scenario. The AGs response was:

“It is the opinion of this office that a candidate  whose residency  is continuous  and uninterrupted may apply his previous period of residency  in his former district to the period he has resided in the newly  created district [*6]  to satisfy the residency  requirements for holding office  from such district.  This view was set forth in an opinion of this office dated July 8, 1983 to Mr. Burkett H. Martin, a copy of which is enclosed.  This principle of combining periods of residency  where there has been a change in jurisdictions without a change of location by the candidate  or voter was initially announced in Renner v. Bennett, 21 Ohio St. 431 (1871) and later in Gibson v. Wood, 49 S.W. 768 (KY. 1899). The court in Gibson, explaining that in such situations the change is a change in jurisdictions and not a change in residency,  stated as follows:

“It seems to us it is sufficient that the candidate  at the time of the election  has a ‘residency’  in the political and jurisdictional sense of the term, within the proper political division and has resided in the same place for the prescribed length of time to fulfill the requirement of the Constitution.  In such a case, it is true, in the primary sense of the words, that there is no change of residence but only a change of jurisdiction.  To say that there is a change of residence is to give the words [*7]  a secondary meaning.”

In view of the above, our specific response to the first part of Question 1 is that the candidate,  if otherwise qualified, may seek office from the “new” district.  Our specific response to Questions 4 and 8 is: Yes, the candidate,  if otherwise qualified, is eligible  to seek office from the newly  created district.  Our answers to the preceding questions assume that the continuous  period of residency  in the old and new district  is at least equal to the period of residency  required for the particular office sought.

It should also be noted that we have construed Question 8, and particularly the phrase “even though he doesn’t meet residency  requirements for the new district”  to mean that the newly  created district has been in existence for a period less than the statutory residency  period required for the particular office.  As stated above, the candidate’s  period of residency  in the former district is applied to the period of residency  in the newly  created district, which by itself would be insufficient, to satisfy the residency  requirements for holding office  from that district.”

In normal languate that means:

In normal language it is saying that the candidate did not change their residency, the city changed their district, the exact same thing that has happened to T.J.Mayfield. Since the change was in their district and not their residency, then the AG ruled that the candidates residency was continuous and uninterrupted so they satisfied the state mandated residency requirements (State Code 23-15-300) to hold office. The AG then referred to prior opinions on the topic that date back to 1871. They all say the change is a change in jurisdictions and not a change in residency.

Long, legal explaination made short; Mayfield is qualified to run in Ward One.