Kia Monique Jones v. Shanda M. Yates
This text of Kia Monique Jones v. Shanda M. Yates (Kia Monique Jones v. Shanda M. Yates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2023-EC-00395-SCT
KIA MONIQUE JONES
v.
SHANDA M. YATES
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/06/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. FORREST A. JOHNSON, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: SAMUEL L. BEGLEY DANNY E. CUPIT COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DANNY E. CUPIT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: SAMUEL L. BEGLEY NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - ELECTION CONTEST DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/11/2023 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
EN BANC.
COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Shanda M. Yates filed a residency challenge to determine whether Kia Monique Jones
qualified to seek office as a Democratic candidate for state representative for District 64 of
the Mississippi House of Representatives. Because Jones did not reside in the district for two
years, we affirm the trial court’s decision disqualifying her.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Kia Monique Jones filed a letter of intent with the Mississippi Democratic Party to
seek that party’s nomination for a seat in the Mississippi House of Representatives for
District 64 on February 1, 2023. On February 9, incumbent Independent Shanda M. Yates
filed a challenge to Jones’s qualifications with the Executive Committee of the Mississippi Democratic Party, arguing that Jones did not satisfy the two year residency requirement under
Mississippi Constitution article 4, section 141, and that Jones was not a qualified elector in
District 64 at the time of her qualifying to run on February 1, 2023, as required by
Mississippi Code Section 23-15-299(7)(a) (Supp. 2022).
¶3. After a hearing on February 16, 2023, the Executive Committee of the Democratic
Party denied Yates’s challenge and certified Jones as a candidate. Yates timely filed an
appeal to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County in a matter held
before special Judge Forrest A. Johnson. After a hearing on dueling motions for summary
judgment, Judge Johnson entered an order on April 6, 2023, finding that although Jones
would satisfy the two year residency requirement by the time of the 2023 election, she was
not a qualified elector in the district she sought to serve at the time of her qualifying to run.
As a result, she was disqualified from being placed on the ballot. Jones appeals.
¶4. On appeal, Jones argues that the judge erred as a matter of law by disqualifying her
and by finding that she was not a qualified elector in House District 64 at the time of
qualifying deadline. Yates cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that
Jones met the two year residency requirement. The latter issue is dispositive. As a result,
we affirm the trial court’s decision but on different grounds.
ANALYSIS
¶5. “In an election contest, the standard of review for questions of law is de novo.” Parks
v. Horton, 299 So. 3d 777, 779 (Miss. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
McDaniel v. Cochran, 158 So. 3d 992, 995 (Miss. 2014)). “[I]n a candidate qualification
2 challenge, the standard of review for questions of law is de novo.” Simmons v. Town of
Goodman, 346 So. 3d 847, 850 (Miss. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Hale v. State Democratic Exec. Comm., 168 So. 3d 946, 951 (Miss. 2015)). The Mississippi
Supreme Court reviews a trial judge’s findings of fact for manifest error, “including whether
the findings were the product of prejudice, bias, or fraud, or manifestly against the weight
of the credible evidence.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Hale, 168 So. 3d
at 954). “[W]hether a candidate meets [the] residency requirement [to run for office] clearly
involves questions of fact.” Id. (second and third alterations in original) (internal quotation
mark omitted) (quoting Hale, 168 So. 3d at 951).
¶6. The statutory framework for determining the qualifications of a candidate under
Section 23-15-299(7)(a) necessitates that a determination as to qualification be made at the
time of filing to seek office and not at the time of the election. Garner v. Democratic Exec.
Comm., 956 So. 2d 906, 911 (Miss. 2007) (citing Grist v. Farese, 860 So. 2d 1182 (Miss.
2003)).
¶7. We note at the outset that there are no disputed facts.
¶8. In relevant part, Mississippi Code Section 23-15-299(7)(a) provides as follows:
[T]he proper executive committee or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall then determine at the time of the qualifying deadline, unless otherwise provided by law, whether each candidate is a qualified elector of the state, state district, county or county district which they seek to serve . . . or presents absolute proof that he or she will, subject to no contingencies, meet all qualifications on or before the date of the general or special election at which he or she could be elected to office.
Miss. Code. Ann. § 23-15-299(7)(a) (Supp. 2022) (emphasis added).
3 ¶9. At the time of her qualifying to seek the Democratic nomination for state
representative for Mississippi House District 64, Jones had only lived at her current residence
at 43B Northtown Road for approximately three months. Prior to moving there, Jones lived
at 6295 Old Canton Road, which was redistricted out of District 64 in the latest changes to
legislative district maps. The trial judge allowed her to cobble together her time at the two
addresses within House District 64 to meet the two year residency requirement of article 4,
section 41, of the Mississippi Constitution, which provides that a state representative “have
been a resident citizen of the state for four (4) years, and within the district such person seeks
to serve for two (2) years, immediately preceding this election.” Miss. Const. art. 4, § 41.
¶10. The Mississippi Legislature adopted Joint Resolution No. 1 on March 31, 2022,
redrawing the lines of state legislative districts. H.J. Res. 1, Reg. Sess., 2022 Miss. Laws ch.
2149. House District 64 was affected by the changes in the resolution. The language of Joint
Resolution No. 1 states “the districting contained [the] resolution shall supersede any prior
redistricting, and any prior districting shall be null and void upon the date this resolution is
effectuated” and that “the foregoing provisions of [the] resolution shall take effect and be in
force from and after adoption.” Id. The resolution explicitly outlines that “the districts set
out in [the] joint resolution shall become effective for the primary and general elections
conducted in 2023 that determine the membership of the 2024 Mississippi Legislature[.]” Id.
¶11. As applied here, the boundaries of the house district Jones seeks to serve do not
include the 6295 Old Canton Road address where Jones resided until December 2022.
Because the address is not within the newly redrawn District 64, the time Jones resided there
4 cannot not be used to compute the time that Jones has resided “within the district [she] seeks
to serve.” In an opinion we find persuasive, the Attorney General specifically found that
“where a candidate is ‘redistricted’ out of his old district and moves back into an area or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kia Monique Jones v. Shanda M. Yates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kia-monique-jones-v-shanda-m-yates-miss-2023.