Could a Louisiana registrar cancel a voter registration that used a restaurant address?

Plain-English summary

An Orleans Parish registrar asked about two voters, a father and son, registered at an address the father had called a business. Staff confirmed that a barbecue restaurant operated there. The father produced proof that both received mail at the address, but the attorney general's office said mail receipt did not establish that it was their residence on these facts.

The office concluded that the registrar had properly challenged the registrations after learning that the applications might contain an illegal or fraudulent residence address. It said cancellation was allowed unless the voters could show that the business address was also where they lived, slept, ate, and maintained a regular home. The opinion also identified a district court remedy for a person denied registration or reinstatement who claimed to be qualified.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Registrars of voters at the time

The opinion treated a confirmed business address as grounds to challenge the registrations under R.S. 18:193(G). It said the registrar could also check the local telephone directory and the assessor's homestead exemption records. Its conclusion depended on whether the address was actually the voters' home.

Voters at the time

The opinion distinguished receiving mail at an address from living there. It said voters denied registration or reinstatement could seek relief in district court under LSA-R.S. 18:113, and described the voter's burden of proving qualifications there.

Common questions

Q: Was receiving mail at a business enough to register to vote there?
A: The opinion said no on the facts presented. The address was a restaurant, and the registrar needed to determine whether the voters also lived, slept, ate, and maintained a regular home there.

Q: Could a registrar cancel a registration without first going to court?
A: The opinion said the registrar could make the cancellation decision in this situation. It pointed to a district court remedy for a person denied registration or reinstatement who claimed to be qualified.

Q: Did the opinion say nobody can register at a business address?
A: No. Its test was whether the address was also the person's residence. The fact that a business operated there, by itself, did not answer where the voters lived.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion cited LSA-R.S. 18:193(G) for notice and a chance to show cause before removal when a registrar believed someone was illegally or fraudulently registered. It cited LSA-R.S. 18:101 for the residence requirement. In Stanton v. Hutchinson, the court described residence for registration as where a person lives, sleeps, and eats. Miller v. Poimboeuf discussed features of a home, including utilities, meals, housekeeping, and sleeping. The opinion used those authorities to evaluate the business address and cited LSA-R.S. 18:113 for judicial relief after denial.

Citations and references

• LSA-R.S. 18:193(G) (challenge notice)
• LSA-R.S. 18:101 (voter residence)
• LSA-R.S. 18:113 (district court relief)
• Stanton v. Hutchinson, 370 So.2d 106 (La.App. 1 Cir.1978)
• Miller v. Poimboeuf, 514 So.2d 484 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/00-0329

Original opinion text

September 19, 2000
OPINION NUMBER 00-329

Mr. Bobby E. Wilson, Sr. 28-A - ELECTIONS - Qualifications & Disqualifications of voters
Chief Deputy 31- ELECTIONS - Registration of Voters
Registrar of Voters
Addresses the action taken when a registrar has reason to
Parish of Orleans
believe that an original registration application contains
fraudulent and/or illegal information.
1W23 City Hall
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112-2127

Dear Mr. Wilson:

We are in receipt of your request for an Attorney General’s Opinion regarding an inactive voter challenge. Your letter states that two registered voters’ names [a father and son] recently appeared on the inactive list in the Official Notices section of the Times Picayune daily newspaper, as required by law on the annual publication of the inactive voters. The father called your office to ask why his son’s name was published on the inactive list. The Voter Registration Specialist in your office explained the matter, and during the conversation, the father stated that the registration address was a business address. Thereafter, the father came to your office to prove that his son’s address was a valid address and that he and his son had been living at the address for some time. The father would not confirm that the address was a business address, and when questioned would only state that it was a building. The father contends that he and his son are qualified to be registered at the building address because they receive mail at the address.

LSA-R.S. 18:193(G) allows the registrar to send notice to a person who he believes has been illegally or fraudulently placed upon the registration records. This notice must state the alleged irregularity in the registration and inform the person that he must appear in person at the registrar’s office within twenty-one days to show cause why his name should not be removed from the voter registration rolls.

It is our understanding that the Registrar’s office followed the cancellation procedure outlined above upon learning that the original registration application contained a business address. However, since the father appeared with sufficient documents [proof of receipt of mail at the address] to prove that both he and his son are residents of this business address, you question whether you can cancel the registration for the reason that it is a business address and not a residence. Your letter states that your staff visited the address in question and

Page 2

Mr. Bobby E. Wilson, Sr.
Opinion Number 00-329
Page -2-

confirmed that the address belongs to a business which operates as a Bar-B- Que restaurant.

The law mandates that an applicant establish his identity, age and residency when registering to vote at a registrar of voter's office. LSA-R.S. 18:101. “’Resident’ means a citizen who resides in this state and in the parish, municipality, if any, and precinct in which he offers to register and vote, with an intention to reside there indefinitely.” Id. In Stanton v. Hutchinson, 370 So.2d 106 (La.App. 1 Cir.1978), the court states, "when the legislature used the terminology 'reside,' 'resident' and 'residence' governing voter registration it meant where an individual lives, where he sleeps and eats." Jurisprudence has further held in Miller v. Poimboeuf, 514 So.2d 484 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987), that an individual was a properly registered voter in the parish, even though he had residence in another parish because his home in parish of registration met society's expectations of a residence, such as telephone and utility service, preparation of meals, performance of regular housekeeping chores, sleeping and performing other normal body functions and needs there.

We are of the opinion that if an original voter registration application contains an illegal or fraudulent address, the registrar has a duty to challenge the registration. Since the registrar was told by the father that the address was a business address and since this was confirmed by the registrar’s staff, the registrar has properly challenged the voters under R.S. 18:193(G). Additionally, the registrar can check the local telephone directory for the voters’ address, and can inquire as to any homestead exemption on file with the Assessor’s office.

It is our opinion that unless the voters can prove that the business address is also where the voters live, sleep, eat, and maintain a regular house that meets society’s expectations of a home, the law allows for cancellation of the registration where the original application contained an illegal or fraudulent residence address. We do not believe that proof of receiving mail at an address is sufficient to contradict (1) the father’s own statement that the address was a business address, and (2) the staffs confirmation that the address was a business address, and (3) any other information that might be gained through the telephone directory and/or the Assessor’s office.

We note that if any person is denied registration or reinstatement, and the person alleges that he possesses the qualifications for voting, he may apply for relief, without cost, to the district court in his jurisdiction. LSA-R.S. 18:113. Thus, because of this remedy, we are of the opinion that the registrar does have the authority to make a final determination of cancellation in a situation such as the one at hand, and the person bears the burden of proving to a court of law that he possesses the qualifications to registrar to vote at that business address.

Page 3

Mr. Bobby E. Wilson, Sr.
Opinion Number 00-329
Page -3-

We hope this opinion sufficiently addresses all of your questions herein. If we can be of further assistance, please advise.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

ANGIE ROGERS LAPLACE
Assistant Attorney General

RPI/ARL;mjb

Cc: Hon. Suzanne H. Terrell

Page 4

OPINION NUMBER 00-329
SYLLABUS

28-A - ELECTIONS - Qualifications & Disqualifications of voters 31- ELECTIONS - Registration of Voters

Addresses the action taken when a registrar has reason to believe that an original registration application contains fraudulent and/or illegal information.

Mr. Bobby E. Wilson, Sr.
Chief Deputy
Registrar of Voters
Parish of Orleans
1W23 City Hall
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112-2127

Date Received:
Date Released: September 19, 2000

ANGIE ROGERS LAPLACE
Assistant Attorney General