There is a difference between politics and law.
Politics asks which candidate is best for Alabama. The law asks whether a candidate meets the qualifications for office. When the issue is residency, Alabama courts already have a clear rule.
The recent challenge to Tommy Tuberville’s eligibility for governor turns on one word in the Alabama Constitution: “resident.” Article V, Section 117 requires a governor to have been a resident citizen of Alabama for at least seven years before the election.
So what does “resident” mean?
Under decades-old Alabama Supreme Court precedent, residency for election purposes means domicile. And domicile has two parts: physical presence and intent to remain.
In Harris v. McKenzie (1997), the Court faced a similar dispute. A city council member was challenged because he owned property in another county, stayed there at times, claimed a homestead exemption there, and even served on a jury in the other county. The trial court disqualified him. Yet the Alabama Supreme Court reversed.
The Supreme Court explained that domicile is where a person’s home is fixed, without any present intention of moving. It also made several principles clear:
- Owning property somewhere else does not automatically change your domicile.
- Spending time elsewhere for work does not automatically defeat residency.
- Courts look at objective evidence such as voter registration, driver’s license, tax filings, family location, and public representations of home.
- Once established, domicile is presumed to continue unless clearly changed.
Then-Chief Justice Perry Hooper, Sr. dissented in Harris, arguing that formal acts like claiming a homestead exemption should be the deciding facts. That view parallels arguments raised by Tuberville’s challengers today. While dissenting views are welcome, they are tempered by the core principles long set by the Supreme Court.
The seven-year requirement in the Constitution is mandatory. The method for deciding whether someone meets that requirement is settled. A challenger would have to show that Tuberville either never established Alabama as his fixed home or clearly abandoned it and adopted a new one elsewhere.
The law does not ask whether Tuberville owns property outside Alabama. It does not ask whether he has spent time in Washington as a U.S. senator. Instead, it asks where his true home is and whether he intended to remain.
We do not need a new test.
We do not need creative reinterpretation.
If this issue reaches a courtroom, it will not be decided by headlines or politics. It will be decided by applying the established legal test for domicile to the facts.
Support or opposition of Tuberville is beside the point. The integrity of our election system depends on applying the same legal standard to every candidate. And on that standard, the Alabama Supreme Court has spoken.
Brandon Blankenship, J.D., is an assistant professor of law and ethics and a Guggenheim Legal Scholar. His research focuses on courts, civic justice, and legal education.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
