AMITE — The names of Michael Jackson and Vanessa Williams will appear on the Oct. 4 ballot in separate races.
District Judge Brenda Bedsole Ricks ruled in their favor Monday in separate challenges to their respective candidacies in the Oct. 4 primary.
The decision, unless successfully appealed, makes the races for district attorney and for the Tangipahoa village mayor three-way contests.
Jackson filed to run for mayor of Tangipahoa village and Williams filed to run for 21st District Attorney during candidate qualifying.
Lawson King challenged Williams’ candidacy based on her residency and her length of time as a licensed attorney. His attorney, Eric Pittman, said King has decided not to appeal the decision.
Jackson’s first cousin and fellow mayoral candidate, Darrell Martin, challenged him on residency.
Jackson and Williams have lived together for years. Jackson also has property in Covington.
Ricks found that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof that either candidate did not reside in the district.
Brad Berner, plaintiff’s attorney, could not be reached for comment Monday as to whether his client will appeal Ricks’ decision.
Ricks cited a similar case in her reasons for judgment that “any doubt concerning the qualifications of a candidate should be resolved in favor of allowing the candidate to run for public office.”
Jackson, a former professional football player, was pleased with the rulings. This is his second run for the mayor’s job and his third time to run for public office.
He had no answers as to why his residency became an issue for opponents only now.
“There had to be something else behind it,” Jackson said. “I think this has to do with the bigger race,” Jackson said. “You heard from the testimony of the plaintiff, my cousin, that obviously he had no knowledge of what he was filing for. I don’t understand how my cousin could afford or even knew (attorney) Brad Berner ... I think the face of these allegations was not adequately represented.”
Amos Moses wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:28 AM:
I'm neither for nor against these two (2) particular individuals, as I do not know either of them, nor would I even be able to vote for one of them if I wanted to or not, but there should not be any provision for, nor accepted precedent allowing, qualification for election by a candidate who holds homestead exemption in any region/area/district/etc. other than the one (s)he seeks office in.
This way, if this sort of situation comes up again, and it undoubtedly will, then a clear and fair resolution of these problems will be immediately available for any candidate who holds a homestead exemption.
I don't submit that this sort of provision be used solely and simply because it presents a clear, cut-and-dried, and easy to access (and assess) process to reach a resolution....it would enjoy those advantages, but it would also be fair and equitable to all concerned. You can't have it both ways. "