County Commission writing new residency rules

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. --The County Commission is considering new rules when it comes to residency.

It all starts with where you live, and how you prove it when the question arises. While Henri Brooks only has a few weeks left on the commission, board members say they need to clarify the rules before this happens again.

Commissioner Steve Mulroy says it's time to clear the air.

"The law is silent on what residency means, and exactly how that immediate removal thing is going to work. Who makes the determination, what's the standard of proof?" he said.

Mulroy wants to rework the rules after they fell apart in chancery court while trying to oust Brooks from the County Commission. The county's attorney said since Brooks didn't prove she lived in her district, she forfeited her seat. Judge Kenny Armstrong disagreed, and said the commission must make that decision.

But first commissioners need to nail down what residency really means.

Mulroy said, "There are multiple, and interfering and conflicting definitions of residency for different purposes. Domicile for purposes of getting instate tuition, versus residency for tax purposes, versus residency for voting registration. They are all different."

Not everyone agrees. Commissioners Sidney Chism and Walter Bailey say the current rules are good enough. Bailey says the board shouldn't have this kind of authority, and it should be left up to the county attorney.

"I don't want to be accused of witch hunting because we don't like a particular commissioner," Bailey said.

The commission voted three pieces of mail sent to your home address as the best way to prove where you live. It still needs a full vote from the board in the coming weeks.


  • Joe

    Yep. That will work. It works for the kids that don’t live in the White Station School district that attend there.

    • TNLawyer

      No. It’s more complicated than that. Because you could have circumstances of renting a home, living with family/friends, or owning the home. Too many variables to consider so it does not infringe on someone’s American rights to run for election and represent the community. Personally, I think they are wasting their time because I don’t think it can be done. That’s why it is the way it is.

      • lawman

        You don’t make sense. These politician receive $30,000 a year plus perks. No to mention the regular jobs . I no saying they should be broke but you should represent the district you live in. How can you speak for me and your not even in the struggle. You are not even a voice for the people. If you are this blind how about letting me claim you kids on my income taxes and I give you something in return. Sounds familiar.

  • TNLawyer

    Well, I was hoping you would be able to read between the lines so I wouldn’t have to break it down in detail, which furthers my opinion that people with low-intelligence should avoid posting comments on social media.

    If someone is living with family how do you prove it?
    – U.S Postal Service? That doesn’t work because anyone can change their address to a consenting family members house.
    – Do you stalk them on a daily basis? Not legal.
    – Do you make random once a month house calls to verify? Cannot be used to prove if someone is living there or not because they may not be home.
    – Do you make scheduled once a month house calls? Again, can easily be worked around.

    If someone is renting, how do you prove it?
    – Bills? Well, how do you know they aren’t helping to pay the bills for the real person who lives there?
    – U.S Postal? Again, can be changed to that address if the person that actually lives there is aware of it.
    – Many of the other points for living with family apply here.

    If someone owns the home.
    – They could be renting it out to others.
    – And many of the prior points could apply here as well.

    Overall: it is impossible to prove with a 100% certainty unless you infringe on someone’s rights. Now, unless you suggest we become China, there is now realistic way for it to be done, therefore it is a waste of time.

  • lawman

    O.k ambulance chaser. I will try again. No running water or lights for two years. You still have no clue. I will continue cuffing and stuffing you continue chasing ambulances.

    • TNLawyer

      It is unfortunate that police academy psychological evaluations filter individuals with an I.Q. rating over 110. I believe we need police officers who can think of alternative views instead of the march and bark mentality. True story. They have been doing this for the past 35 years and I think it is creating huge problems. Their reasoning…people of higher intelligence would be unhappy with the work and are more likely to be corrupted. I completely disagree with their assessment. I believe the opposite. Simple minds are more easily manipulated and/or create more problems when faced with complicated situations. It is a real shame and devastating to a community in the long run.

      • lawman

        This going back and forth is mute. You thumping your chest is pointless. You are probably one of few that don’t have a problem with heath care cuts because you believe the police academy is of low quality. I will continue to face what you fear on a daily bases. Enough said.

  • impulse item

    Lawyers have always had difficulty in judging between “right” and “legal”. Thats why they are drawn to politics. There it makes no difference.

Comments are closed.