Virginia Voters Demand Accountability—Democrat Candidate's Residency Sham Threatens District 64 Election

In Stafford County, Virginia, three concerned residents allege House of Delegates District 64 candidate Stacey Carroll (D) lied about her residency in a lawsuit that could disqualify her from the ballot. 

Plaintiffs Stephen Edward Schwartz, Judith Anne Parker, and Juliet McGee Schweiter filed the lawsuit, on Sept. 11, in Stafford County Circuit Court. They invoked Virginia Code § 24.2-431, which allows three or more voters to legally challenge another voter’s registration. They’ve named the Stafford County General Registrar, the State Board of Elections, the Department of Elections, and Carroll herself as respondents. 

If Ineligible to Vote, Carroll Is Ineligible to Hold Office

The plaintiffs have issued two objections. If successful, one would disqualify her to vote, and the other would disqualify her from holding office as a Delegate.

Their case, based on exhaustive surveillance, argues that Carroll's last-minute change-of-address is a farce, violating the Virginia Constitution. If successful, this challenge will upend the November 2025 election, forcing a reshuffling of who gets to represent the district's roughly 90,000 residents.

To register to vote in Virginia, an individual must establish “both domicile and place of abode,” per Virginia Code § 24.2-101. To establish domicile, “a person must live in a particular locality with the intention to remain,” and a place of abode is defined as “the physical place where a person dwells.”

The petition paints a troubling picture. Carroll, a certified public accountant and property owner, announced her candidacy this March, shortly after updating her voter registration to the District 64 address of 18 Pinkerton Court. The plaintiffs argue this was an attempt to hide her continual residence at 71 Bismark Drive—in District 23—where she has lived since buying the house in 2018.

"It's her primary home, the center of her domestic, social, and civil life," the lawsuit states about the Bismark Drive house, quoting the State Board of Elections' definition of domicile.

The plaintiffs draw from months of firsthand, detailed observations, noting that at Bismark Drive, Carroll's white 2017 Cadillac Escalade remains parked overnight for extended daytime stretches. Other family vehicles accompany it, with relatives spotted entering and exiting at various hours, doing yard work, and taking out household trash.

Carroll's professional certified public accountant license also continues to list the Bismark address as her home. Mail continues to pile up there, and Carroll still pays its electricity bill—no small detail for a 2,700-square-foot single-family house.

The lawsuit adds, “No activity has been observed at 71 Bismark Drive that is consistent with a change in residency, such as a moving truck, packing, or other similar activities,” and that no one else has been observed using the home as a place of residence. 

The plaintiffs contend the 18 Pinkerton Court address belongs to Jared and Crystal Harmon, who continue to pay the electricity bill and keep their vehicles parked there. Observers have found no trace of Carroll or her vehicles at that address.

If the court rules that Carroll does not meet the dual residency requirements of having her domicile and abode in District 64, this will constitute a violation of Article II, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution and disqualify her voter registration. 

Article IV, Section 4 of the Virginia Constitution requires a candidate for Delegate be able to legally vote for that office. 

The plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Daniel Rose released the following statement to Restoration News:

The most important qualification required to run for office is that the candidate must reside among the voters he or she is seeking to represent. Stacey Carroll went through the motions of changing her residence solely to seek elected office in House District 64 while continuing to reside in another district. My clients brought this action to ensure that the candidate elected to represent them is familiar with and responsive to concerns that are local to their district.

Why This Matters So Much

District 64 spans Stafford's growing suburbs in the booming corridor between Alexandria and Richmond. Voters facing the transportation woes and growing school districts in that area deserve a Delegate who lives there—a fact wisely understood by the Framers of Virginia’s constitution. 

This is also a matter of honesty. If voters cannot trust their elected representatives to be truthful about where they live, they cannot trust them to be honest or follow House rules and state laws once elected.

From an election integrity standpoint, Carroll's ploy erodes trust in elections. If left unchecked, it could result in a House of Interlopers.

The plaintiffs should be commended for exercising civic vigilance in objecting to Carroll’s apparent interloping. Their suit reaffirms that Virginia's constitution is not optional but the guardian of genuine representation. If Carroll's tale of two addresses crumbles under scrutiny, it should disqualify her and let District 64's genuine residents decide their future. With early voting already underway, a ruling favorable to the plaintiffs could provide a clear path for incumbent Del. Paul Milde III (R).

Virginia Voters: Early voting has already begun for the Nov. 4 election

(READ MORE: Sen. Tim Kaine Doesn’t Deserve to be Called a Virginian)