Plaintiff commissioners Bailey, Kirk, and Bolton lose fight for eligibility.

In a decision that may raise new complications, even as it resolved old ones, the state Supreme Court Wednesday affirmed the validity of a 1994 Shelby County referendum limiting the county's mayor and board of commissioners to two four-year terms.
            The decision, reached unanimously by the five Supreme Court justices,  means that three commissioners who two years ago filed a suit to overturn the term-limits provision may not run for reelection this year, having been elected to two terms already since the time of the referendum. Two of the three - Walter Bailey and Cleo Kirk - had been listed on the Democratic primary ballot, while the third, Julian Bolton, had indicated that he might run instead for the open 9th District congressional seat.

            It was not immediately clear whether the state's anti-skulduggery law, which allows for re-opening filing deadlines under some late-withdrawal circumstances, might apply. The situation regarding  Bailey's District 2, Position 1 seat is further clouded by the possibility that another Democratic primary candidate for the seat, J.W Gibson, may be purged from the ballot by party officials reacting to his activity in Republican Party circles over the last 10 years.

            In any case, Bailey and Kirk have now definitively been ruled ineligible for reelection. The Court's decision in effect let stand an earlier Chancery Court decision affirming the term-limits provision and dissolved a stay granted to the plaintiffs by the state Court of Appeals. In its decision, however, the high Court said it had acted "de novo" (from fresh examination) in making its own affirmation of the term limits provision.

            The high Court found, as Chancellor Tene Alissandratos had earlier, that the provision of the county charter  imposing the two-term limit was authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-1-201(4). The  Court also ruled that the charter provision was the result of a lawful delegation of the legislature's power to establish qualifications for elected county officers and was therefore not in violation of Article VII of Tennessee's constitution.

            Noting that the 1994 referendum  "was approved by over 80% of the voter   of Shelby County," the Court took futher note of the plaintiffs' allegation that the referendum had been "ill-advised" but dismissed it on the ground that, whether ill-advised or not, such a vote "does not rise to the level of a constitutional defect."

            Simply put, the Court ruled that both state law and the Tennessee Consitution grant that a chartered county government like Shelby County's is empowered to provide for the "size, method of election, qualification for holding office, method of removal, and procedures of the county legislative body." And it adjuged the 1994 referendum as permissibly within the county's discretion.

            Said the justices: "The constitution is the truest expression of the will of the people, and it is their intent in adopting a constitutional provision that must prevail."

            The Court's ruling stated explicitly: "There is nothing in the language of the constitution to prevent a county from placing a limit on the number of terms that may be served." Of the 1977 state Constitutional Convention that codified relevant law in its present form, the justices noted, "If the delegates had wanted to prohibit term limits as the plaintiffs contend, the delegates could have easily added language to that effect."

            Quoting the state Constitution the Supreme Court opinion said that the  "General Assembly has very broad powers and discretion," that the 1994 Shelby County referendum was the result of a proper delegation of those powers and that discretion, and that the Constitution granted "broad authority to a county to go so far as to replace its existing government in favor of an alternate government, provided the people approve." 

            Finally, the Court's decision, written by Chief Justice William M. Barker, said, "This opinion is not subject to rehearing under Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Clerk is directed to immediately issue the mandate. Costs are taxed to the plaintiffs...."

Download a .pdf of the complete court ruling here


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

    • Shelby County Democrats to Revive

      Mancini forms group to begin reorganization for defunct local party; Cohen holds town hall.
    • The Abortion Divide, Again

      An HIV prevention grant to Planned Parenthood is narrowly approved as the County Commission splits along party lines.
    • The Buddy System

      Harris and Kelsey hope to effect a good public outcome on the TVA/aquifer issue.


News Blog

Memphians Stage First Public Rebuke of MPD's List

News Blog

TDOT Hosts PG-Rated Highway Safety Message Contest

Hungry Memphis

Beer Bracket Challenge Launches Wednesday

Intermission Impossible

Hamilton in 2019! (Orpheum Also Announces its 2017-18 Season)

News Blog

Questions Remain About City Hall "Blacklist"

Intermission Impossible

Muslims, Jews, and Shakespeare: Rhodes Hosts a Timely Symposium

Exhibit M

Resources for Artists

Beyond the Arc

Beyond the Arc Podcast #70: Grading the Grizzlies

Film/TV/Etc. Blog

Music Video Monday: Infinity Stairs


More by Jackson Baker

Readers also liked…

  • Election 2015: The Mike Williams Factor

    Some think three’s already a crowd in the mayor’s race, but a fourth candidate insists there’s room for more.
    • Sep 3, 2015
  • Wellspring Politics in Memphis

    With a crucial deadline approaching next week, the local “Protect the Aquifier” movement picks up steam.
    • Nov 24, 2016
  • The Buddy System

    Harris and Kelsey hope to effect a good public outcome on the TVA/aquifer issue.
    • Feb 2, 2017
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation