595 F. App'x 554
6th Cir.2014Background
- Tennessee Const. art. XI, § 9 and Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 7-2-101–108 require a dual-majority vote (majority inside principal city and majority in county outside city) to ratify a city–county consolidation charter.
- Memphis (≈73% of Shelby County population; majority-black) and Shelby County (majority-white outside Memphis) formed a charter commission and adopted a metropolitan charter submitted to a referendum in November 2010.
- Plaintiffs (Memphis residents) sued, alleging the dual-majority requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Memphis (and black) votes.
- In the November 2, 2010 referendum, Memphis voters narrowly approved consolidation (50.8% in favor) but county voters outside Memphis rejected it (63.3% against), so the charter failed under the dual-majority rule.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed. The Sixth Circuit sua sponte considered mootness and dismissed the appeal as moot because the case did not satisfy the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dual-majority requirement violates Equal Protection (vote dilution) | Dual-majority impermissibly dilutes Memphis voters’ influence and discriminates based on residency | The statute is a lawful political-structure rule; no unconstitutional dilution shown | Not reached on the merits—case dismissed as moot |
| Whether the dual-majority requirement violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act | Requirement dilutes black voting strength in Memphis, violating Section 2 | No Section 2 violation; procedural defenses and factual disputes | Not reached on the merits—case dismissed as moot |
| Whether the appeal is justiciable or moot | Plaintiffs argued the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review, so exception applies | Defendants argued the referendum's defeat and infrequency of consolidation elections make the controversy moot | Held: Moot. First prong (short duration) met; second prong (reasonable expectation of recurrence) not met—no reasonable expectation the same parties will face the same action again |
Key Cases Cited
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (mootness duty on courts; election cases often evade review)
- L.A. Cnty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (case mootness standard — live controversy required)
- Corrigan v. City of Newaygo, 55 F.3d 1211 (6th Cir. 1995) (outline of capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)
- Speer v. City of Or., 847 F.2d 310 (6th Cir. 1988) (two-prong test for repetition-evading review exception)
- Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975) (articulated requirement of reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2005) (election cases relax second prong somewhat)
- Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (mere theoretical possibility of recurrence insufficient for exception)