John Jay Hooker v. Governor Bill Haslam
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 195
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Challenge to Tennessee Plan (S. Ct. of Tenn.) for appellate judge selection and retention; mootness arose after JNC provisions repealed in 2013.
- Plaintiff Hooker sought to strike down Tennessee Plan as unconstitutional, claiming Governor appointment and statewide elections for appellate judges violate the Tennessee Constitution.
- Court of Appeals and trial court had held for constitutionality of retention elections and statewide election for intermediate appellate judges.
- Issue narrowed as JNC provisions sunseted; Supreme Court found the JNC challenge moot and dismissed that portion.
- Court independently upheld retention election as constitutional and affirmed statewide electability for Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals as consistent with Article VI, §4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the JNC/gubernatorial appointment process is constitutional. | Hooker contends vacancies must be filled by contested elections. | Haslam et al. argue process under Tennessee Plan; JNC now defunct. | Moot; not decided. |
| Whether the retention election complies with the Constitution. | Retention ballot does not constitute a valid election. | Retention is an election by the qualified voters. | Constitutional; retention ballot satisfies Article VI requirements. |
| Whether statewide elections for Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals comply with the Constitution. | Judges should be elected by district voters only. | Courts are unified; statewide election lawful under Article VI, §4. | Constitutional; all judges serve statewide in unified courts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Dunn, 496 S.W.2d 480 (Tenn. 1973) (retention/election interpretation under Tennessee Constitution)
- Hooker v. Thompson, 249 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 1996) (retention election analysis reaffirmed; stare decisis discussed)
- Summers v. Thompson, 764 S.W.2d 199 (Tenn. 1988) (limits of stare decisis in constitutional questions)
- Jordan v. Knox, 213 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2007) (de facto validity of officers; binding effect of acts)
- Bankston v. State, 908 S.W.2d 194 (Tenn. 1995) (de facto validity doctrine applied to judges)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (de facto validity cited for government actions across branches)
- N. Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1982) (de facto validity discussions in constitutional context)
- Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1940) (retroactivity and validity considerations)