Joseph H. Johnston v. Tennessee State Election Commission
M2015-01975-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2016Background
- Joseph H. Johnston previously challenged Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-133(i) after his 2011 write-in vote was not counted; this Court upheld the statute in Johnston I.
- Johnston filed notice as a write-in candidate in May 2015 and petitioned the Tennessee State Election Commission (TSEC) to order county election officials to post voter instructions and list qualified write-in candidates at polling places.
- TSEC denied the petition, treating it as a request for additional duties/remedial relief rather than a declaratory order about validity or applicability of a statute.
- Johnston then filed a declaratory-judgment action in Davidson County Chancery Court under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225 and alternatively under the Declaratory Judgment Act asking the court to declare TSEC’s duty to educate voters about § 2-7-133(i).
- The chancery court dismissed on res judicata grounds; on appeal the Court of Appeals instead assessed subject-matter jurisdiction and held Johnston lacked a remedy: the UAPA’s declaratory-judgment provision expressly excludes the State Election Commission, and sovereign immunity bars a declaratory action under the Declaratory Judgment Act absent an allegation of unconstitutionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancery court had jurisdiction under UAPA (Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225) to hear Johnston's petition against TSEC | Johnston sought a declaratory judgment under UAPA that TSEC must require election officials to publish instructions and list qualified write-in candidates | TSEC argued UAPA’s declaratory-judgment provision does not apply to the State Election Commission and TSEC lacked authority to grant the relief sought | The court held UAPA expressly excludes TSEC (§ 4-5-106(c)), so Johnston could not proceed under § 4-5-225 |
| Whether Johnston could proceed under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-101 et seq.) | Johnston argued for a declaratory judgment clarifying TSEC’s duties to educate voters about § 2-7-133(i) | TSEC argued sovereign immunity bars suits against the State absent clear statutory authorization; no constitutional challenge was alleged to waive immunity | The court held sovereign immunity bars the action under the Declaratory Judgment Act because Johnston did not seek a declaration of unconstitutionality |
| Whether prior litigation (Johnston I) precluded the claim | Johnston contended new facts (subsequent write-in notices, new petitions) distinguish this action | TSEC argued res judicata and privity with Davidson County Election Commission bar relitigation | The court did not rest on res judicata; it resolved the case on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (UAPA exclusion and sovereign immunity) |
| Whether TSEC had authority/duty to order county election officials to post instructional materials | Johnston asserted TSEC has responsibility to ensure public is informed of statutory write-in limitations | TSEC maintained it does not administer election laws or have a duty to perform the requested publishing/education functions | Court agreed TSEC lacks statutory authority to grant the relief requested and that the requested relief was beyond declaratory relief under UAPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840 (Tenn. 2013) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry; parties cannot confer jurisdiction)
- Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008) (Declaratory Judgment Act cannot overcome sovereign immunity unless action seeks to prevent enforcement of an unconstitutional statute)
- Osborn v. Marr, 127 S.W.3d 737 (Tenn. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction defined as a court's power to adjudicate a particular type of controversy)
- Dishmon v. Shelby State Cmty. Coll., 15 S.W.3d 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction requires dismissal)