Kermit L. Moore, Jr. v. State of Tennessee, 436 S.W.3d 775

Background

After the 2010 Census Tennessee adopted the 2012 Senate Reapportionment Act (Ch. 514) with an ideal district population of 192,306 and an overall deviation of 9.17%, splitting eight counties.
Plaintiffs (eight Shelby County voters) sued for declaratory relief, arguing the Act violated Article II, §6 of the Tennessee Constitution by splitting more counties than necessary; they proposed an alternate map (Amendment 5) that split fewer counties but had a 10.05% deviation.
The General Assembly considered only SB 1514 by the filing deadline; later amendments included Amendment 5 (fewer splits, higher deviation) and Amendment 6 (zero deviation, 24 county splits).
The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ summary judgment, adopted defendants’ memoranda, and entered judgment for the State; defendants moved to dismiss and the court converted that to summary-judgment review given consideration of materials outside the pleadings.
The parties agreed facts were undisputed; central legal tension was balancing Tennessee’s county‑line protection (Art. II, §6) against federal Equal Protection/one‑person‑one‑vote population-equality requirements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by dismissing after denying Plaintiffs’ summary judgment	Moore: Lockert shifts burden to legislature only after plaintiffs show counties were split unnecessarily; Plaintiffs showed a plan splitting fewer counties existed	State: Because Act’s overall deviation <10% it is not prima facie unconstitutional and the legislature’s trade‑offs were rational	Court: Burden does shift under Lockert; but on undisputed facts defendants met their burden—affirmed judgment for defendants
Whether a <10% population deviation is presumptively constitutional (safe harbor)	Moore: Lockert and Tennessee precedent allow courts to favor plans that split fewer counties even if challengers’ plan has slightly >10%	State: Supreme Court precedent eliminated a 10% safe harbor; equal‑population is paramount, but Act’s <10% deviation supports constitutionality here	Court: No safe harbor exists; <10% is not per se constitutional, but on these facts the Act’s deviation and tradeoffs were justified
Whether the Act split more counties than necessary in violation of Article II, §6	Moore: Amendment 5 showed fewer splits were practicable, so Act violated state constitutional county‑line rule	State: Amendment 5 increased population deviation and regional imbalances; the legislature balanced population equality, regional integrity, and county splits reasonably	Court: On undisputed record defendants showed crossing eight counties was justified to achieve better population equality and regional integrity—Act constitutional
Whether remand for further proceedings was required given undisputed facts and considered materials	Moore: Trial court improperly converted to summary judgment and should have provided further opportunity	State: Facts undisputed and extensive evidence already in record; no useful purpose to remand	Court: No remand; appellate court can decide as matter of law and affirms judgment for defendants

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Lockert v. Crowell, 631 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn. 1982) (burden shifts to legislature after challenger shows county splits were unnecessary)
State ex rel. Lockert v. Crowell, 656 S.W.2d 836 (Tenn. 1983) (state constitutional county‑line rules cannot be excused absent federal necessity)
State ex rel. Lockert v. Crowell, 729 S.W.2d 88 (Tenn. 1987) (further discussion of standards and practical complexities of redistricting)
Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (U.S. 2004) (rejection of a rigid 10% "safe harbor"; population equality remains controlling)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (one‑person, one‑vote principle and primacy of population equality)
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1983) (deviations only permissible if necessary to achieve legitimate state objectives)
Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1993) (deviation >10% raises prima facie equal‑protection concern)
Rural West Tenn. African‑American Affairs Council v. McWherter, 836 F. Supp. 447 (W.D. Tenn. 1993) (state must make good‑faith effort to minimize deviations while respecting state interests)
Lincoln County v. Crowell, 701 S.W.2d 602 (Tenn. 1985) (legislative prerogative in reapportionment; courts defer absent equal‑protection violation or bad faith)