Lisa Peterson v. James Dean
777 F.3d 334
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Eight Tennessee county election administrators (appointed by multi-member, partisan county election commissions) were terminated after the 2008 party shift in the state legislature and replaced by persons aligned with the new majority.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging their dismissals violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments (political patronage dismissal), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; monetary claims were dismissed below.
- The district court narrowed the case to whether the statutory office of county election administrator is constitutionally subject to patronage dismissal under the Elrod–Branti framework and applied the McCloud categorical analysis.
- The district court held the administrator position fell within McCloud categories two and three (delegated policymaking authority and confidential advisor/control of communications) and granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it concluded the statutory duties (budgeting, advising on redistricting/precinct placement, recommending equipment and counsel, supervising operations) confer political discretion and access to policymaking/confidential channels, making party affiliation an appropriate requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of patronage-based dismissal | Plaintiffs say they were fired (or constructively discharged) solely for actual or perceived party affiliation | Defendants dispute motive in some counties but conceded the central legal question | Court assumed plaintiffs met prima facie burden for summary-judgment purposes |
| Whether county election administrator is a "policymaking" position under Elrod/Branti (McCloud categories) | Administrator is ministerial/nonpartisan; duties are largely clerical and statutorily constrained | Position fits McCloud categories two (delegated policymaking) and three (confidential advisor/control of communications) | Held: position fits categories two and three — party affiliation may be considered |
| Whether Tennessee statutory design (multi-member, partisan commissions) makes political selection inappropriate | Plaintiffs: multi-member commissions include minority-party seats and statutes/minimum-standards limit discretion, so partisan loyalty is not appropriate | Defendants: legislature vested commissions with partisan composition and delegated key authorities to the administrator; practical control justifies political consideration | Held: the statutory scheme and delegated duties permit political affiliation to be an appropriate requirement |
| Whether qualified immunity/individual-capacity claims survive if the Elrod–Branti exception applies | Plaintiffs: duties clearly established under McCloud so dismissal violated clearly established law | Defendants: if position falls within Elrod–Branti, no constitutional violation and qualified immunity applies | Held: because position falls within Elrod–Branti exception, no constitutional violation; qualified immunity issue need not be reached further |
Key Cases Cited
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (patronage dismissals generally violate First Amendment; exception for policymaking positions)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1980) (hiring authority must show party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the position)
- McCloud v. Testa, 97 F.3d 1536 (6th Cir. 1996) (four-category framework for applying Elrod–Branti)
- Summe v. Kenton County Clerk’s Office, 604 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing elected category-one position and deputy as category two)
- Lane v. City of LaFollette, Tenn., 490 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2007) (prima facie / burden-shifting structure in patronage claims)
- Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1990) (patronage restrictions apply to appointments, reappointments, and other employment actions)
- Mumford v. Basinski, 105 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 1997) (inherent duties political in character allow patronage considerations)
- Newman v. Voinovich, 986 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1993) (nonmerit positions and political considerations in appointments)
Disposition: Affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for injunctive/declaratory relief were foreclosed because the administrator position fits Elrod–Branti exceptions (McCloud categories two and three).