Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee v. Davidson County Election Commission
M2021-00723-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 25, 2022Background
- 4 Good Government (4GG) circulated a petition in March 2021 proposing six Metro Charter amendments and submitted it to the Metropolitan Clerk; the Clerk certified the petition to the Davidson County Election Commission on May 6, 2021.
- The Commission voted to place the petition on the July 27, 2021 referendum ballot, then canceled that date and conditionally reset an election to September 21, 2021.
- Metro (the Metropolitan Government, Mayor, and Finance Director) sued by writ of certiorari/mandamus asserting form defects (including that the petition failed to “prescribe a date” as required by Metro Charter § 19.01) and other infirmities; the Chancery Court (June 22, 2021) reversed the Commission and held the petition invalid.
- The Commission appealed but did not secure expedited appellate relief that would permit holding an election within the statutorily mandated 75–90 day window (Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-3-204); the Commission’s requested remedy (remand with instruction to schedule a future election under § 2-3-204(a)) is infeasible because the statutory window has passed.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the appeal is moot (it cannot grant the relief sought), but exercised the public-interest exception to address whether the petition satisfied the Charter’s “prescribe a date” requirement and agreed with the trial court that the petition was invalid for listing alternative dates rather than a single prescribed date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Metro) | Defendant's Argument (Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-election review may examine form vs substantive challenges (City of Memphis framework) | Form defects are ripe for pre-election review; substantive challenges are not | Commission contends trial court relied on impermissible substantive/as-applied review to block ballot access | Court: City of Memphis governs; form challenges are reviewable pre-election, substantive/as-applied are generally not ripe; but court did not resolve all substantive points because mootness limited relief |
| Whether a court may enjoin an election based on "as-applied" substantive constitutional challenges pre-election | Metro: court can enjoin if measure is facially or form-defective; as-applied substantive challenges are generally not ripe | Commission: trial court impermissibly used as-applied substantive rationale to stop election | Held: as-applied substantive challenges are generally not ripe pre-election; court should not allow broad as-applied pre-election review under City of Memphis |
| Whether the petition complied with Metro Charter § 19.01’s requirement to "prescribe a date" | Metro: petition failed the Charter because it did not prescribe a single date; multiple alternative dates undermine deadlines, notice, and fairness | Commission: alternative dates with a decision rule suffice; Commission deferred to petition and to its discretion in scheduling | Held: petition must "prescribe a date" (a single date). Listing alternative dates defeated the Charter’s timing/signature and notice functions; Commission acted illegally in setting an election on an invalid petition |
| Whether the appeal is moot and whether appellate court may order a new election under Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-3-204(a) | Metro: appeal is moot because the statutory 75–90 day window lapsed and Court cannot order an election outside statute | Commission: asks court to reverse and remand with instruction to set a future election, arguing court order could trigger statutory window | Held: appeal is moot—court cannot grant the requested remedy because it would conflict with § 2-3-204 timing; court refuses to treat its decision as the triggering event for the statute and rejects Commission's requested relief |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Memphis v. Shelby Cnty. Election Comm’n, 146 S.W.3d 531 (Tenn. 2004) (distinguishes pre-election reviewable "form/facial" defects from non-ripe substantive challenges)
- Wallace v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 546 S.W.3d 47 (Tenn. 2018) (rules that courts interpret Charter provisions without deference to the Commission and rejects judicially treating a court order as triggering statutory election timelines)
- Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cty., 301 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2009) (defines public‑interest exception to mootness and factors for invoking it)
- Dill v. City of Clarksville, 511 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (sets standard of review for writ of certiorari of administrative action)