William Thomas McFarland v. Michael S. Pemberton, 530 S.W.3d 76

Background

Pre-election: Pemberton filed to run for Ninth Judicial District Circuit Court Judge and listed a Roane County residence; he also owned a Knox County home. A voter (Hall) filed a residency complaint with the Roane County Election Commission.
The Roane County Election Commission, after consulting the State Coordinator of Elections, held a public hearing (evidence submitted, limited presentations, no sworn testimony) and unanimously voted to place Pemberton on the ballot and certified the ballot.
McFarland was Pemberton’s opposing candidate; he knew of the hearing but did not participate. Pemberton won the August 7, 2014 election.
McFarland filed an election-contest suit after certification, alleging Pemberton failed the constitutional one‑year residency requirement. Defendants moved to dismiss as time‑barred under the 60‑day certiorari statute.
Trial court and Court of Appeals held the Commission acted quasi‑judicially, its certification was a final administrative decision reviewable by writ of certiorari under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27‑9‑101, and McFarland was an “aggrieved” party who therefore had to seek review within 60 days; suit was untimely. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McFarland)	Defendant's Argument (Pemberton / Election Commission)	Held
1. Did the county election commission have authority to hold a hearing and determine a candidate’s constitutional residency?	County commissions are ministerial and lack statutory authority to make factual determinations on constitutional residency; only courts should decide.	Election Code duties (and Coordinator’s role) to ensure only qualified candidates are on ballots imply authority to investigate and hold quasi‑judicial hearings when reliable information arises.	Held: By necessary implication the commission (with the Coordinator) may hold a quasi‑judicial hearing to resolve candidate‑qualification challenges.
2. Was the Commission’s residency determination a quasi‑judicial act reviewable by certiorari under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27‑9‑101?	The hearing lacked judicial formality and produced no order/judgment; certiorari was not the proper remedy.	The proceeding had hallmark features of adjudication (record, evidence, vote); therefore it was quasi‑judicial and reviewable by certiorari.	Held: The decision was a final administrative (quasi‑judicial) action subject to common‑law certiorari.
3. Did McFarland have standing as an “aggrieved” party to seek certiorari even though he did not participate in the administrative hearing?	He had no direct participation or notice-based injury from the pre‑election proceeding and could only be aggrieved after losing the election.	McFarland had actual notice, was the opposing candidate and suffered a cognizable injury (forced to run against an allegedly unqualified opponent), so he was aggrieved.	Held: McFarland was "anyone who may be aggrieved" and thus had standing to seek certiorari.
4. Was McFarland’s election‑contest complaint properly characterized (gravamen) and time‑barred by the 60‑day certiorari statute?	The complaint was a statutorily authorized post‑election contest (Tenn. Code Ann. § 2‑17‑101) and not subject to the 60‑day administrative certiorari deadline.	The gravamen of McFarland’s suit was review of the Commission’s administrative residency determination; certiorari (60‑day limit) governed.	Held: The gravamen was certiorari review of an administrative decision; because McFarland filed after 60 days, the claim was untimely and properly dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

City of Memphis v. Shelby Cnty. Election Comm’n, 146 S.W.3d 531 (Tenn. 2004) (county election commissions and the Coordinator cannot make substantive constitutional rulings; characterized commission duties as largely ministerial)
Hatcher v. Bell, 521 S.W.2d 799 (Tenn. 1974) (election contest is an appropriate remedy to challenge a winning candidate’s constitutional qualifications)
McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990) (distinguishes quasi‑judicial from legislative acts for availability of common‑law certiorari)
Benz‑Elliott v. Barrett Enters., L.P., 456 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2015) (gravamen‑of‑the‑complaint analysis controls which limitations period applies)
Fallin v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 656 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1983) (contrast between legislative and quasi‑judicial/administrative actions)
Peterson v. Dean, 777 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2015) (discusses discretionary/policymaking nature of election administrators and commissions)